D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ashrym]

If only there were some method had been developed to communicate emotion in text....

I've had those misinterpreted as flirting, lol. Usually I add them but miss them at times.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don’t think they’re incompatible at all. I allow Insight proficiency to apply to checks made to resolve actions of either variety.

If a player announces a perceptive action like observing the NPC’s body language for signs of nervousness, and I determine that it should be resolved with a check, I would most likely call for a Wisdom check. If the player then suggests that their Insight proficiency might be applicable, I would certainly allow it. If the player announces an interactive action like pressing the NPC on a subject he seems cagey about to see if she can catch him in a contradiction*, and I determined that it should be resolved with a check, I would probably call for a Charisma check. If the player then suggests that their Insight proficiency might be applicable, I would most likely allow that too.

*Oh my god, I’m describing Phoenix Wright, aren’t I?

Curiously, would you also allow for use of Perception?

I actually find the "I observe and learn something" absent interaction to be incoherent. There has to be some form of interaction so that observations can be useful. "I watch him" without engagement is empty of meaning, what's happening in the fiction is that the PC is picking up on tells or tics while the NPC continues to interact. The use of Insight passive observation is almost always used in a backdated fashion -- you're asking to take an action against what's already happened. I can see an observation use case if one PC is observing while another engages, but then I'd call that a joint effort and award advantage for the teamwork. I just don't see how Insight as observation functions absent backdating to a previous interaction or in tandem with other PCs driving the interaction. And, if another PC is driving interaction, they're engaged in the active form of Insight I mention above.

Using Insight as a passive observation skill turns it into the perception problem -- it trains the players to not trust that the DM is fully presenting relevant information and that the PCs need to fish for it by using button-mash skills. It's a Skinner box that DMs often over reward. Which then causes the problem of policing the overuse of the button to get treats. I much prefer a structure where interesting bits are called out in narration, and skills are then used to develop those things as part of the challenge of the scene. I'm a firm believer that if you call for a check, the fiction must change afterwards -- towards the player's goal on a success and away on a failure. Insight as observation is very limited in how it interacts with the fiction. On a success, the DM tells the player what their PC thinks. That's crossing a hard line for me in 5e (not so much in other systems where the lines are in different places), so it's right out. On a failure, the DM is either doing the same or you narrate the NPC becoming upset for being stared at? Which then leads to players trying to be unobtrusive about their observation, which leads to... the usual weirdness that shows up in these discussions where posters talk about how they prevent abuse of the button mashing they allow.

As for using Charisma to elicit information and allowing Insight to add, I see that, but I rather like the idea that Charisma is useful for intimidation, lying, and persuading, but wisdom is also a valid social skill in deftly maneuvering an opponent in a social battle of wits. So, I usually call for wisdom checks when trying to elicit information, as it's trying to get to truth, and leave Charisma to it's already beefy position in just about everything else (socially).

 

[5ekyu]

Yes there is a difference. As @Charlaquin said, the more specific you are with how you go about your task, the more likely it will be that you will have an auto success. "I want to make an insight check." has very little chance of being automatically successful.

For insight, what does that look like, the "how" statement that turns it into an auto-success to suss out a lie by observation or determine their intentions from body language?

More specifically, the statement that does this and does not require skill or expertise on the part of the player towards ferreting out those things - cuz it keeps getting said thst player knowledge of how a thing is done is not require to give approach and that whole avoid failure thing.

 

[billd91]

For reference, this is the passage I mean when I say "take 20".



It's under "Multiple Ability Checks" on page 237 of the DMG. I do refer to the old label of "take 20" regarding the current guidelines on it so I can see that leading to confusion. The reason for that is I interpret 20 as the highest roll possible, so 20 plus bonuses is the highest possible result. If the DC is 25 and the best possible is 24 then spending 10 times normal time won't succeed.

Makes sense. It is, pretty much, the same thing as the Take 20 rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Um, so .... "I REALLY want to make an insight check."

Look behind you. Your wall is insight.

 

[jasper]

Yes there is a difference. As @Charlaquin said, the more specific you are with how you go about your task, the more likely it will be that you will have an auto success. "I want to make an insight check." has very little chance of being automatically successful.

The more specific you are more chance of an auto success. I said jack about AUTO SUCCESS. I said if a roll player ask for an insight, I going let him roll if one is needed. If a role player gives me $5 words and 5 paragraphs on how they are doing an insight, they get to roll. AND the DC will be the same.
You are coming off like you DEMAND drama from skill checks and woe to Ned Newby who is still trying to recognize the different sized dice. I think it is crazy. And I will go over the top, and describe by attack action with my buck and quarter staff and demand an auto success because I described a beautiful attack.
Attack = roll d20 add mods to beat DC which is AC in this case.
Skill check = roll d20 add mods to beat DC.
These are the same things to roll players.

