Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5727730" data-attributes="member: 61155"><p>I'm not sure that approach actually implies the lack of Passive Insight. </p><p> </p><p>My approach has always been that I might roll against Passive Insight if a PC is being lied to and the <em>player </em>is not suspicious. Basically, a high enough insight means the player gets a 'heads-up' when something is off about what they are being told. </p><p> </p><p>If the PC, however, is suspicious in their own right, they can certainly attempt an Insight check to try and get a sense for whether they are dealing with deecption or not. </p><p> </p><p>And, regardless of their result, the player can always come to their own conclusions. Even if everything they are told <em>sounds </em>smooth and reasonable, if they really are convinced they are being told a lie, they can certain react accordingly. </p><p> </p><p>How precisely do you want to handle things in the absence of Passive Insight? I can only see two real approaches, and neither one is especially good: </p><p> </p><p>1) Whenever an NPC lies to the PCs, you don't roll Bluff. Unless the PCs actively state they are suspicious and ask to roll Insight, the NPC does not need to roll anything in order to lie, and even the most insightful PCs don't have any way to note inconsistencies. </p><p> </p><p>I suppose this can work in a campaign heavily driven by player skill, and which PC skills are intentionally marginalized. A really good DM will be able to pepper falsehoods with clues and inconsistencies that the PCs can pick up on, at which point they might ask to roll Insight to figure out what is going on. </p><p> </p><p>Or, as I suspect is more likely to be the case, once PCs realize that Passive Insight is out the picture, they turn to the need to analyze everything, and will request to roll Insight checks against everything they are told, just in case. Which tends to slow things down to a crawl, while offering no real benefit. </p><p> </p><p>2) Whenever an NPC lies to PCs, you roll Bluff, and ask them to roll Insight. And when they all fail their rolls, you kindly ask them to just ignore the fact that they rolled that, and hope that even though the PCs are clueless, the players now totally know that something is going on. </p><p> </p><p>A DM might be able to remove that by throwing lots of 'false' insight checks at the group, just to keep them on their feet, and so they never know which ones are real. But clever PCs can still often figure out from context, and either way - again, you end up slowing things down for no real benefit. </p><p> </p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>I like Passive Insight. I just think you need to use it properly, and from your post, the problem may have been that you aren't doing so. As noted above, the excerpt from Chris Perkin's game does not in any way go against Passive Insight - the second that players become skeptical and indicate they have doubts, the 'passive' part has <em>already gone out the window</em>. </p><p> </p><p>It is exactly the same as Perception. If PCs are traveling down a road, and someone is hiding in the bushes watching them, I'll roll against their Passive Perception to see if they notice. Or if they are walking past a clearing with valuable herbs in it, I'll check their Passive Perception to see if they notice. </p><p> </p><p>But if the scout says, "Hey, I'm looking around for anyone planning to ambush us", or "Hey, I take a closer look at that nearby clearing", then we are into active checks, and the scout actively rolls Perception. </p><p> </p><p>Same exact thing. If an NPC lies to PCs, I roll Bluff against Passive Insight. If they see a group of people who are acting strangely, I'll check their Passive Insight to see if they notice. Whereas if they actively express suspicion about her or are actively curious about the unusual behavior, they go ahead and roll their checks directly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5727730, member: 61155"] I'm not sure that approach actually implies the lack of Passive Insight. My approach has always been that I might roll against Passive Insight if a PC is being lied to and the [I]player [/I]is not suspicious. Basically, a high enough insight means the player gets a 'heads-up' when something is off about what they are being told. If the PC, however, is suspicious in their own right, they can certainly attempt an Insight check to try and get a sense for whether they are dealing with deecption or not. And, regardless of their result, the player can always come to their own conclusions. Even if everything they are told [I]sounds [/I]smooth and reasonable, if they really are convinced they are being told a lie, they can certain react accordingly. How precisely do you want to handle things in the absence of Passive Insight? I can only see two real approaches, and neither one is especially good: 1) Whenever an NPC lies to the PCs, you don't roll Bluff. Unless the PCs actively state they are suspicious and ask to roll Insight, the NPC does not need to roll anything in order to lie, and even the most insightful PCs don't have any way to note inconsistencies. I suppose this can work in a campaign heavily driven by player skill, and which PC skills are intentionally marginalized. A really good DM will be able to pepper falsehoods with clues and inconsistencies that the PCs can pick up on, at which point they might ask to roll Insight to figure out what is going on. Or, as I suspect is more likely to be the case, once PCs realize that Passive Insight is out the picture, they turn to the need to analyze everything, and will request to roll Insight checks against everything they are told, just in case. Which tends to slow things down to a crawl, while offering no real benefit. 2) Whenever an NPC lies to PCs, you roll Bluff, and ask them to roll Insight. And when they all fail their rolls, you kindly ask them to just ignore the fact that they rolled that, and hope that even though the PCs are clueless, the players now totally know that something is going on. A DM might be able to remove that by throwing lots of 'false' insight checks at the group, just to keep them on their feet, and so they never know which ones are real. But clever PCs can still often figure out from context, and either way - again, you end up slowing things down for no real benefit. [B]Conclusion: [/B]I like Passive Insight. I just think you need to use it properly, and from your post, the problem may have been that you aren't doing so. As noted above, the excerpt from Chris Perkin's game does not in any way go against Passive Insight - the second that players become skeptical and indicate they have doubts, the 'passive' part has [I]already gone out the window[/I]. It is exactly the same as Perception. If PCs are traveling down a road, and someone is hiding in the bushes watching them, I'll roll against their Passive Perception to see if they notice. Or if they are walking past a clearing with valuable herbs in it, I'll check their Passive Perception to see if they notice. But if the scout says, "Hey, I'm looking around for anyone planning to ambush us", or "Hey, I take a closer look at that nearby clearing", then we are into active checks, and the scout actively rolls Perception. Same exact thing. If an NPC lies to PCs, I roll Bluff against Passive Insight. If they see a group of people who are acting strangely, I'll check their Passive Insight to see if they notice. Whereas if they actively express suspicion about her or are actively curious about the unusual behavior, they go ahead and roll their checks directly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight
Top