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

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.
Right, the clue-gleaning is there to provide an explanation in the fiction for how the previously hidden/undetermined true intentions are now revealed/determined, but, at the table, the clue-gleaning and the intention-determining resulting from a successful check are one and the same. I don't think a success ought to result in the PC noticing some clues of which the player is then expected to puzzle out the meaning. Personally, if I was hiding some information about an NPC's intentions, I would put the "clues" out there for all to see in my description of the NPC, so the players could engage with that aspect of the encounter. But more often than not, an NPC's intentions are truly left "undetermined", and the result of such a check is what actually determines them or forces me to in the absence of a suggestion from the player.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?"
Why would a PC shout "I'm rolling Insight"? Is the PC playing a game of D&D, in the fiction?

If you mean the player, well as I understand how 5e works - and again, as per @Hriston's post upthread - the player has to declare an action. If the action they declare is that they're studying the valet to try and understand, from body language, mannerisms, etc what his true intentions and next move might be, then - again, subject to the general rules for the use of ability checks - that GM should set a DC.

Because a "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 . . . [by] gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms", the check to beat that DC would be made using WIS (Insight).

If it succeeds the PC would be able to determine whether the valet dropped the bag accidently or on purpose (say, to distract someone or send a signal to someone), and would also work out (for instance) if the valet is concealing something unusual in the bag, or seems to be anxious because they're taking the bag to someone who shouldn't be receiving 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.
I don't understand this apparent obsession, among 5e GMs, of house-ruling (or just ignoring) the rules around the Insight skill and WIS (Insight) checks.

Right, the clue-gleaning is there to provide an explanation in the fiction for how the previously hidden/undetermined true intentions are now revealed/determined, but, at the table, the clue-gleaning and the intention-determining resulting from a successful check are one and the same. I don't think a success ought to result in the PC noticing some clues of which the player is then expected to puzzle out the meaning.
Agreed. As I just posted, I don't understand what seems to be the widespread practice of not following the actual rules for the skill, and instead applying it to determine whether the PC notices body language, speech habits, changes in mannerisms, etc which the player then has to interpret.

But more often than not, an NPC's intentions are truly left "undetermined", and the result of such a check is what actually determines them or forces me to in the absence of a suggestion from the player.
On the other hand, this - to me - seems a bit of a departure from "mainstream" D&D-ish techniques (which I think assume the GM has worked out the intentions in advance) to something more "indie-ish". It reminds me of the following from Paul Czege (posted decades ago now):

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

I'm not criticising, by the way - this is a technique that I've used a lot, ever since I read the Czege post. But I've often found accounts of this technique to generate controversy among ENworld posters.
 

@Hriston

If it's OK, I have a question about your techniques for adjudication of WIS (Insight) checks. In the example of the valet from @GMMichael's post that I replied to, what would be a reasonable narration of failure?

In my default approach (which is heavily informed by Burning Wheel and similar RPGs), I would consider it a reasonable consequence to have something adverse happen to the PC as a result of them stopping and scrutinising the valet - maybe they make an enemy of the valet, or maybe someone comes along and makes fun of them, or maybe when they get outside they find that their horse has been taken, or that some important event has occurred without them, because they got distracted and hence time has passed.

Would you do this sort of thing in 5e D&D?
 

I roll insight for the player, so they don't know what the dice said. If it's a natural 20, I might say something like "You're very sure this guy is telling the truth." But I might say the same if it's a natural 1 and the guy is lying.
 

Why would a PC shout "I'm rolling Insight"? Is the PC playing a game of D&D, in the fiction?
The character could, but I would expect it more from a PC.

If you mean the player, well as I understand how 5e works - and again, as per @Hriston's post upthread - the player has to declare an action. If the action they declare is that they're studying the valet to try and understand, from body language, mannerisms, etc what his true intentions and next move might be, then - again, subject to the general rules for the use of ability checks - that GM should set a DC. . .
From the sound of it, neither of us is married to D&D enough to worry too much about it . . .

I don't understand this apparent obsession, among 5e GMs, of house-ruling (or just ignoring) the rules around the Insight skill and WIS (Insight) checks.

