D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[iserith]

This is a direct outcome of not specifying what actions you can take with an Insight check. All of those things could be specified in the skill, and a player could call for any of them. This is design activity being shifted to the DM again, where you have to build a resolution system (admittedly with reference to a generic system in the form of your default skill DCs) in the moment for each action, instead of having a resolution system players are leveraging.

The example actions I suggested could be resolved by a Wisdom (Insight) check were taken straight from the PHB and DMG. So, those actions are specified.

 

[Oofta]

and getting rid of the unreasonable adults . Honestly those are the ones that generate most of these discussions. it's also the hardest if a DM is playing with family and friends sometimes.

You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friends noses or your family.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You could be doing a number of things by making this request - trying to determine truthfulness, figure out their agenda, discern their ideal, bond, or flaw, trying to predict their next move, and more.

All of which would be done the same way: by looking at them and trying to derive information from what I see. So I'd expect the dm to decide what I'm capable of learning by looking, not ask me for that sort of thing. After all, I the player can't see the npc's face.

It's a bit like asking what a player is looking for when they search a room: whatever they find that's interesting. it would make the game really tedious if you asked for a new roll to search the desk for books, papers, documents, knick-knacks, signets, other objects, secret doors, and keys. I search the desk for anything that's there. I don't know what's there to be found, if I knew what was there I wouldn't be searching.

 

[iserith]

All of which would be done the same way: by looking at them and trying to derive information from what I see. So I'd expect the dm to decide what I'm capable of learning by looking, not ask me for that sort of thing. After all, I the player can't see the npc's face.

It's a bit like asking what a player is looking for when they search a room: whatever they find that's interesting. it would make the game really tedious if you asked for a new roll to search the desk for books, papers, documents, knick-knacks, signets, other objects, secret doors, and keys. I search the desk for anything that's there. I don't know what's there to be found, if I knew what was there I wouldn't be searching.

It's not clear from "I make an Insight check on this guy" what you're trying to determine though. Choose something, based on your needs in the challenge. Maybe you roll and maybe you don't. (Hopefully you don't and just succeed, right?) And if you fail, prepare for the meaningful consequences that follow.

 

[Oofta]

The idea that you have to let the DM know what you are specifically trying to learn from insight or knowledge checks is, IMHO, terrible.

Try to think about anything you have reasonable knowledge of whether that's old cars, specific musical artists or Pokémon. Can you try to think of one specific thing about that topic without also remembering a bunch of other stuff? If I'm using insight, I'm just trying to get information on their emotional state, it's not like I can separate things out. It's the worst kind pixel bitching/ask the DM 20 questions interpretations I can imagine.

I think some of this is a misreading of the PHB - Insight says it can be used to "... determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. " Nowhere does it state that you have to look for this things specifically, it's that you're trying to get a read on the person and these are the kind of things you might learn. I really don't understand how studying someone intently and paying attention to their mannerisms is going to tell you that they're lying but not that they're tensing up to make a run for it. Not only does it not make any logical sense, it's not fun because as a player I have to guess what I can ask that will give me a result. No thanks.

I don't want players to state their goal when they state an action. I want to take the action or question (i.e. knowledge check) on face value and then evaluate what possible outcomes are. Sometimes the only consequence is simply not succeeding.

 

[CleverNickName]

Insight. 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.

I guess I've never really considered an Insight check as "a described action." It's something that happens in the background at my table.

Like, for the "searching out a lie" part of the rule. Let's say that there's a conversation between one of the characters in the group and an NPC fisherman, and they are talking about the fish that got away. I might ask someone at the table to roll an Insight check to see if the NPC is being sincere, exaggerating a bit, or outright lying to them. It doesn't cost the character an action, and they don't have to declare it, I just use it as a way to shape the tone of the scene. My response is always something like "the fisherman really believes what he's saying," and never "the fisherman is telling the truth."

And for the "predicting someone's next move" part, I ask a player to roll for Insight in combat to help the party understand their opponent's behavior and to build tension. For example, if their enemy readies an action, or a dragon's breath weapon recharges, I'll ask someone to make an Insight check for free to see if they notice. It doesn't cost the character an action, it's just a way to measure intuition. It's something I do to build tension.

Players that ask for an Insight check are usually doing so because they don't know what questions to ask, or they don't know who to trust, or they just want to resolve a complicated social situation with a single dice roll. And that's...not really what the Insight skill is for. So I consider it to be a request for more information...they are saying "um, could you give us a hint here?" I'll let them roll, but I'll ignore the result and give them more hints about questions they should ask, or which NPCs might be more trustworthy, or what they should expect, etc., to help them move forward.

 

[iserith]

I guess I've never really considered an Insight check as "a described action." It's something that happens in the background at my table.

Like, for the "searching out a lie" part of the rule. Let's say that there's a conversation between one of the characters in the group and an NPC fisherman, and they are talking about the fish that got away. I might ask someone at the table to roll an Insight check to see if the NPC is being sincere, exaggerating a bit, or outright lying to them. It doesn't cost the character an action, and they don't have to declare it, I just use it as a way to shape the tone of the scene. My response is always something like "the fisherman really believes what he's saying," and never "the fisherman is telling the truth."

And for the "predicting someone's next move" part, I ask a player to roll for Insight in combat to help the party understand their opponent's behavior and to build tension. For example, if their enemy readies an action, or a dragon's breath weapon recharges, I'll ask someone to make an Insight check for free to see if they notice. It doesn't cost the character an action, it's just a way to measure intuition. It's something I do to build tension.

Players that ask for an Insight check are usually doing so because they don't know what questions to ask, or they don't know who to trust, or they just want to resolve a complicated social situation with a single dice roll. And that's...not really what the Insight skill is for. So I consider it to be a request for more information...they are saying "um, could you give us a hint here?" I'll let them roll, but I'll ignore the result and give them more hints about questions they should ask, or which NPCs might be more trustworthy, or what they should expect, etc., to help them move forward.

The most common action that I see described is trying to observe the NPC to see if they have any mannerisms that suggest they are lying. But in a social interaction challenge, there are benefits to be had in discovering the NPC's ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda. If you figure out what they are, then you can play to them to increase your odds of success in getting them to do what you want. So, after interacting with the NPC long enough, you declare an action to determine their ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda, based on what you've observed. If there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, I set a DC and call for a roll.

The only actions that aren't described by players are saving throws because they are not done by choice. If there's no action stated by the player, there's nothing for me to adjudicate and nothing for me to narrate as a result. I can only describe the environment and ask "What do you do?"

 

[Voadam]

I really liked in 3e where feinting was handled by bluff vs. sense motive. Defined mechanic for a defined effect. Same for the old try to sense if someone is manipulated by magic defined dc check.

I don't really care for it as PC lie detector skill.

 

[BookTenTiger]

No matter what rules D&D provides for this, the truth is that they are rules that are aiding communication, and everyone has different communication styles.

Some of my players are really clear with the ability or skill they would like to use. "I'd like to use Persuasion to change his mind." No matter how I reframe it ("Tell me how your character persuades them."), they almost always name a skill or ability because that's how they prefer to communicate their intentions.

Other players prefer to describe their actions and have me interpret it through the rules. "I want to crush the tankard in my hand and give him a death stare."

I feel like my preference is the latter, though I will usually give them some options or invite them to suggest other skills or abilities.

"Okay, that sounds like Intimidation using Strength."

"Could I do an unarmed attack against the mug instead?"

"Sure!"

Or

"If your intention is to frighten them, that really is the Intimidation skill."

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a player issue, not a process issue. One I've never seen after playing with likely hundreds of people over the years.

I've seen it dozens of times.