D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Oofta]

I think that's the difference. I don't want the players calling for a check. They might not need to even roll anything, never mind that 5E doesn't have skill checks at all. I'd much rather have the player explain to me what they envision the character doing. It can be third person like a movie director instructing an actor, and then working with me to determine if a check is even needed.

If a player says "I'm going to roll Insight!" my response is going to be "What do you envision your character doing?" or "What is your goal?" The response will determine what the next step is going to be. Players might respond: "I want to see if Ned is hiding something from us" or it could be "I want to threaten Ned into talking to us and tell the truth." The first one is Wisdom (Insight) the second is probably Charisma (Intimidation).

I'm never going to make a player try hard to use the buttons and levers they have access to, but I want to be clear about what buttons and levers they are trying to use. Sometimes abilities and skill proficiencies are important, sometimes literally describing either by accident or design the answer to a problem results in the solution working (as with searching a room for example).

Except that there is no visible action. The activity is pretty much mental, paying close attention and thinking about what is being said. You can come up with all sorts of words to describe that activity, IMHO "Can I make an insight" is just one way of describing what is always going to be an internal mental process. Threatening Ned is not an insight check, it's an intimidation check. It's unrelated.

I've never had a DM have this kind of attitude which is one of the reasons I started this. It seems to be a big deal ... but only on this message board and never in the real world.

Let's say I consider my PC an incarnation of Sherlock Holmes. He watches people closely, deduces things about them based on what they're saying and how. If he's trying to intimidate, persuade, badger or console the NPC that's handled completely separately (possibly with it's own check). How many ways are there to say "I observe them closely to intuit their emotional state"?

If a PC were doing ... I don't know ... an investigation check of a door to look for traps, I'm going to tell them any info I think they would get from examining the door closely. Maybe they notice that there's no trap, but the lock is new and high quality. Or there are minute scratches on the lock indicating that someone else has tried to clumsily pick the lock. Or any number of other things. I'm not going to withhold information that's unrelated to traps. All I need to know is that they're examining it closely.

 

[abirdcall]

Except that there is no visible action. The activity is pretty much mental, paying close attention and thinking about what is being said. You can come up with all sorts of words to describe that activity, IMHO "Can I make an insight" is just one way of describing what is always going to be an internal mental process. Threatening Ned is not an insight check, it's an intimidation check. It's unrelated.

I've never had a DM have this kind of attitude which is one of the reasons I started this. It seems to be a big deal ... but only on this message board and never in the real world.

I'm just as perplexed that people go around 'insighting' NPCs in other games.

Does everyone just roll for insight when meeting someone? Why not?

In such a game does this approach apply to other things too.

If the party enters a new dungeon area does each party member 'perception' it?

That kind of approach is weird to me.

I have noticed that new to D&D players usually intuitively understand 5e's approach of just describing what you are doing.

I have seen former 3e players say something similar of 'I make an X check to do Y'. It can be hard to explain to them that it isn't how 5e is designed.

I still haven't seen people just roll whenever they can. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what is being said. But I wonder though, in such a game if people aren't doing it, shouldn't they? The whole party should just be able to make these checks whenever they want right? And why not just keep rolling insight until you get a high number?

 

[coolAlias]

@Oofta, I think many of us are suggesting that we wouldn't ask the player to roll an ability check, but would use their passive Wisdom (Insight) score to model how observant they are in general.

So in your Sherlock Homes example, assuming the character has a decent or high passive Wisdom (Insight) score, they would just notice these types of things, no roll required. Same for Wisdom (Perception) to notice the slight charcoal smudge on the NPC, which might indicate something. They might also immediately deduce quite a bit of information based on their passive Intelligence (Investigation) score.

I realize that the lack of rolling may be less fun for some players, but they can use the information they obtained from their passive scores to inform their decisions that typically do call for a roll.

Of course Sherlock will notice everything - that's what he does. The question isn't whether he notices, but what will he do with that information?

 

[Oofta]

Just to be clear about something: there are times when I call for an insight check, there are times when players call for an insight check, there are times when I use passive insight checks, there are times when there is no need for an insight check because the NPC is obviously lying or angry or scared. I've also never had anyone abuse this by asking to make constant insight checks.

On the other hand it's incredibly rare for someone to say "I make a persuasion check" without further details, or without me prompting for details. It may have happened once because someone was talking their way past the bouncer of a club and I was glossing over that part of the encounter in the interest of time.

But insight? I just don't see why the context or goal would be in question. Approach is always going to be basically the same, paying close attention yada yada yada. The goal is always going to be to get a read on the NPC.

 

[coolAlias]

But insight? I just don't see why the context or goal would be in question. Approach is always going to be basically the same, paying close attention yada yada yada. The goal is always going to be to get a read on the NPC.

And that's exactly why I tend to use it mostly as a passive score - I assume the PCs are generally pretty savvy and always trying to gauge whether NPCs are dodgy or trustworthy.

If a player actually does something, like say they ask a few leading questions to get a better feel for the NPC's intent, then I'll have them roll a Wisdom (Insight) check, but now the NPC could realize the PC doesn't fully trust them.

