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

[FrozenNorth]

I don’t see much difference between:

Scenario 1:
PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: Roll Insight.
PC: 20.
DM: He denies it, but you are pretty sure he’s lying.

And:

Scenario 2:
PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: Roll Insight.
PC: 20.
DM: Although he denies it, he refuses to meet your gaze, and he shifts his weight from foot to foot trying to escape the conversation.

Sure, the second scenario is slightly more immersive, but it doesn’t seem that people against the first scenario are objecting on immersion grounds.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don’t see much difference between:

Scenario 1:
PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: Roll Insight.
PC: 20.
DM: He denies it, but you are pretty sure he’s lying.

And:

Scenario 2:
PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: Roll Insight.
PC: 20.
DM: Although he denies it, he refuses to meet your gaze, and he shifts his weight from foot to foot trying to escape the conversation.

Sure, the second scenario is slightly more immersive, but it doesn’t seem that people against the first scenario are objecting on immersion grounds.

I get why some folks think there is not much difference but I do think there is a subtle, if not tangible, difference.

In scenario 2, notably, the DM is not telling the player what the character thinks. The player is free to decide what their character thinks based on the context clues. After all, 5e defines roleplaying as "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." I have found that our table prefers it this way and I, as DM, do my best to not use the word "you" when describing the outcome of the PCs actions in part 3 of the play loop. In other words, it's not my job, as DM, to narrate what the PC thinks.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t see much difference between:

Scenario 1:
PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: Roll Insight.
PC: 20.
DM: He denies it, but you are pretty sure he’s lying.

And:

Scenario 2:
PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: Roll Insight.
PC: 20.
DM: Although he denies it, he refuses to meet your gaze, and he shifts his weight from foot to foot trying to escape the conversation.

Sure, the second scenario is slightly more immersive, but it doesn’t seem that people against the first scenario are objecting on immersion grounds.

I get why some folks think there is not much difference but I do think there is a subtle, if not tangible, difference.

In scenario 2, notably, the DM is not telling the player what the character thinks. The player is free to decide what their character thinks based on the context clues. After all, 5e defines roleplaying as "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." I have found that our table prefers it this way and I, as DM, do my best to not use the word "you" when describing the outcome of the PCs actions in part 3 of the play loop. In other words, it's not my job, as DM, to narrate what the PC thinks.

To me, and based on the reading of the rules ("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"), it seems that there is a third option:

Player: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: He denies it.
Player: I know he's pretty shifty - does he seem to be lying on this occasion?
DM: Roll WIS (insight), DC 15.
Player: 20.
DM: Although he denies it, he refuses to meet your gaze, and he shifts his weight from foot to foot trying to escape the conversation. He's lying to you.
​

The character has determined the NPC's true intentions (ie to deceive by way of a false denial). But the GM isn't narrating something about the PC's mental states. The GM is narrating what the PC perceives (including, on this occasion, the true intentions of the NPC).

 

[payn]

I get why some folks think there is not much difference but I do think there is a subtle, if not tangible, difference.

In scenario 2, notably, the DM is not telling the player what the character thinks. The player is free to decide what their character thinks based on the context clues. After all, 5e defines roleplaying as "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." I have found that our table prefers it this way and I, as DM, do my best to not use the word "you" when describing the outcome of the PCs actions in part 3 of the play loop. In other words, it's not my job, as DM, to narrate what the PC thinks.

I get the hands off approach here, though, I also know some players that wouldnt read between the lines. "You said he was fidgety but not too fidgety!?"

 

[FrozenNorth]

I get why some folks think there is not much difference but I do think there is a subtle, if not tangible, difference.

In scenario 2, notably, the DM is not telling the player what the character thinks. The player is free to decide what their character thinks based on the context clues. After all, 5e defines roleplaying as "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." I have found that our table prefers it this way and I, as DM, do my best to not use the word "you" when describing the outcome of the PCs actions in part 3 of the play loop. In other words, it's not my job, as DM, to narrate what the PC thinks.

