D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Michael Silverbane]

To me it seems like the goal for the action sequence presented in the OP was to find out what Ned knows, and the approach was the conversation presented in the OP. So in my game, it might have gone something like this...

Suiza: "Good day, sir. We found a body in the alley out back, do you know anything about it?"
Ned: "I'm sorry, but I didn't see any body or anything unusual last night when I was locking up."
Suiza: "Okay, thank you for your time, if you think of anything you can contact us at ..."
Brog: "Wait a minute. You didn't hear anything? You live above your shop, right?"
Ned: "Yes but I'm a sound sleeper. Sorry I can't help you more."
DM: (based on Passive Insight, character traits, etc.) Bob, if you would like to make an Insight check, you can ask me three questions about Ned's statement or character. Suiza's good cop routine grants Brog Advantage.

Then based on the result of that check, and the questions that Bob asked, we carry on from there.

 

[Hriston]

I don't have enough time nor energy to play word police for my players. I've never had a DM in any game across dozens of DMs in home campaigns or AL that corrected someone for using incorrect phraseology.

Okay, so you wouldn’t at least look sideways at a player that, instead of saying what his/her character was doing, just said, “I make an Attack roll,” and then... made an Attack roll.

Interesting.

 

[Oofta]

Okay, so you wouldn’t at least look sideways at a player that, instead of saying what his/her character was doing, just said, “I make an Attack roll,” and then... made an Attack roll.

Interesting.

Not really. "I attack the orc with my long sword", " "Does an 18 to hit the orc", "With a scream of rage I attempt to relieve the impudent orc of his head as I swing my greateaxe" are all acceptable.

I just don't get concerned about phraseology/terminology/style at the table. I encourage descriptive narration and try to do it myself when appropriate. I've had a lot of different DMs over the years and none of them really seemed to care as long as what the PC was doing was clear.

Every once in a while I'll ask for clarification, whether that's "which orc are you attacking" or "what are you saying and doing to intimidate the shopkeeper".

 

[aco175]

I finds that a lot of the phrases and description become shorthand after a while. "I search the bodies." This may become something bigger if the DM warrants it, but eventually it comes down to the same thing, or shorthand. Now if the leader had a hollow boot or something out of the normal, I would ask for an Investigation check to locate. Same thing with "I search the room." "I attack."

A side point I have used with Insight is to have the player roll with disadvantage. I had a shopkeeper I wanted to have trained in lying, so instead of having him gain advantage I had the player roll with disadvantage. Instead of raising the DC to 20 instead of 15 I kept it the same, but with the disadvantage it was completely different in terms of player interaction and reaction. Everyone thought he was lying since the player had disadvantage. He wasn't, but they could not tell.

 

[Hriston]

Not really. "I attack the orc with my long sword", " "Does an 18 to hit the orc", "With a scream of rage I attempt to relieve the impudent orc of his head as I swing my greateaxe" are all acceptable.

Well, the question “Does an 18 hit the orc?” would be asked after a roll, so it had already been established somehow that the character was trying to hit the orc with some kind of attack and that the action was being resolved through the dice mechanism.

What I’m wondering is whether the statement “I make an Attack roll.” is an acceptable way for the player to establish that the character is trying to hit the orc with an attack. You seem to be implying that, for you, it is (without actually saying so), while, for me, it misses the mark in the same way the statement “I make an Insight check.” does.

 

[Oofta]

Well, the question “Does an 18 hit the orc?” would be asked after a roll, so it had already been established somehow that the character was trying to hit the orc with some kind of attack and that the action was being resolved through the dice mechanism.

What I’m wondering is whether the statement “I make an Attack roll.” is an acceptable way for the player to establish that the character is trying to hit the orc with an attack. You seem to be implying that, for you, it is (without actually saying so), while, for me, it misses the mark in the same way the statement “I make an Insight check.” does.

If a PC is currently engaged in combat with an orc, when it comes to the player's turn "Does an 18 hit" or "If an 18 hits, they take 6 damage" is acceptable at my table. If they switched targets from last round they would have told me. Frequently it's as simple as "the orc takes 6 damage" because I tend to reveal ACs of my monsters after a round or two which is something I picked up from another DM.

But it's not just me, it seems to be standard in pretty much every game I've ever played, whether that's home or AL/public games. Occasionally I'll ask for clarification, but cutting out unnecessary back and forth speeds up the game.

 

[5ekyu]

If a PC is currently engaged in combat with an orc, when it comes to the player's turn "Does an 18 hit" or "If an 18 hits, they take 6 damage" is acceptable at my table. If they switched targets from last round they would have told me. Frequently it's as simple as "the orc takes 6 damage" because I tend to reveal ACs of my monsters after a round or two which is something I picked up from another DM.

But it's not just me, it seems to be standard in pretty much every game I've ever played, whether that's home or AL/public games. Occasionally I'll ask for clarification, but cutting out unnecessary back and forth speeds up the game.

Honestly, sounds like most combat sessions after a few rounds against a foe that in one of the more static combats. The more narrative and detailed explanations come to the table when more is bring done- like movement, using terrain, etc not just for the next attack against the same foes as last time.

