D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

There was another thread that linked to a blog by Angry DM that, among other things said that in order to play D&D 5E the "proper" way a player will never state "I make an insight check".

This is something that happens now and then in my game. If it wasn't for message boards I would never give it a second thought. The player is stating (using a bit of shorthand) that they don't know if the NPC they are talking to is telling the truth. I don't see an issue with this so I wanted to go over a specific, simple example using an example similar to what happened in a recent game. I don't really want to debate philosophy here, enough walls of text have been posted on that, I'd just like to know specifically how this scene would play out in your game.

The setup:

• The group is investigating a dead body found in an alley. There are blood stains on the back door to a merchant's shop.
• Ned the NPC: the proprietor of the shop. The PCs have never interacted with Ned before, they know nothing about him.
• PC Brog: Bob's barbarian PC is the suspicious type.
• PC Suiza: Susan's sorcerer led a sheltered life and is trusting to the point of gullible.

As a DM I don't know how suspicious the players think their PCs would be, and regardless I don't control what they think.

Scene as it would play out in my game:

We'd go from there. Maybe the merchant knows something, maybe they don't and he's already given them all the info he can and the group will have to investigate other leads. Brog is the suspicious type and needs no other justification to suspect the merchant of lying in this particular scenario. How else is Bob supposed to indicate his PC's inner thoughts and suspicions? Suiza on the other hand is naive and trusting so Susan is not going to ask for a check whether or not Susan is suspicious.

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?

*If Bob is asking for an insight check with every NPC they interact with, or if he tries to resolve every situation with a simple roll of the die, that's a separate issue and we'll discuss play style.

At the most basic level, characters have their Passive Insight to compare your NPCs' Deception checks against.

Beyond that, a player could ask something like "Does anything strike me as suspicious about his answer?"

“I examine Ned’s body language to see if I can identify any signs that he might be lying.”

MarkB said:

At the most basic level, characters have their Passive Insight to compare your NPCs' Deception checks against.

Beyond that, a player could ask something like "Does anything strike me as suspicious about his answer?"

Click to expand...

^^this

I do the same thing. Insight is generally a passive ability to I treat it like perception. It saves a lot on players asking to make such a roll. On that same note, if a player exhibits the intent to interrogate making mental notes or whatnot in their description then I call for a roll with the understanding it's hard to perform an action to initiate a passive skill.

As for a player asking for a roll, ideally it's not the best. Ideally players perform actions and the DM decides whether a roll is needed or not. DM's are not infallible, however, and there's nothing wrong with the occasional reminder if someone else thinks it might be warranted.

The main difference there is role play vs roll play. A character who says "I watch his body language closely while I ask such and such" is using role play while a character who says "I use my insight" is actually performing the exact same action via roll play. Many tables take a more simplistic approach like that, and there's nothing wrong with a group who is less immersive at the role-play aspect.

In some loosely played groups I have walked around insighting many people. "I insight you and I insight you and I insight you. I threaten to insight you and roll intimidate instead." Okay, full disclosure, that may not actually be true. It was just the first thing that came to mind at the thought of using the term insight like it's an action. ;-)

Honestly, once it gets to the point where your group is developing a standard phrase to cover asking for an insight check, you may as well just ask for an insight check. Either way, you're not actually describing an actual action that your character is taking, so does it really matter whether you fancy it up with flowery language?

No problem with this at all and how our DM (and myself) would handle it. The player relates that his character is suspicious and thus asked for an insight check. If Ned IS lying, you set the DC based on a contested Charisma (Deception) roll vs. Brog's Wisdom (Insight) roll. Or, you roll during the conversation using Ned's Charisma (Deception) vs. the character's Passive Insight as the DC. If you succeed, then the character's believe the story UNLESS the player intervenes and then ask to make his Wisdom (Insight) check instead of relying on the passive score.

Either way, if the insight check beats the deception (or if there was no deception, it automatically succeeds) then the characters know he is lying or certain he is telling the truth.