Notice how that's slightly different than the "I'm just paying close attention" that effectively has no possible consequence other than the current status quo, i.e. not noticing anything?

 

[Oofta]

And that's exactly why I tend to use it mostly as a passive score - I assume the PCs are generally pretty savvy and always trying to gauge whether NPCs are dodgy or trustworthy.

If a player actually does something, like say they ask a few leading questions to get a better feel for the NPC's intent, then I'll have them roll a Wisdom (Insight) check, but now the NPC could realize the PC doesn't fully trust them.

Notice how that's slightly different than the "I'm just paying close attention" that effectively has no possible consequence other than the current status quo, i.e. not noticing anything?

But to me, asking leading questions is either a purely RP exercise, persuasion or intimidation. Perhaps with some intelligence or other related checks to remind the player of something the PC may have forgotten. Related skills, but different.

As a general rule I use passives unless the passive perception is not high enough to beat the target DC.

 

[Ashrym]

But to me, asking leading questions is either a purely RP exercise, persuasion or intimidation. Perhaps with some intelligence or other related checks to remind the player of something the PC may have forgotten. Related skills, but different.

As a general rule I use passives unless the passive perception is not high enough to beat the target DC.

For insight, asking question enables gauging the responses and checking answers against other questions for inconsistencies.

I think that's one of most realistic actions for actively using insight. As for passive scores, if they don't meet the DC it's a fail or roll depending on circumstances. I use "no roll needed" for easy tasks outside of distracted et al times when rolls are normally expected. If a PC's passive score would beats the DC it's auto-success, if not roll or "take 20". There generally isn't much reason for such rolls at all most of the time. Generally if a player can do it and there's no danger in failure or time crunch most tasks are an auto-success anyway.

Passive scores are simply assuming an average check to avoid tipping off players by getting them to roll. Perception and insight are the most common examples of passive checks that matter. I used passive in response to actions the PC's are not actually taking and I don't want to tip them off what I'm rolling. If that passive score fails the check fails. I wouldn't ask for a roll in such a case. It would defeat the purpose of the passive score and NPC roll in the first place.

 

[Oofta]

For insight, asking question enables gauging the responses and checking answers against other questions for inconsistencies.

I think that's one of most realistic actions for actively using insight. As for passive scores, if they don't meet the DC it's a fail or roll depending on circumstances. I use "no roll needed" for easy tasks outside of distracted et al times when rolls are normally expected. If a PC's passive score would beats the DC it's auto-success, if not roll or "take 20". There generally isn't much reason for such rolls at all most of the time. Generally if a player can do it and there's no danger in failure or time crunch most tasks are an auto-success anyway.

Passive scores are simply assuming an average check to avoid tipping off players by getting them to roll. Perception and insight are the most common examples of passive checks that matter. I used passive in response to actions the PC's are not actually taking and I don't want to tip them off what I'm rolling. If that passive score fails the check fails. I wouldn't ask for a roll in such a case. It would defeat the purpose of the passive score and NPC roll in the first place.

I just don't see trying to "determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. " as having anything to do with asking questions.

The person doing the insight may or may not be the person talking for one. Second, communicating with another individual is covered under persuasion, intimidate and deception. Thinking of questions might be covered by a straight wisdom check or intelligence checks with arcana, history or religion proficiency bonuses as necessary.

In theory anyway. I've had games where it seemed to always devolved into the barbarian getting bored and hitting something. Frequently the party bard.

 

[coolAlias]

I just don't see trying to "determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. " as having anything to do with asking questions.

The person doing the insight may or may not be the person talking for one. Second, communicating with another individual is covered under persuasion, intimidate and deception. Thinking of questions might be covered by a straight wisdom check or intelligence checks with arcana, history or religion proficiency bonuses as necessary.

In theory anyway. I've had games where it seemed to always devolved into the barbarian getting bored and hitting something. Frequently the party bard.

You can have one person asking the leading questions and another gauging the reaction - that's covered by the help action, granting advantage on any related ability check.

Understanding what the other party in a conversation actually means / what their intentions are is part of communication, and that aspect of it is covered by Wisdom (Insight).

Aside from just generally observing the person you're communicating with as you talk, which is assumed to be covered by the passive score, how are you going to search out a lie without doing something such as asking questions?

I don't make my players actually come up with the questions - they can simply state that that is how they intend to try to detect lies or motive or whatever, and the roll determines how well they did / what they were able to learn, if anything.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you are describing how the NPC telegraphs. How the player describes looking for the lie is a different question.

Which I think I answered above: "checking to see if he's lying" is about as specific as "I try to kill the monster". ("Can I make a Strength check?")

Players should state:
1) What specific thing they think the NPC might be lying about.
2) How they are going to try to trigger revealing behaviors in the NPC.

And, as Ovinomancer says, they should be describing what they are going to do next, not what they want to retroactively apply to what has already happened.

I wasn't talking about telegraphing. If I'm telegraphing then those things will just be in the description. What I'm talking about are the little clues that aren't so obvious that they should be telegraphed, but are never the less there if the PC looks for them. The player can tell me that he's looking for certain things.

Your list above is pretty good and I think I liked your post about them. I would just add what I said as a 3) behind your 2.