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 LIVE! 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="Balesir" data-source="post: 5728417" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>I think there is a pitfall, here. Unless there are actual inconsistencies or fallacies known to the player in what the DM says, the player has an opportunity to tell if the <strong><em>DM</em></strong> is lying, <em>not the NPC</em>. In cases where the NPC is simply ignorant of developments, or is him/herself deceived, this may be particularly relevant. Insight, to me, is skill in "reading" another - spotting tells, body language and natural physiological reactions to stress and deceit. It will not detect an untruth told by a character who sincerely believes what they are saying to be true. That is, it will detect when the <em>character</em> is lying, not when the <em>DM</em> is lying (or otherwise under stress or deceiving the players).</p><p></p><p>I don't find this implausible at all. I have occasionally noticed when people are being evasive or even deceitful, even when I had no particular reason to be suspicious; I suspect that many parents and teachers have done likewise, and possibly many in business jobs and so on, too. There are some people who flush bright red when they tell even a small lie - this represents a natural "trait" that gives penalties to Bluff that D&D characters don't have!</p><p></p><p>If a person is <em>deliberately</em> trying to deceive, they <strong>will</strong> give out measurable physiological and possibly physical signals as a result of the stress. The only questions are how subtle they manage to make those signs (represented by their Bluff skill, modified by how "big" a lie they are trying to tell) and how good the recipient is at detecting those signs (their Insight skill, modified by how alert and suspicious they are). Some of the circumstances of each case may be obvious - and can be represented by die/DC modifiers. Other circumstances will be unknown - and are represented by the die roll.</p><p></p><p>The way I run it is the NPC makes the bluff vs. Passive Insight check, yes. If they fail, I tell the player that something seems amiss - they are nervous/seem evasive/look guilty or whatever. If the player asks for an Insight check, I roll it for them (since the unknown factors represented by the die roll are, to them and their character, just that - unknown). Otherwise, I give no overt indication that there is reason to doubt the NPC - in fact, I try to do as good a job of "lying in character" as I can.</p><p></p><p>As DM I have a priviledged position; I have to know most of what the PCs do and plan in order to perform my "DM-ly functions". I therefore know things the NPCs don't. If there are facts that I know the NPC knows that what the PCs claim contradicts, the NPC at a minimum gets an Insight roll (or just gets defensive). If the PC's roll beats their Insight, though, they are oblivious - but the PC always has to roll, to account for the "stress signals" that they will inevitably be giving off.</p><p></p><p>As I mentioned, I explicitly don't (unless, perhaps, the NPC is unusually stupid and trying to bluff, anyway). I try to do as "professional" a job as possible to maintain the "illusion" in play. If I fail, so be it but I will probably at least try to have the players ignore a lapse that is, after all, mine, not the NPC's. I will also make it clear that what Insight detects is whether or not the NPC <em>believes what they are saying to be true</em> - it's not some sort of objective truth finder.</p><p></p><p>This strikes me as unfair. The player does not have the feedback available to the character. In a study of what job interviewers took note of when assessing the value/veracity of interviewees' responses, the proportions were as follows:</p><p></p><p>"Visual" cues - body language, etc. = 55%</p><p>"Vocal" cues - tone, intonation, inflection, etc. = 38%</p><p>"Verbal" cues - what was actually said = 7%</p><p></p><p>If this is accurate, what the player has available to be suspicious about will be, even if in-character speaking is used throughout, 7% of the actual information available to the character - plus a bunch of spurious feedback based on a human being only peripherally connected to the character their PC is actually dealing with. Even assuming what is desired is a simulation, that's not what I would call even a mediocre simulation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5728417, member: 27160"] I think there is a pitfall, here. Unless there are actual inconsistencies or fallacies known to the player in what the DM says, the player has an opportunity to tell if the [B][I]DM[/I][/B] is lying, [I]not the NPC[/I]. In cases where the NPC is simply ignorant of developments, or is him/herself deceived, this may be particularly relevant. Insight, to me, is skill in "reading" another - spotting tells, body language and natural physiological reactions to stress and deceit. It will not detect an untruth told by a character who sincerely believes what they are saying to be true. That is, it will detect when the [I]character[/I] is lying, not when the [I]DM[/I] is lying (or otherwise under stress or deceiving the players). I don't find this implausible at all. I have occasionally noticed when people are being evasive or even deceitful, even when I had no particular reason to be suspicious; I suspect that many parents and teachers have done likewise, and possibly many in business jobs and so on, too. There are some people who flush bright red when they tell even a small lie - this represents a natural "trait" that gives penalties to Bluff that D&D characters don't have! If a person is [I]deliberately[/I] trying to deceive, they [B]will[/B] give out measurable physiological and possibly physical signals as a result of the stress. The only questions are how subtle they manage to make those signs (represented by their Bluff skill, modified by how "big" a lie they are trying to tell) and how good the recipient is at detecting those signs (their Insight skill, modified by how alert and suspicious they are). Some of the circumstances of each case may be obvious - and can be represented by die/DC modifiers. Other circumstances will be unknown - and are represented by the die roll. The way I run it is the NPC makes the bluff vs. Passive Insight check, yes. If they fail, I tell the player that something seems amiss - they are nervous/seem evasive/look guilty or whatever. If the player asks for an Insight check, I roll it for them (since the unknown factors represented by the die roll are, to them and their character, just that - unknown). Otherwise, I give no overt indication that there is reason to doubt the NPC - in fact, I try to do as good a job of "lying in character" as I can. As DM I have a priviledged position; I have to know most of what the PCs do and plan in order to perform my "DM-ly functions". I therefore know things the NPCs don't. If there are facts that I know the NPC knows that what the PCs claim contradicts, the NPC at a minimum gets an Insight roll (or just gets defensive). If the PC's roll beats their Insight, though, they are oblivious - but the PC always has to roll, to account for the "stress signals" that they will inevitably be giving off. As I mentioned, I explicitly don't (unless, perhaps, the NPC is unusually stupid and trying to bluff, anyway). I try to do as "professional" a job as possible to maintain the "illusion" in play. If I fail, so be it but I will probably at least try to have the players ignore a lapse that is, after all, mine, not the NPC's. I will also make it clear that what Insight detects is whether or not the NPC [I]believes what they are saying to be true[/I] - it's not some sort of objective truth finder. This strikes me as unfair. The player does not have the feedback available to the character. In a study of what job interviewers took note of when assessing the value/veracity of interviewees' responses, the proportions were as follows: "Visual" cues - body language, etc. = 55% "Vocal" cues - tone, intonation, inflection, etc. = 38% "Verbal" cues - what was actually said = 7% If this is accurate, what the player has available to be suspicious about will be, even if in-character speaking is used throughout, 7% of the actual information available to the character - plus a bunch of spurious feedback based on a human being only peripherally connected to the character their PC is actually dealing with. Even assuming what is desired is a simulation, that's not what I would call even a mediocre simulation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight
Top