D&D 5E How do you handle Insight in your game?

[Umbran]

For the better players, I will mostly remind them of something they missed or did not get. The goal here is not make them better players so they don't need to roll next time.

That is assuming that the issue is that the players were the ones who weren't good enough....

GMs are not perfect, and the "clues" they may remember to put in their presentation are often not nearly so indicative as they may think. Insight then works as a way for the player to seek more information that the GM either didn't give, or didn't give effectively.

 

[Charlaquin]

I will say that most players I have played with have this expectation that Insight is basically lie detection. That with a single roll you can immediate glean the second an NPC tells a fib. I would say out of all skills in the game, insight is probably the most inflated on what it should be capable of in players heads (number 2 being persuasion.....aka no I don't care that you got a 30 you cannot convince the NPC just die for you).

I am curious how people generally use insight in their games.

I like to think of lies as the traps of the social pillar, and Isight as the equivalent of Investigation in that context. During social encounters, if an NPC lies, there should be some sort of telegraph or other indication for the players to interact with. For example, describing a visible sign of nervousness like the NPC’s eyes darting around quickly, beads of sweat on their brow, stuttering, etc. mix it up and intersperse other descriptions of the NPC’s behavior throughout the encounter so as to not make it too obvious that, say, every time you describe an NPC sweating it means they’re lying. But, let those telegraphs serve as an opportunity for the players to declare actions such as carefully watching the NPC’s body language for signs of deception. I still wouldn’t directly tell a player “you can tell the NPC is lying,” but if the player declares an appropriate action and passes an appropriate check (10 + CHA + Deception being a pretty good baseline), I’d give the player the NPC’s emotional state, which should be a decent indication of if they are lying.

I also allow Insight to be used to determine things like an NPC’s personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. Those aren’t formal things any more in he 2024 rules, but you can still tell players similar details about an NPC’s motivating characteristics.

 

[GrimCo]

I straight up tell my players that Insight isn't lie detector and if they intend to use it that way, they shouldn't bother to take it as a skill. It's body language reading skill. It can give you some clues, but interpretation of those clues is up to players. It has it uses in social interaction (you can tell if someone is nervous, agitated, bored etc).

 

[AnotherGuy]

Similar to @Shadowdweller00
You pick up conversational cues, peculiar omissions, strange wordage, peculiar behaviour, physical changes, concealed emotions, as well as any ideals, bonds and flaws if they work as being revealed in the fiction.

 

[Blue]

What is the character looking for? They can get vibes, current emotional state, obvious hostility or friendliness, and that sort of thing in general. For specifics they can "how do they react to Brandor telling them about the slavers?", "did they seem sure or guessing about that" or yes, the "do they seem to be telling the truth".

 

[Blue]

I straight up tell my players that Insight isn't lie detector and if they intend to use it that way, they shouldn't bother to take it as a skill. It's body language reading skill. It can give you some clues, but interpretation of those clues is up to players. It has it uses in social interaction (you can tell if someone is nervous, agitated, bored etc).

I'm fine with this as long as it's the same as other character skills -- they player doesn't need to be able to actually track in the wilderness, actually play an instrument, or actually interpret the body language. It's the character doing that, who explicitly does know how because they are proficient in it.

 

[Hriston]

Here’s how I “use” Insight (IMG):

If a player declares an action to look/listen for clues as to the hidden true intentions of an NPC, and it’s plausible/"in genre" for the game both that the PC could notice such clues and that the NPC could have such intentions, and it's uncertain whether such intention revealing clues will be noticed and there's something at stake hinging upon the PC's ability to do so such that I call for a Wisdom check to determine the success or failure of the action, AND the PC is proficient in Insight, then the player can add the PC's proficiency bonus to the roll.

 

[pemerton]

Here’s how I “use” Insight (IMG):

If a player declares an action to look/listen for clues as to the hidden true intentions of an NPC, and it’s plausible/"in genre" for the game both that the PC could notice such clues and that the NPC could have such intentions, and it's uncertain whether such intention revealing clues will be noticed and there's something at stake hinging upon the PC's ability to do so such that I call for a Wisdom check to determine the success or failure of the action, AND the PC is proficient in Insight, then the player can add the PC's proficiency bonus to the roll.

Just building on this, here is the description of the skill (from D&D Beyond):

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.​

So if a player declares an action for their PC, that they are studying the body language and mannerisms of a NPC in order to discern their true intention, including in order to notice a lie, then - subject to the general rules for ability checks, as per your ( @Hriston's) post - it seems that the GM should set a DC and call for a check. And if the check succeeds, then the PC has determined the creature/NPC's true intentions, and the GM would then tell the player what those are.

I don't see why a check is needed to notice if someone is sweating, or stuttering, or whatever - if you have your PC look for that, presumably you PC just notices it! The point of the skill, as per its description, is to decide whether or not the PC can determine the other party's true intentions.

 

[GMMichael]

And if the check succeeds, then the PC has determined the creature/NPC's true intentions, and the GM would then tell the player what those are.

So the duke's valet dropped a bag on the ground and almost spilled its contents. He gathered it up quickly, but looked nervous about it, so a PC shouts "I'm rolling Insight! What are his intentions?" And the DM has to say, "welp, he's sleeping with the duke's boyfriend?"

I don't see why a check is needed to notice if someone is sweating, or stuttering, or whatever - if you have your PC look for that, presumably you PC just notices it!

I'd assume that the amount of sweating/stuttering is almost undetectable. Hence, roll to see who's detecting well. But the DM shouldn't put an important element in the story and then not tell anyone, so if she writes in her session notes, "Jorge sweats when he lies," then yeah, just tell one of the PCs about it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I feel it should also be used to tell if someone is charmed, dominated or, otherwise, not acting natural (maybe they're scared because there's a murderer in their closet, holding their kid hostage and they're tryin to 'act normal' - as an example). Obviously, this will be easier if you've interacted with the person before to be able to notice a difference.

Also, it can be a good way to figure out what drives a character. So, over a long conversation, you might glean their ideal or bond or whatever. Essentially, if a player is trying to learn more about an npc, you can handwaive an entire conversation that might take place over an hour or evening, and turn it into a skill test to see if they learn anything. This can make it useful for making persuasion checks easier in the future or getting leads.