D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[billd91]

Additionally, I'm with several bloggers (including AngryGM) who ask something like, 'Why would a player ever ask for a chance to fail?" As soon as you roll the dice, there is a non-zero chance of failure. If you just ask the GM, "is he lying?", you might get the answer, "Yes".

This is one of those places this debate gets stupidly pedantic. Why would a player ever ask for a chance to fail? They don't. They're asking for a check because that's their unartful way of asking apply one of their abilities. Inferring anything more than that would strike me as a problematic "gotcha" DM issue.

 

[Ashrym]

Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

The description makes lies the most clear use. How much of the lie / truth seems like an opportunity to be more or less effective depending on by how much the check succeeds or fails. That could range from "he seems dishonest" to "you suspect he's luring you into an ambush". How much detail is very much up to the DM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Um, because learning a creature's bonds, flaws, traits, and ideals can be incredibly useful?

May I ask you: if you let Insight be used as a lie-detector, why would anybody NOT take Insight in your game?

 

[Ashrym]

Um, because learning a creature's bonds, flaws, traits, and ideals can be incredibly useful?

May I ask you: if you let Insight be used as a lie-detector, why would anybody NOT take Insight in your game?

Because there are only so many skill proficiencies, not everybody is lying, and not everybody took deception.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The description makes lies the most clear use. How much of the lie / truth seems like an opportunity to be more or less effective depending on by how much the check succeeds or fails. That could range from "he seems dishonest" to "you suspect he's luring you into an ambush". How much detail is very much up to the DM.

It amazes me how often "determine true intentions" gets translated to "know if he's lying." How is "he seems dishonest" a true intention?

The "luring you into ambush" seems like a more appropriate application. Some more "true intentions" that might be gleaned in lying situations:

"He's trying to not get involved."
"He wants you to get out of his store."
"He doesn't want to have anything to do with the city watch or magistrates."

I'd still prefer to players to describe that the kinds of things they are trying to accomplish. For example, if the players keep mentioning the city watch, maybe the 3rd one appears.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because there are only so many skill proficiencies, not everybody is lying, and not everybody took deception.

But every (intelligent) creature should...or could...have bonds, flaws, traits and ideals. So it sounds like my version is actually more useful than a lie detector.

 

[billd91]

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.

Sure it can lack clarity, but there's no reason to assume the worst other than to play "gotcha". I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, in these cases, and if their perception check is high enough, I'll assume they spotted the trap without doing whatever it is that sets it off. If they don't succeed at the perception check, and the trap is triggered by something entirely reasonable in a search (like touching the door), then and only then I'll get them with the trap.

 

[Oofta]

Um, because learning a creature's bonds, flaws, traits, and ideals can be incredibly useful?

May I ask you: if you let Insight be used as a lie-detector, why would anybody NOT take Insight in your game?

I would just add that insight in my games is not an automatic lie detector. The PC may pick up on the NPC being nervous, arrogant, dismissive. They might get a sense that the NPC is not being completely honest. For example, when people lie they tend to be overly specific and have well-rehearsed answers.

On the other hand I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says anything about magically knowing bonds, flaws, traits and ideals. I have no idea how you would gather that info with out mind reading.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would just add that insight in my games is not an automatic lie detector. The PC may pick up on the NPC being nervous, arrogant, dismissive. They might get a sense that the NPC is not being completely honest. For example, when people lie they tend to be overly specific and have well-rehearsed answers.

On the other hand I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says anything about magically knowing bonds, flaws, traits and ideals. I have no idea how you would gather that info with out mind reading.

Yeah, I get that. I've tried that approach but I struggle to do it well. I don't know how to fine-tune my roleplaying so that there's any ambiguity: if I display any kind of nervousness or whatever, my players immediately conclude the the NPC is lying. So why not just let them roll and tell them the result?

The underlying problem is two-fold, and applies equally to trap detection:
1. There are no simple mechanics that combine positives, negatives, false-positives, and false-negatives, especially without secret rolls. So there's no mechanical determination for when I should telegraph nervousness even when the NPC is truthful.
2. And even if there were, lie-detection shouldn't really be a binary kind of thing (at least, without magic). Starting from an assumed 50% chance to randomly guess right, "success" should increase that chance, but not to 100%. I definitely can't roleplay well enough to telegraph that.

Given all that, I don't try. Anyway, I think it's much more exciting when the players, through their own creativity, uncover evidence that the NPC is lying or not. It might even be proof, not just evidence, but mere evidence more accurately produces the kind of uncertainty that I think makes the game more interesting. "Ok, we're pretty darned sure he's not lying...but if we're wrong and we let him go we're goat$%@#ed."

 

[Mort]

Um, because learning a creature's bonds, flaws, traits, and ideals can be incredibly useful?

That's true - I just find it incredibly odd to be able to suss out someone's bonds, flaws, traits, ideals etc. from body language etc. but not get any indication whether they are being truthful or not.

The skill, as written, allows for discerning untruths, It's odd (to me) to allow one but not the other. Particularly since it seems determining someone's bonds, traits etc. from interaction and body language would be more not less difficult than determining truthfulness.

May I ask you: if you let Insight be used as a lie-detector, why would anybody NOT take Insight in your game?

1. It is a useful skill, but so are many others;
2. It's far from automatic or even reliable; relying on insight without being able to back it up with something else is dangerous and can easily lead to incorrect/incomplete answers/results.