 

[Maxperson]

The more specific you are more chance of an auto success. I said jack about AUTO SUCCESS. I said if a roll player ask for an insight, I going let him roll if one is needed.

What you said was, "There is no difference between Bob asking about body language, and the other bob asking for an insight check." and that's what I responded to. And you said it in response to someone who said that description improved the odds of an auto success. Bold added for clarity.

Context is a thing. If you respond to his comment with a comment like that, then in context you are saying that both ways of communicating the insight check will always have the exact same result, which simply isn't true, and relates to auto successes There is a difference. So yes, you did say jack about auto successes, even if you didn't mean to.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Curiously, would you also allow for use of Perception?

I actually find the "I observe and learn something" absent interaction to be incoherent. There has to be some form of interaction so that observations can be useful. "I watch him" without engagement is empty of meaning, what's happening in the fiction is that the PC is picking up on tells or tics while the NPC continues to interact. The use of Insight passive observation is almost always used in a backdated fashion -- you're asking to take an action against what's already happened. I can see an observation use case if one PC is observing while another engages, but then I'd call that a joint effort and award advantage for the teamwork. I just don't see how Insight as observation functions absent backdating to a previous interaction or in tandem with other PCs driving the interaction. And, if another PC is driving interaction, they're engaged in the active form of Insight I mention above.

Using Insight as a passive observation skill turns it into the perception problem -- it trains the players to not trust that the DM is fully presenting relevant information and that the PCs need to fish for it by using button-mash skills. It's a Skinner box that DMs often over reward. Which then causes the problem of policing the overuse of the button to get treats. I much prefer a structure where interesting bits are called out in narration, and skills are then used to develop those things as part of the challenge of the scene. I'm a firm believer that if you call for a check, the fiction must change afterwards -- towards the player's goal on a success and away on a failure. Insight as observation is very limited in how it interacts with the fiction. On a success, the DM tells the player what their PC thinks. That's crossing a hard line for me in 5e (not so much in other systems where the lines are in different places), so it's right out. On a failure, the DM is either doing the same or you narrate the NPC becoming upset for being stared at? Which then leads to players trying to be unobtrusive about their observation, which leads to... the usual weirdness that shows up in these discussions where posters talk about how they prevent abuse of the button mashing they allow.

I hadn't thought about the retroactive action angle before. And I think you're exactly right. We don't wait until after we've fallen into the pit to see if we can make an Athletics check. Or after the guard has seen us to make a Stealth check.

So maybe when somebody says, "Can I use Insight to see if he's lying?" the right response is, "Are you just going to stand there and stare at him and wait for him to tell a lie? What are you DOING?" (Also, lying about WHAT is important. That's usually omitted, in my experience. Lying about everything?)

And, FWIW, I think a good way to do that, if Insight is the skill you want to lean on, is to bring things into a conversation and gauge the person's reaction. E.g.,

"I want to know if he actually knows Vinnie the Snake. I'm going to casually mention some untrue things about Vinnie that would surprise somebody who actually knows him, and watch his reaction."

"I want to know if he had feelings for her. I'm going to keep bringing her back into the conversation, and watch to see what he does."

"I want to know if he has a prior relationship with the city watch. I'll keep the conversation going for a while, then suddenly announce that the city watch should be here any minute, and see his reaction." (Player2: "Ooh...I want to try to slip out, and then knock on the door loudly!")

As for using Charisma to elicit information and allowing Insight to add, I see that, but I rather like the idea that Charisma is useful for intimidation, lying, and persuading, but wisdom is also a valid social skill in deftly maneuvering an opponent in a social battle of wits. So, I usually call for wisdom checks when trying to elicit information, as it's trying to get to truth, and leave Charisma to it's already beefy position in just about everything else (socially).

I generally adhere less rigidly to the ability:skill pairings in the PHB, and decide on the fly which ability score will apply, depending on the situation. Intelligence and Perception are a common one. Intimidation and Strength. Etc.

 

[Maxperson]

For insight, what does that look like, the "how" statement that turns it into an auto-success to suss out a lie by observation or determine their intentions from body language?

There are lots of ways it can look. From letting me know they look for signs of deceit, like sweating, licking lips, not making eye contact, etc., to telling me that they guide the conversation back on subjects that get those sorts of reactions to learn the person they are talking to. Those sorts of descriptions can help considerably, including auto successes, depending on the NPC in question.

More specifically, the statement that does this and does not require skill or expertise on the part of the player towards ferreting out those things - cuz it keeps getting said thst player knowledge of how a thing is done is not require to give approach and that whole avoid failure thing.

It's not really player knowledge so much as it's roleplaying the situation in more detail and depth. Given the iffyness of skills like insight, it will be hard to get an auto success, but not so hard to get a small bonus to the roll or perhaps advantage. It's not really a way to avoid failure. It just helps reduce the chances of failure.