D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Oofta]

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

For #1 I think it comes down to style and preference. I don't care how they declare their intent. I've never had a DM object to "can I make an insight check" in the real world.

As far as #2 and 3 I don't make that a prerequisite because if they ask to make an insight check the answer is always "yes". To each their own.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

But, the assumption was the GMs. If the GM was in a scene with an unknown damage-on-touch door why did that GM decide that using Percrption skil required touching orvtouching first?

A few scenes before, when they spotted orcs and "used perception" on them, did that some GM take that to mean they stepped out of cover walked up and touched the orc?

In all the prior uses of Perception had it been shown to be a feel first skill? Or did it usually start st sight, sound, smell?

Does describe and approach avoid assumptions? Maybe but do foes just not making assumptions that are ridiculous especially when harmful.

Consider the door.

Was there no part of perception- sight, sound, smell - that could have or should have alerted that player before the touch ? If so, what led the GM to in your example SKIP ALL OF THOSE and go straight to the damage?

More to the point, if there wasn't any signs that could alert it, no signs of trouble then how would describing looking at the door etc and then finding nothing suspicious not have wound up at the same point?

This "absurd" example of a GM screw up keeps getting trotted out, it's the poster boy case for whst this "solves" happens if you dont do it the one way, but really it's... well... to use your word... absurd.

Back in the day, if you didn't say " looking ip" you got dropped on. Now, apparently, for g-n-a, if you font ssy "I look before touching" in dome wsy or another, you just go round groping orcs ? Is that what we should figure?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

For like the fourth time, this is false equivalence. The analogue to “can I make an Insight check?” in combat would be “can I make an attack roll?” And to that I would answer, “can you be more specific? Which creature are you attacking and with what weapon?” “I Attack the guard with my sword” communicates goal and approach, and therefore meets my requirements for an action declaration. The analogue in a social situation would be “I observe the guard for any signs he’s lying.” And while both are less descriptive than I prefer, they’re both perfectly acceptable action declarations by my standards.

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.

There is a difference. Bob is communicating a goal and an approach, and leaving me to decide how best to resolve that. Other bob is asking for permission to resolve an unspecified action with a Wisdom (Insight) check. That difference may not matter to you, but it does to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

The key point here is “if a PC is currently engaged in combat with an orc.” I don’t think anyone disagrees with you on this, because the context of being engaged with the orc makes his target and choice of weapon clear. What I believe Hriston is asking is if you would be ok with a player who is not yet engaged in combat with any of the multiple enemies, all of which are in range of her longbow, and she also carries a rapier, simply saying “does an 18 hit?” Would you not ask her to specify which enemy she is targeting and whether she is shooting them with her bow or walking up to them and attacking with her rapier?

 

[Oofta]

The key point here is “if a PC is currently engaged in combat with an orc.” I don’t think anyone disagrees with you on this, because the context of being engaged with the orc makes his target and choice of weapon clear. What I believe Hriston is asking is if you would be ok with a player who is not yet engaged in combat with any of the multiple enemies, all of which are in range of her longbow, and she also carries a rapier, simply saying “does an 18 hit?” Would you not ask her to specify which enemy she is targeting and whether she is shooting them with her bow or walking up to them and attacking with her rapier?

If there's only 1 monster in sight, sure. In addition, unless she states otherwise I know she's using her rapier because she almost never pulls out the bow. I find that most PCs focus on melee or ranged and I can safely assume one style or another unless they specify otherwise. If there's any question I'll ask for clarification. I do sometimes have to ask for clarification if there are multiple monsters.

On the topic of insight, I can't imagine when I'd ask for clarification. After all if someone is studying an NPC closely they aren't inspecting them for just signs of lying, they're getting a general read on the person's emotional state. No different than perception or investigating a lock for traps. If they're investigating the lock, they may also notice small scratches indicating someone else picked the lock.

 

[Charlaquin]

If there's only 1 monster in sight, sure. In addition, unless she states otherwise I know she's using her rapier because she almost never pulls out the bow. I find that most PCs focus on melee or ranged and I can safely assume one style or another unless they specify otherwise. If there's any question I'll ask for clarification. I do sometimes have to ask for clarification if there are multiple monsters.

Given that I specified that there were several monsters in the example, I’ll take that as yeah, you’d ask her to be more specific.

On the topic of insight, I can't imagine when I'd ask for clarification. After all if someone is studying an NPC closely they aren't inspecting them for just signs of lying, they're getting a general read on the person's emotional state. No different than perception or investigating a lock for traps. If they're investigating the lock, they may also notice small scratches indicating someone else picked the lock.

Great. Now we’ve established that this is a matter of clarity. Can you accept that different people have different standards of clarity than you?

 

[Oofta]

Given that I specified that there were several monsters in the example, I’ll take that as yeah, you’d ask her to be more specific.