 

[Oofta]

Honestly, sounds like most combat sessions after a few rounds against a foe that in one of the more static combats. The more narrative and detailed explanations come to the table when more is bring done- like movement, using terrain, etc not just for the next attack against the same foes as last time.

Which is my experience as well. Some players are going to need to give me more info, but even my wife's swashbuckler in my current campaign will simply state something like "I hit for ___ amount of damage" once she knows the target AC. Even her mini never moved her mini and it's 3 squares away and she's using her rapier. I know she has that mobility feature where she doesn't provoke opp attacks, she attacked the orc last round, the orc didn't move because it's trying to kill the cleric and her go-to weapon is her rapier. Keeping rounds quick in encounters where things are fairly static is a good thing IMHO.

This doesn't represent every round or every combat of course, I mix things up a lot.

This whole "I don't know what my players are really doing unless they specifically tells me" has never been an issue in any game I can think of. It's not the end of the world if the DM has to ask for clarification now and then.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

How would this specific scenario play out in your game?

about the same way.

If you have a strict "only the DM calls for a roll" what would Bob have to do or say to indicate that they are suspicious in order for you to call for an insight check?

Bob would have to say, "My character is suspicious of him, do I get an Insight check?"

I don't have a problem with DM's that object to ABUSE of mechanics like this. It is worse when a player uses the clumsiest phrasing possible such as, "I use insight on him." But these days I tend to believe that is the game and probably the DM having failed to train the player to be less immersion breaking. How could it be the DM's fault? Well, how about if the DM finds it immersion-breaking but never actually then just stops and says, "That's really immersion breaking. Can you say it like this...?" When the game gives players mechanics to use to pry information out of the DM it is utterly sensible and expected that they then USE those mechanics, and I have somewhat less sympathy for a DM who complains about that. If the player needs to ask for an insight check I feel it's likely that's because they know the DM is waiting for the player to wheedle and cajole and use crowbars to loosen simple information from the DM's iron grasp. Simple information like: the NPC you're talking to is suspicious.

If a DM wants players to have information - give it to them. They should not have to pry it away from you. At most the DM should be making it as easy as possible to get that information and that's only more true if the DM dislikes the use of game mechanics to force it. NPC Ned doesn't just say, "I didn't see or hear anything." NPC Ned says, "W-what? No! NO! I didn't see anything... OR HEAR! I didn't hear anything either. No! In fact I was sleeping very soundly all night! No reason I would have heard monsters in the alley. OR swords! Wouldn't have heard anything."

If Ned is suspicious, then have him behave suspiciously. Don't have him speak and act perfectly normally and thus push players to the necessity of having to ask for insight checks because their DM is not giving them clues that the NPC knows more than they're saying. If Ned is guilty of something but is a cool cucumber then sure, have him behave cool and calm and wait for a request of an insight check. But then EXPECT that check as a possibility and don't get wound up about it. Just make it and move your game along. If you genuinely want to keep information away from the PC's and players for whatever reasons you can do so. You don't even have to be bullied by the game mechanics. Assume as an IMMUTABLE aspect of the ongoing adventure or scenario that Ned lies convincingly, regardless of insight checks. You can even run your entire game without anyone EVER wanting or needing an Insight check, but then your game lives and dies strictly by information the DM gives and how readily they give it. The DM can force players to scratch and claw for every tidbit or the DM can move the game forward without unnecessary roadblocks by being less reluctant to actually GIVE information freely.

What would Susan have to do or say to indicate her PC believes whatever the merchant says?

"I am reluctant to believe him. I think it's incredulous that he didn't hear anything." Players don't have to roll Insight to find out what their PC believes. They just decide that. Players don't have to accept what Insight tells them, or fails to tell them. They can just decide that:
"Your insight indicates that he's telling the truth."
"Nope. I still don't believe him. I remain suspicious (because my PC has a suspicious nature and will await later additional proof.)"

The game has these mechanics for getting information from the DM. The DM has it fully in their power to make it more or less necessary that the players ever use those mechanics. DM's who complain that PC's leap right for die rolls to pull information out in the crudest roleplaying manner possible may have legitimate gripes, but they are, IME, also much more likely to be DM's who are stingy with the kind of information those mechanics provide and players simply resort to the "big gun" to sensibly expedite the process.

 

[jasper]

The difference between “I examine Ned’s body language to see if I can identify any signs that he might be lying” and, “can I make an Insight check to see if Ned’s lying?” is that the former gives the DM information about how the character is attempting to discern if Ned is lying, and leaves the decision of whether or not the outcome of that approach is uncertain up to the DM. The latter asks the DM for permission to proceed with the approach left abstract, and simply assume that its outcome is uncertain. As I don’t like to make assumptions about PC actions, I would always say no to such a request, and ask for more specificity as to the approach so that I can determine the outcome without making assumptions.

I attack the guard with my sword.
Dm, "can you be more specific? Do You attack high or low, have you study you tallopher?"
Oh please. I have role players and roll players in my group. There is no difference between Bob asking about body language, and the other bob asking for an insight check. The only time I have a problem with roll players is when they toss the dice and announce the result and what skill check they are using before I call for a roll.