We don't play that only the DM can ask for a check. Players can ask to make one if they think their characters would know something they don't, etc. The DM can tell them no, but usually only when it is inappropriate or unnecessary.

I use passive and active skills, at the times the character is passive or active.

I act as the interface between the world and the players, and I need to know what to tell the players, where passive perception or insight (and potentially others) can come into play. That includes if they can pick up clues insight would give.

One character may get "The shopkeep says 'I never saw anyone of that description'", while another character gets "Without meeting your eyes, the shopkeep stammers out 'I never saw anyone of that description'. He takes an involuntary half step away from you as he says it."

I don't make any assumptions about a character being gullible or suspicious - those choices are for the player to make. They have the information, they can then decide how to act - or not - on it.

I take things player requests like "Can I tell if he's hiding something/lying/etc" as requests for an active check, which I can decide if that warrants a roll. I treat "I'd like to make an insight check" as just a game-mechanics-centric way to make the same request - as DM I decided if a roll is needed and can allow or not. It's not verboten, it's just another way for the player to communicate with me.

Hriston said:

“I examine Ned’s body language to see if I can identify any signs that he might be lying.”

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I guess I just don't see a difference between "Can I get an insight check" and "I study his body language..." or similar. I think the end result is the same.

After all I don't say "I swing my sword with the intent of doing bodily harm". I simply say "I attack and get ___". Sometimes we use shorthand to communicate meaning, whether that's typing LOL or saying "I make an insight check".

As far as passive insight (or any other skill for that matter) I do sometimes use passive skills especially if I don't think the NPC is proficient in deception. The only problem with it is that I rarely remember what people's passive values are. So sometimes instead I'll ask for the better of their roll or their passive value, particularly if it's a longer conversation.

If someone is constantly asking to do checks of any kind, we'll have a chat.

One of my goals as a DM is to make sure that all skills matter, even more so when a player has built their character to have background and proficiencies that emphasize certain skills. There are two reasons, IME, that players ask to make a skill check: (1) they've played in games where they didn't follow the order of play as spelled out in the PHB and that's just how they know how to play or (2) they feel that I'm not giving them sufficient opportunity to use their character's skills.

With number one, I educate them on how I run the game at my table in order to change their behavior.

With number two, I make an effort to change my behavior as a DM to help characters shine.

The first thing I determine with any encounter or challenge is whether success is a given or if it is impossible. So, focusing on insight, there are times where the NPC is just obviously lying. But the player may ask whether there are any tells that would give away further information beyond that the NPC is lying. So even with an obvious success there may be a roll (you catch the guy stealing red handing but he is stupidly refusing to admit that he pocketed your coin purse, I'm not going to call for a roll to tell if he is lying, but maybe an insight check on whether he is afraid of the party, afraid of some third party, or not at all afraid and believes that there is nothing the party can do about it).

Not needed to roll because success is impossible is far less come with insight check in my experience. I guess if a player asks to determine how a wall feels about being a wall. But there could be some creature that is so alien in its thinking that normal insight checks just won't work. Perhaps intelligent plants are impossible to read for emotion, for example. The motives of a far-realm elder thing may be impossible for mere mortals to comprehend.

In the vast majority of situations, if a player is attempting to glean more information simply by intuiting it, I'll call for an insight check. I use passive insight to help telescope that they have a "feeling" about someone or something that may prompt them to pay more attention and perhaps take actions that call for active insight, perception, or investigation checks.

Harder for me is where multiple characters want to use their insight. I'm not a fan of everyone making skill checks for everything. It slows down the game and makes the characters who focus in certain skills less special. It also makes the help action less useful. Not sure if how I handle this is RAW, but what I do is:

1. Sometimes, you have to have proficiency in a skill to get to make a skill check. I do this less common with insight, but if the party is dealing with very different cultures or races, I may simply state a situation is too difficult to read, unless a character is exceptionally insightful (has proficiency).

