Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight

[S'mon]

I've previously said I don't like Passive Insight, it doesn't make sense to me - I'm strongly of the view that NPCs can't force PCs to believe them through a Bluff check, which IMO is the only situation where it would make sense to have NPCs rolling Bluff vs PC Passive Insight - that's how it works when PCs try to bluff NPCs.

I was listening to a bit of the Chris Perkins/Robot Chicken game on youtube and I noticed that Perkins doesn't use it either. He was playing the quest-giver NPC, the players were sceptical of her motivations.

Perkins:
"If you doubt her, you can make an Insight check to see if you think she's telling the truth."

*roll roll*

"With a 16, you're pretty sure she's not lying to you."

I think this is a good approach. It's close to how I've done it, and a good reminder to the DM to remind players that they can choose to use skills like Insight which often get overlooked.

But one issue is, how do you set the Insight DC when the NPC is not Bluffing? I'd probably default to a DC 15, 10 if there was plenty of supporting evidence the NPC was trustworthy, 20 if the PCs had good reason to distrust the NPC. And what if they fail the check? I think the answer should not be "They're lying", more something like "You don't know/You can't get a reading on her".

Thoughts?

 

[Zaphling]

Pretty much I do the same thing. If the NPC is really hiding something from them, I set it to a hard DC. If the npc is telling them the truth, it's an easy DC. A normal DC is neither of the two.

 

[delericho]

I'm strongly of the view that NPCs can't force PCs to believe them through a Bluff check, which IMO is the only situation where it would make sense to have NPCs rolling Bluff vs PC Passive Insight - that's how it works when PCs try to bluff NPCs.

I'd be inclined to use Passive Insight also as a "something is wrong here" flag - especially when dealing with several NPCs with competing motivations and stuff going on below the surface.

I was listening to a bit of the Chris Perkins/Robot Chicken game on youtube and I noticed that Perkins doesn't use it either. He was playing the quest-giver NPC, the players were sceptical of her motivations.

Perkins:
"If you doubt her, you can make an Insight check to see if you think she's telling the truth."

Interesting...

But one issue is, how do you set the Insight DC when the NPC is not Bluffing?

Set it as a Hard DC (since the PCs have to overcome their own skepticism), but give them a +2 for NPC doing an "Aid Another" - for convenience, just allow the NPC to auto-succeed that roll. (If I'm actually being serious, then I would instead use the Medium DC, rather than Hard.)

And what if they fail the check? I think the answer should not be "They're lying", more something like "You don't know/You can't get a reading on her".

If they succeed, they get "you're pretty sure she's on the level." If they narrowly fail, "you can't tell." If they fail by 5 or more, they get a false result, "you're pretty sure she's lying."

 

[lostingeneral]

I'd be inclined to use Passive Insight also as a "something is wrong here" flag - especially when dealing with several NPCs with competing motivations and stuff going on below the surface.

I use it for this as well, but for me it mainly comes up for the "recognize an effect as illusory" aspect of Insight, and occasionally for "recognize outside influence."

 

[RHGreen]

It wasn't Passive Insight because it wasn't passive. They actively said they didn't trust her, hence the roll. The DM should be telling them when they need to roll. The players shouldn't be telling the DM when they are going to roll.

The reason you wont hear him use a Passive check is because it would sound silly if he said "You passively succeed at insight and think she might be lying." He would just say "You think she is lying."

 

[S'mon]

The reason you wont hear him use a Passive check is because it would sound silly if he said "You passively succeed at insight and think she might be lying." He would just say "You think she is lying."

What, you think that if they failed on passive insight he'd tell them "You think she is telling the truth" when she is actually lying?

 

[delericho]

What, you think that if they failed on passive insight he'd tell them "You think she is telling the truth" when she is actually lying?

No.

If she is lying, and her Bluff fails to beat their Passive Insight, I would expect CP to say, "you think she is lying."

If she is lying, and her Bluff beats their PI, I would expect CP to say nothing. If the players ask, they can then roll active Insight.

If she is telling the truth, I would expect CP to say nothing. If the players ask, they can then roll active Insight.

Basically, Passive Insight is a flag indicating "something to see here" - the DM only says something if it is triggered. If there is nothing to see, or if the NPC beats PI using Bluff (or whatever), the DM shouldn't say anything.

 

[S'mon]

No.

If she is lying, and her Bluff fails to beat their Passive Insight, I would expect CP to say, "you think she is lying."

If she is lying, and her Bluff beats their PI, I would expect CP to say nothing. If the players ask, they can then roll active Insight.

So there's a strong pro-player bias here, because that's not how it works when you try to Bluff NPCs.

 

[delericho]

So there's a strong pro-player bias here, because that's not how it works when you try to Bluff NPCs.

True. I'm not sure if that's a big problem, though.

Social skills are always going to be at least a bit awkward when applied to PCs - and even worse comes when one PC uses them against another!

 

[MortalPlague]

If they succeed, they get "you're pretty sure she's on the level." If they narrowly fail, "you can't tell." If they fail by 5 or more, they get a false result, "you're pretty sure she's lying."

I always hate the idea of PCs getting a 'false reading' from insight. As a player, you know you've botched the check. But then you have to run the conversation from a position of obvious misinformation. The players then try to bring the conversation around to a point where they can make another insight check, to hopefully get things right this time...