Agreed. As I just posted, I don't understand what seems to be the widespread practice of not following the actual rules for the skill, and instead applying it to determine whether the PC notices body language, speech habits, changes in mannerisms, etc which the player then has to interpret.
Are you reading it as, "roll insight to notice mannerisms?" Because I'm reading it as, "roll insight to determine intentions." Which is a bit too close to mind reading for me, so I treat the skill as the get-a-hunch skill.
 

@Hriston

If it's OK, I have a question about your techniques for adjudication of WIS (Insight) checks. In the example of the valet from @GMMichael's post that I replied to, what would be a reasonable narration of failure?

In my default approach (which is heavily informed by Burning Wheel and similar RPGs), I would consider it a reasonable consequence to have something adverse happen to the PC as a result of them stopping and scrutinising the valet - maybe they make an enemy of the valet, or maybe someone comes along and makes fun of them, or maybe when they get outside they find that their horse has been taken, or that some important event has occurred without them, because they got distracted and hence time has passed.

Would you do this sort of thing in 5e D&D?
Yes, I try to have a "meaningful consequence for failure" in mind before I call for a check and will usually share it with the players before the roll takes place. When done right, it's something that follows from the PC's action and the general situation. What comes to mind is the PC's scrutiny could shift the valet's attitude towards the negative with attendant consequences. If, for example, the valet is really sleeping with the duke's boyfriend, with the possibility of the duke being a jealous sort, the valet might go to some length to guard their secret up to taking violent or punitive action against those who seem to suspect them. Whatever the consequence, I think it should affect the immediate situation. If time pressure is relevant or something else is at stake, I would try to increase tension in that direction.
 

Does anyone use and opposed Deception check by the NPC? The player rolls a 15 Insight, but I roll to bluff him with a Deception check and get a 20. Then I can tell the player anything I want, including he is telling the truth or he is telling something, but you also think there is more. This gives a sliding bar to let the players know there may be more, or he thinks he is being truthful. Maybe I roll a 14 Deception, then the PCs might find out he is being vague, but not lying.
 

Agreed. As I just posted, I don't understand what seems to be the widespread practice of not following the actual rules for the skill, and instead applying it to determine whether the PC notices body language, speech habits, changes in mannerisms, etc which the player then has to interpret.
I can only speak for myself, but as a 5E DM, I'm reluctant to describe the interior mental state of a PC, limiting myself to things outside the PCs. So a result narrated as "you think the NPC is lying" is something I would avoid, instead describing that the NPC has a tell that indicates lying, providing the "interpretation" as something objective about the NPC and the fiction. Perhaps this is the sort of concern some other 5E DMs have because implementation of a success with the skill as written requires some backfilling of the fiction to explain how knowledge of the deception is imparted, and I think I might just be more comfortable providing that sort of backfilling.

On the other hand, this - to me - seems a bit of a departure from "mainstream" D&D-ish techniques (which I think assume the GM has worked out the intentions in advance) to something more "indie-ish". It reminds me of the following from Paul Czege (posted decades ago now):

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

I'm not criticising, by the way - this is a technique that I've used a lot, ever since I read the Czege post. But I've often found accounts of this technique to generate controversy among ENworld posters.
Thanks for the link to the discussion of scene framing! It's great stuff. I began using a "low-myth" approach to increase PC protagonism in my games after reading about it on these boards despite the controversy!
 
Last edited:

Player: I give the creature my reply and look to see if it's being deceptive!

DM: The creature appears to pay attention to what it is you have to say, then wiggles its antennae at you.
 

I can only speak for myself, but as a 5E DM, I'm reluctant to describe the interior mental state of a PC, limiting myself to things outside the PCs. So a result narrated as "you think the NPC is lying" is something I would avoid, instead describing that the NPC has a tell that indicates lying, providing the "interpretation" as something objective about the NPC and the fiction.
I can see this.

Over the past little while I've been mostly GMing Torchbearer 2,e, which (i) doesn't really have an Insight-type skill but (ii) isn't averse to the GM sometimes (when the rules for consequences permit) stating propositions about PC internal states, and so I haven't had to worry about the issue you describe.