2. Generally, one character can make the check and another can help to give the acting character advantage.

3. If there is an obvious failure and other players really want to let their characters give it a try, I may let them if they can describe a different tact that their character is taking. Perhaps they have to make a successful intimidation, persuasion, perception, or investigation check before they can make a new insight check. Also if the player comes up with a new line of questioning, I make let them make another check. While I don't want success to be entirely hooked to player skill, I see nothing wrong with rewarding player skill and player inspiration.

4. Speaking of inspiration, I'll let someone spend a point of inspiration for another shot, but they can't be helped with that roll. I.e., help plus inspiration will allow three rolls on the check.

Insight is in danger of receding to background at higher levels as class abilities, feats, and spells become more reliable ways of getting information. How I handle this is I make sure insight gives, well, further insights than you can get from a spell, etc. When I think of a high-level character using insight, I model that on Patrick Jane from The Mentalist. Or those mentalist performers who appear to perform magic feats of mentalism. Or really talented spiritualists who claim to speak to the dead by using a variety of tricks get information from you.

Lastly, I like to find ways that various skills complement each other. Insight can help with persuasion and deception and vice versa. Even in combat, I might let a clever use of insight help a character determine what an opponents next move likely is. That could lead to me awarded that character an AC bonus, and attack bonus, or a move up the initiative order.

Oofta said:

Thanks for the response. I guess I just don't see a difference between "Can I get an insight check" and "I study his body language..." or similar. I think the end result is the same.

Click to expand...

It breaks immersion for some. Especially in 5e, there is not a great depth of mechanical variety. The fun is coming up with all manner of interesting actions and the DM having to determine what mechanic applies to resolve it.

After all I don't say "I swing my sword with the intent of doing bodily harm". I simply say "I attack and get ___". Sometimes we use shorthand to communicate meaning, whether that's typing LOL or saying "I make an insight check".

Click to expand...

Well, at my table you at least have to say what you attack with. I would not enjoy a players saying "I make a melee attack with my great sword, I rolled 10 and my modifier is...." They simply say "I attack it with my greatsword". They can (and it is better if they do) roll their attack and damage dice at the same time to keep things moving, but I may not ask for whether they hit or how much damage they do. Maybe the monster has immunities. Maybe something else is going on. The DM calls for the rolls. Admittedly, combat is different in this regard than exploration and social pillars. During combat, if it goes on for multiple rounds, to keep things moving, players will just make the rolls and use shortcuts in their speech. No need to specify what you are attacking with each round unless you are changing what you are attacking with.

As far as passive insight (or any other skill for that matter) I do sometimes use passive skills especially if I don't think the NPC is proficient in deception. The only problem with it is that I rarely remember what people's passive values are. So sometimes instead I'll ask for the better of their roll or their passive value, particularly if it's a longer conversation.

If someone is constantly asking to do checks of any kind, we'll have a chat.

Click to expand...

Same issues here. But in my current campaign, I've made an effort to have a cheat sheet on my DM screen with each players passive values--not just for passive perception. I find it improves the game if for no other reason than it prompts me to make NPCs come across differently to different characters and parties. Passive insight helps me make the world react to the characters in a manner that feels more immersive. As I type this, I'm even thinking that it would be cool to make up some passive reaction cards to hand to players that give general insights (e.g., you fell that the NPC is hiding something, you don't trust this NPC, you feel this NPC is good at heart) etc.

Note, a bit off topic, but don't forget about offensive intimidation and persuasion. The player with hulking barbarian may enjoy you playing everyone cowering from him or avoiding him or looking afraid of him...and when someone doesn't, it may pique his interest and you may find him asking for insight checks and engaging more of the game outside combat. Same with persuasion. Some folks are so charismatic that people want to do things for them, help them, trust them, (or perhaps less positively) become infatuated with them, even when the character is not actively trying to persuade them.