D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Ashrym]

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.

Searching out lies is right in the description. I see high end use of the skill like Black Widow in her interrogation scenes from there Avengers movie.

Tied to a chair and getting everything is a combination of deception and insight. Same as the Loki scene.

It's pretty typical of superheroic characters with no powers. Proficiency is training in psychology tyoe abilities like body language or NLP.

 

[MNblockhead]

People still have fun. Chaos does not ensue.

Those two things can happen together‽ You can have fun WITHOUT chaos? Somebody tell my players!

 

[Guest 6801328]

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....

Really?!?!?! I mean, not every BIFT can be discerned from just body language, although many can, but add in all kinds of mannerisms, tics, habits, reactions, slips of the tongue, etc. and you can cover a pretty wide range.

The skill, as written, allows for discerning untruths, just as it allows for discerning bonds etc. - 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.

It's just a lot easier to give ambiguous hints. "He keeps fiddling with well-worn gold piece" or "he blushes when you mention her name" signals something without telling the whole story. "He seems like he's lying" doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

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.

No skill is automatic or reliable, so that's not a useful comparison. Unless you mean that it produces non-binary results of all four kinds, as a I discuss above, but 5e mechanics don't really support that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Searching out lies is right in the description.

Sure, and the process I'm describing is great at "searching out" lies. That doesn't have to mean (and I would argue does NOT mean) "knowing whether somebody is lying." If it were, why does the text say, "Searching out."?

Martial weapon proficiency is great at killing monsters, but there's still more to it than a single die roll.

Proficiency is training in psychology tyoe abilities like body language or NLP.

Which is a steaming crock of $%#@. There is no good training at detecting lies by picking up cues from behavior. The belief that there is has caused untold misery in terms of false convictions.

The only method that works is a long, complicated process of getting people to contradict themselves (or not) through long interrogations. It has nothing to do with "tells" or intuition, and is entirely a matter of taking really good notes and then cross-checking. And at best all you can determine is that they did or did not contradict themselves or change their story.

Here's some good journalism on the topic: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/the-interview-7

 

[BookBarbarian]

The only method that works is a long, complicated process of getting people to contradict themselves (or not) through long interrogations. It has nothing to do with "tells" or intuition, and is entirely a matter of taking really good notes and then cross-checking. And at best all you can determine is that they did or did not contradict themselves or change their story.

That sounds like an awesome use of Adventures in Middle-Earth's Riddle skill.

 

[Mort]

Really?!?!?! I mean, not every BIFT can be discerned from just body language, although many can, but add in all kinds of mannerisms, tics, habits, reactions, slips of the tongue, etc. and you can cover a pretty wide range.

Sure, but I find it odd that you can discern Bonds etc. from body language but not also an indication of truthfulness (which seems it would be easier not harder).

It's just a lot easier to give ambiguous hints. "He keeps fiddling with well-worn gold piece" or "he blushes when you mention her name" signals something without telling the whole story. "He seems like he's lying" doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

"As far as you can tell, he's not lying" is plenty ambiguous and relied on to the players' peril.

The problem with vague hints and gestures is that you're expecting the player to be good at insight as opposed to the character. You're expecting them to catch on to your expressions and body language to suss out meaning - that seems a step too far.

I've had plenty of DMs who thought they were gifted actors/communicators resort to vague hints and gestures without ever actually conveying necessary information - it can lead to very frustrating session.

No skill is automatic or reliable, so that's not a useful comparison. Unless you mean that it produces non-binary results of all four kinds, as a I discuss above, but 5e mechanics don't really support that.

By reliable, I meant knowledge of success. Most checks with a set DC are completely reliable - Acrobatics/Athletics etc. you know if you succeeded. Opposed checks, such as insight, you don't necessarily know, hence unreliable.