Great. Now we’ve established that this is a matter of clarity. Can you accept that different people have different standards of clarity than you?

I was responding to a specific question of "would it be okay if ___". You've moved the goalposts a bit so the answer is no longer the same. Or maybe, as I responded earlier, I just misunderstood the original question.

As far as accepting that different people have different styles, well obviously they do. I think that's one of the strengths of 5E.

But in all of my years of playing D&D I've never had anyone as picky as you and a couple other posters seem to be as DM. People use shorthand and phrases like "Can I make an insight check" all the time and the world doesn't end. People still have fun. Chaos does not ensue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yay! This topic again!

I'm going to try a new tack:

1) If making Insight checks as a kind of lie-detector works for you, go for it. And once you've decided to do this, you may as well let your players use "Can I roll Insight?" rather than circumlocute around it, trying to avoid using the metagame language. (Same goes for traps, by the way. If it works for you to "roll to detect traps" on every chest and dungeon door, go for it.)

2) What I prefer, though, is that lie detection requires magic. People are no better at detecting lies than they are at picking stocks. I figure that anybody who assumes somebody else is lying is going to find some evidence to support it, and when they assume the other person is telling the truth, they are going to find evidence for that, too.

So instead of "using Insight" to detect a lie, let your players, if they are suspicious, come up with a plan for how they plan to catch the NPC in a lie. For example (none of these are meant to apply to a specific situation):
- I'll hide across the street and see who comes in. (Stealth check?)
- I'll try to sneak a look at this ledger and see what the last entries are. (Slight-of-hand check.)
- I'll keep asking for more details about (insert context), and then keep coming back to previous details, to see if he changes any of them. (Investigation check?)
- He seems unconcerned about the murder; I'll chat him up and see if he reveals any concern about the victim. (Insight check?)
- I'll check his stables (Stealth?) and see what I can tell about what horses have come and gone (Animal Handling?)

Etc.

 

[Ashrym]

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

That wasn't directed at me but I will answer.

The DM should always know when an NPC is causing an opposed check because the DM controls the NPC. Not wanting to tip the player off, this is why a passive check would be used and requires no specific action by the player.

A player can actively trigger a check through his or her actions. It's irrelevant whether the player says "I use insight to figure out..." vs "I probe with questions to determine..." because those are different ways of communicating the same thing.

That's when a standard opposed roll takes place.

For like the fourth time, this is false equivalence. The analogue to “can I make an Insight check?” in combat would be “can I make an attack roll?”

That's not a false equivalence. It's an example of the difference between the DM being clear on a course of action (the attack) and the player not knowing and asking (the insight check). Wherther the player is clear or not on whether a roll is needed is a second point.

Both examples rely on using terms from the game mechanics to convey an action and remove the unnecessary descriptions to move the game along. That's why the comparison is valid.

There is nothing wrong with a player clarifying if he or she needs to make a check or initiatiating an action using a game term. The term method is less monotonous and gives better encounter flow.

Good roleplayers can give better story interaction with the descriptives but that's not something every player can or wants to do so forcing the issue is less correct, imo. This is true because it's still a game for everyone at the table regardless of a DM game ref. If the group wants the descriptives go for it; otherwise don't force it.

Keep it simple, keep it fun.

EDIT: I'm curios why DM's insist PC's need to iniiate a check. This seems to ignore NPC actions initiating the checks and the PC's only respond with a roll.

 

[Mort]

Yay! This topic again!

I'm going to try a new tack:

1) If making Insight checks as a kind of lie-detector works for you, go for it. And once you've decided to do this, you may as well let your players use "Can I roll Insight?" rather than circumlocute around it, trying to avoid using the metagame language. (Same goes for traps, by the way. If it works for you to "roll to detect traps" on every chest and dungeon door, go for it.)

2) What I prefer, though, is that lie detection requires magic. People are no better at detecting lies than they are at picking stocks. I figure that anybody who assumes somebody else is lying is going to find some evidence to support it, and when they assume the other person is telling the truth, they are going to find evidence for that, too.

So instead of "using Insight" to detect a lie, let your players, if they are suspicious, come up with a plan for how they plan to catch the NPC in a lie. For example (none of these are meant to apply to a specific situation):

• I'll hide across the street and see who comes in. (Stealth check?)
• I'll try to sneak a look at this ledger and see what the last entries are. (Slight-of-hand check.)
• I'll keep asking for more details about (insert context), and then keep coming back to previous details, to see if he changes any of them. (Investigation check?)
• He seems unconcerned about the murder; I'll chat him up and see if he reveals any concern about the victim. (Insight check?)
• I'll check his stables (Stealth?) and see what I can tell about what horses have come and gone (Animal Handling?)

Etc.

Question, why would anyone take the insight skill in your game?