Back when I was GMing a lot of 4e D&D, Insight did come up quite a bit. I don't have a clear memory of any canonical approach that I took - because it would mostly be in the context of skill challenges, my narration would have been pretty contextual. But again, I doubt that I was overly concerned about the particular boundary you describe.

Perhaps this is the sort of concern some other 5E DMs have because implementation of a success with the skill as written requires some backfilling of the fiction to explain how knowledge of the deception is imparted, and I think I might just be more comfortable providing that sort of backfilling.
Perhaps. My impression, from this thread as well as other similar ones, is that many 5e GMs seem to dislike the use of Insight as a way to oblige the GM to provide the player with scenario-relevant information.

Thanks for the link to the discussion of scene framing! It's great stuff. I began using a "low-myth" approach to increase PC protagonism in my games after reading about it on these boards despite the controversy!
No worries! I really like that Czege post.

On player protagonism, here's an example from 4e play that involves the Insight skill:
Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

The player of the eternal defender had already noted that, when I read out the description of maruts and their contracts earlier in the session, the only being actually mentioned by name was the Raven Queen. So he predicted (more-or-less in line with what I had in mind), that the maruts observing the tarrasque would be there at the behest of the Raven Queen (who is served by three of the five PCs), to stop it being interfered with.

When the PCs then took their Tower to confront the tarrasque, that was indeed what they found. Upon arriving at the tarrasque's location they found the tarrasque being warded by a group of maruts who explained that, in accordance with a contract made with the Raven Queen millenia ago, they were there to ensure the realisation of the end times, and to stop anyone interfering with the tarrasque as an engine of this destruction and a herald of the beginning of the end times and the arrival of the Dusk War.

(Why the Raven Queen wants the Dusk War has not fully come to light, other than that it seems part of her plan to realise her own ultimate godhood. One idea I had follows in sblocks.)

[sblock]With Ometh dead, it seems possible that those souls who have passed over the Bridge that May be Traversed But Once might be able to return - repopulating a world remade following the Dusk War and the restoration of the Lattice of Heaven.[/sblock]

I wasn't sure exactly what the players would do here. They could try and fight the maruts, obviously, but I thought the Raven Queen devotees might be hesitant to do so. I had envisaged that the PCs might try to persuade them that the contract was invalid in some way - and this idea was mentioned at the table, together with the related idea of the various exarchs of the Raven Queen in the party trying to lay down the law. In particular I had thought that the paladin of the Raven Queen, who is a Marshall of Letherna (in effect, one of the Raven Queen's most powerful servants), might try to exercise his authority to annual or vary the contract in some fashion.

But instead the argument developed along different lines. What the players did was to persuade the maruts that the time for fulfillment of their contract had not yet arisen, because this visitation of the tarrasque was not yet a sign of the Dusk War. (Mechanically, these were social skill checks, history and religions checks, etc, in a skill challenge to persuade the maruts.)

The player of the Eternal Defender PC made only one action in this skill challenge - explaining that it was not the end times, because he was there to defeat the tarrasque (and got another successful intimidate check, after spending an action point to reroll his initial fail) - before launching himself from the flying tower onto the tarrasque and proceeding to whittle away around 600 of its hit points over two rounds. (There were also two successful out-of-turn attacks from the ranger and the paladin, who were spending their on-turn actions in negotiating with the maruts.)

The invoker/wizard was able to point to this PC's successful solo-ing of the tarrasque as evidence that the tarrasque, at least on this occasion, could not be the harbinger of the end times whom the maruts were contracted to protect, because it clearly lacked the capacity to ravage the world. The maruts agreed with this point - clearly they had misunderstood the timing of celestial events - and the PCs therefore had carte blanche to finish of the tarrasque. (Mechanically, this was the final success in the skill challenge: the player rolled Insight to see what final argument would sway the maruts, knowing that only one success was needed. He succeeded. I invited him to then state the relevant argument.)
In the context of a skill challenge, with its closed resolution framework and corresponding lack of dependence on high-detail GM pre-authorship, allowing the player to determine something that makes sense of what his PC had intuited (mechanically, via successful use of the Insight skill) worked pretty nicely.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top