D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[jasper]

So you are good with "I use my insight to see if the orc is lying?"

Yes. With a small but. But if I describing the scene and Ashrym rolls the dice and declares Insight 22 before I can call for an insight check.

 

[Oofta]

about the same way.
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.

"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.

That's just not how I run my game. If I'm setting up an investigation/mystery there will be multiple ways to get to the answer. But I also want to run my NPCs realistically. If I think it makes sense that Ned is proficient in deception, it's not going to be obvious that he's hiding something.

I don't want to spoon feed my players info because it's more fun to realize later on that Ned had really been killed the night before and the person they talked to was really an assassin that was magically disguised. Or maybe the PCs will surprise me and figure out Ned is an assassin and my carefully planned scenario turns into a fight or chase scene.

There will always be at least one path forward, it's up to the players to decide which one to follow. If they really get stuck, I'll be explicit and drop an obvious hint in their lap, hopefully in a way that makes them feel clever.

On a related note if they're questioning someone who is being helpful, that NPC will tell them everything they think is relevant. There's no "you must ask the right question" in my game except for very specific scenarios such as an NPC under duress.

In more general terms I don't think "The PCs will talk to X and find out Y". It's more "X knows Y and is willing to share that info, but they also know about Z which they don't want to share". Assuming of course that they even decide to talk to X. I think about people, organizations, motivations and goals, how groups relate to each other, what's going on, etc.

 

[Oofta]

Yes. With a small but. But if I describing the scene and Ashrym rolls the dice and declares Insight 22 before I can call for an insight check.

My question would be: how do you know to call for an insight check? What triggers it?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

Funny caricature, but no one is playing at the table with the DM you describe.

The key is clarity, as @Charlaquin has said here and in other threads.

DM: "There is a strange door in front of you. Ready Player 1? What do you do?"
Player 1: "I'm ready. I use Perception on the door"
DM: "as you step up and touch the door, a blast of thunder hurls you back. That'll be 8d8 thun..."
Player 1: "I never said I touched the door!"

Yes, absurd scenario, but point is: just invoking a mechanic as an "action" can lack clarity.
Describing an approach and goal avoids assumptions. No magic words. Doesn't need to be super detailed. Doesn't need any specialized real life knowledge. Player just describes what the character is doing.

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.

Yeah, that behavior doesn't fly at our table either.

 

[jasper]

My question would be: how do you know to call for an insight check? What triggers it?

I know the NPC is lying. And since I not an Academy Award winning voice actor; I may have not described, acted, hinted, vocalized, etc that the pc is lying; I will call for an insight check.
Or I know the NPC is lying but what he is lying about is not important enough to advance the plot, I will call for an insight check.
But if I know the pc is lying so badly, when I finish my monologue; I will tell the players they know he is lying. Or if I know the npc is lying so well due to reasons, I will not allow an insight check.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I don’t think any of this is at all contentious. For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with a player making an Attack roll unprompted once it has already been established how and what s/he is attacking, even when that was done on a previous turn.

On the other hand, I don’t think anyone tries to establish their character’s action by saying, “I make an Attack roll,” and I don’t understand why you won’t engage with whether you would find that unusual or not.

 

[jasper]

Funny caricature, but no one is playing at the table with the DM you describe.

The key is clarity, as @Charlaquin has said here and in other threads.

DM: "There is a strange door in front of you. Ready Player 1? What do you do?"
Player 1: "I'm ready. I use Perception on the door"
DM: "as you step up and touch the door, a blast of thunder hurls you back. That'll be 8d8 thun..."
Player 1: "I never said I touched the door!"

Yes, absurd scenario, but point is: just invoking a mechanic as an "action" can lack clarity.
Describing an approach and goal avoids assumptions. No magic words. Doesn't need to be super detailed. Doesn't need any specialized real life knowledge. Player just describes what the character is doing.



Yeah, that behavior doesn't fly at our table either.

Ok fine Dm Dave. As you rolled 10 below what you needed to detect the trap, I don't know what you did to set off the trap but it was tripped. That will be 8d8 thunder damage. Now give me a dex save for half damage. I did have a player take a great exception to me saying he touched the door. I replied with a similar remark like the one above.
Player 1, " I was ripped off by shopkeepers before, I focus all my attention on the lousy shop owner!"
this equals
Player 2, " I roll an insight check."
Player 1 is being a role player and being immersive. Player 2 is being a roll player. Both of them will be rolling a dice in the next few seconds. I have DMed for both, I prefer role players but don't get bend out of shape when a roll player sits at my table.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

My question would be: how do you know to call for an insight check? What triggers it?

My answer to when I call for an Insight check:

1. When the PCs are interacting with an NPC and have explicitly or otherwise stated that they want to deduce that the NPC is lying, or they want to know what the NPCs next move might be, or if they can get a handle on some character traits/bonds/flaws of the NPC.
2. If there is a chance of success or failure
3. If there is a meaningful consequence of failure

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think any of this is at all contentious. For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with a player making an Attack roll unprompted once it has already been established how and what s/he is attacking, even when that was done on a previous turn.

On the other hand, I don’t think anyone tries to establish their character’s action by saying, “I make an Attack roll,” and I don’t understand why you won’t engage with whether you would find that unusual or not.

Maybe I'm completely missing what you're asking. I thought I did answer. It's completely fine at my table and I can't think of a DM would have objected except to perhaps to get some clarification.

 

[Charlaquin]

So would it be acceptable if I stated that my goal was to determine the true intentions of a creature and search out a lie or general intent and that I'm going to do it by gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms?

It’s acceptable to me, yes. It’s a little more vague than I would prefer, but it is acceptable.

Because that falls under 1.2 in my categories.

I disagree. 1.2 was (paraphrasing from memory “any other re-wording of ‘can I make an Insight check?” The above statement of goal and approach is qualitatively different than “can I make an Insight check?” because it leaves me as DM the space to make the determination of whether it has the three things needed for a check to be called for, whereas “can I make an Insight check?” Asks me to skip that process.

Which of course is just reformatting the insight skill to fit into the "goal and approach" pattern. I personally find that pattern unnecessarily artificial, I think "Can I make an insight check" is a perfectly good shortcut. YMMV*.

My mileage does vary. If you don’t care for that formatting, that’s fine. I have never attempted and will never attempt to claim that my preferred way of playing is the only way or the “right” way.

As others have stated, if I'm taking my time to look carefully down an alley I don't need to state that I'm looking to see if there's rats. I'll also have a chance to see the giant spider as well. If someone is making an insight check they may discern that the target is lying or they may detect that they're telling the truth but not the whole truth or that they're being honest but seem to be nervous about something else. What I need to know is that the PC is studying the NPC closely and trying to get a read on them. Frequently that's handled by passive checks in my game, but not always.

Sure, if you are looking for rats and there aren’t any but there is something else that a visual search might reveal, you’ll find that thing. If you’re studying body language for signs of nervousness, and the person’s body language communicates confidence, you’ll notice that. The point of goal and approach is not to limit the possible results of your action to just your goal, it’s to give the DM the ability to easily assess whether the action can succeed, fail, and has a cost or consequence.

Now, again, if you feel you can easily make such an assessment with only the announcement of a skill and the context of the scenario, great. Have fun doing that. I don’t.