As for non-binary. Well success with a setback (on a failed check) is a 5e thing too and is quite supported. Such as, you see that he's lying, but he sees that your really probing so shuts up, etc.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think one of the issues here is that some are treating Insight as a special firm of perception (I look for tells), while others are treating it as an interaction skill like persuasion (ie, you have to interact to use it). The former leads to 'press the button' applications (I look at him and Insight if he's lying), the latter to more approach drvien play. The two methods are largely incompatible.

 

[Ashrym]

Sure, and the process I'm describing is great at "searching out" lies. That doesn't have to mean (and I would argue does NOT mean) "knowing whether somebody is lying." If it were, why does the text say, "Searching out."?

That and it's also directly opposed by charisma (deception) in the checks specifically stated to use outright lies among other things.

Martial weapon proficiency is great at killing monsters, but there's still more to it than a single die roll.

Agree. What insight entails should be comparable to what it's countering. That varies between DM's but I'm a fan of the amount of time and level of detail being dependant on the by how much either roll wins. Repeat checks for longer conversations can easily be applicable.

The alternative is the simpler approach. The roll represents more because social conflict tends to be less important in many games while weapon proficiencies matter a lot less because weapons themselves don't differentiate as much as skills.

Which is a steaming crock of $%#@. There is no good training at detecting lies by picking up cues from behavior. The belief that there is has caused untold misery in terms of false convictions.

The only method that works is a long, complicated process of getting people to contradict themselves (or not) through long interrogations. It has nothing to do with "tells" or intuition, and is entirely a matter of taking really good notes and then cross-checking. And at best all you can determine is that they did or did not contradict themselves or change their story.

Here's some good journalism on the topic: The Interview

No arguments there. The difference between real-world realism and tropes is quite clear. It's the tropes I'm playing to, however. Fictional characters pull that level of detail down mic drop style. Imagine trying to lie to Sherlock Holmes. Unless you are a massively skilled liar he's going to break it down with a glance and school you on why.

I look at what fictional characters can do with skills without resorting to wuxia or actual super powers / magic / magic-like abilities. Catching a lie in a conversation? Not remotely belief suspending enough I wouldn't allow it, especially given the descriptions of insight and deception.

 

[Nebulous]

So if Bob wants to roll a die, I let him*. I allow the roll because it is reasonable for the PCs to suspect the merchant is lying in this scenario whether or not I know as the DM that the merchant is telling the truth. I don't give the players information their PCs have no way of knowing. If Ned is telling the truth a good roll will get "He seems to be telling the truth" while a really bad roll may result in "He seems to be hiding something".

If the merchant is lying and is proficient at it, I'm not going to broadcast it to the players because I believe in resolving interactions with the game world using PC skill, not player skill. I don't want to rely on my acting skills or lack therein. Unlike their characters Susan may be good at reading people while Bob is not.

How would this specific scenario play out in your game? 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? What would Susan have to do or say to indicate her PC believes whatever the merchant says?

I'm not a fan of Insight as a lie detector test. And that's what it usually boils down to. If the player rolls a 20 they expect to be told a PC is lying or not. I prefer to use the Insight checks to give them hunches or clues as to the NPCs mindset and attitude, not a Zone of Truth spell which is how many players want it to work.

Furthermore, an actual interrogation to determine truth vs. falsehood often takes HOURS, not 6 seconds.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not a fan of Insight as a lie detector test. And that's what it usually boils down to. If the player rolls a 20 they expect to be told a PC is lying or not. I prefer to use the Insight checks to give them hunches or clues as to the NPCs mindset and attitude, not a Zone of Truth spell which is how many players want it to work.

In my games, the PC will only get a general sense of intent it's not a "lie detector". On the other hand, I don't have a problem with using a trope that's so common in fiction whether or not it works in real life.

We're talking about a world with elves, dragons, things that go bump in the night not to mention longbows that can have pinpoint accuracy to three football fields with a bit of training by someone that in the real world wouldn't be strong enough to even pull it to a half draw.