If a player felt that my stating « you are pretty sure he is lying » overstepped on his exercise of his character’s agency, I would definitely accommodate them. Absent any indication to the contrary, this seems like a distinction without a difference.

Either way, that doesn’t seem to be the concern of the OP.

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

To me, and based on the reading of the rules ("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"), it seems that there is a third option:

Player: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.​

DM: He denies it.​

Player: I know he's pretty shifty - does he seem to be lying on this occasion?​

DM: Roll WIS (insight), DC 15.​

Player: 20.​

DM: Although he denies it, he refuses to meet your gaze, and he shifts his weight from foot to foot trying to escape the conversation. He's lying to you.​

​

Heh. I was considering yet another alternative.

PC: I ask the shifty thief if he was at the docks last night around midnight.
DM: He says « naughty word you, pig! I’m not answering any of your questions »
PC: I rolled 20 on my insight check.
DM: You gather from context cues that the thief does not want to have intercourse with you, he is simply employing a colourful metaphor.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I've been meaning to try Torchbearer 2e or any of the other indie games, but so far I haven't had the chance. It's hard enough for me to get to play 5E on anything but a sporadic basis!

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.

I haven't played or read 4e, but maybe you could confirm my suspicion that its description of Insight isn't very different from Insight in 5E. The difference, as far as one exists, seems to be, as you imply here, in the resolution framework.

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.

And yet there seems to be no problem with using a Wisdom check to determine whether the DM is obliged to provide players with information about secret doors or game to hunt. I'm not sure what the difference is that leads to complaints about PCs developing mind reading capabilities when it comes to catching someone in a lie.

No worries! I really like that Czege post.

On player protagonism, here's an example from 4e play that involves the Insight skill:
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.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about! Imagine if the GM considered it their job to decide what that final argument had to be. It would be so much less protagonising, not to say less immersive, for the player not to able to author the PC's argument himself.

 

[GreatestHonor]

I use it similar to others here when players target individuals, and use it the same for NPCs, but it also allows my players to determine the general mood and behaviors of groups as well.

For example, a non-Noble character could use Insight to gleam what they should do at gala, or they could use it to pick out unknown individuals from a crowd, such as a hidden leader

 

[pemerton]

And yet there seems to be no problem with using a Wisdom check to determine whether the DM is obliged to provide players with information about secret doors or game to hunt. I'm not sure what the difference is that leads to complaints about PCs developing mind reading capabilities when it comes to catching someone in a lie.

Your question/puzzlement makes sense to me. I've got no sensible answer to offer!

I haven't played or read 4e, but maybe you could confirm my suspicion that its description of Insight isn't very different from Insight in 5E. The difference, as far as one exists, seems to be, as you imply here, in the resolution framework.

From the PHB (p 185):

You can discern intent and decipher body language during social interactions. You make an Insight check to comprehend motives, to read between the lines, to get a sense of moods and attitudes, and to determine how truthful someone is being.

You use Insight to counter a Bluff check, and Insight is used as the social counterpart to the Perception skill. In skill challenges that require a number of successes, use Insight checks to oppose someone’s Bluff checks. Insight can also be used to gain clues, figure out how well you might be doing in a social situation, and to determine if someone is under the influence of an outside force.

Whenever you use Insight, you’re making a best guess as to what you think a motive or attitude is or how truthful a target is being. Insight is not an exact science or a supernatural power; it represents your ability to get a sense of how a person is behaving.​

The opening sentence makes it clear that it is not about noticing body language, but deciphering it so as to discern intent. The final paragraph, as well as the references to "get[ting] a sense of moods and attitudes" and "gaining clues", helps - at least in my mind - to elaborate how the GM might invite or even prompt Insight checks in a skill challenge, and narrate consequences for those checks.

The Rules Compendium text is basically identical (p 147):

The Insight skill is used to discern intent and decipher body language during social interactions. Characters use the skill to comprehend motives, to read between the lines, to get a sense of moods and attitudes, and to determine how truthful someone is being. (Monsters rarely use Insight.)

Insight is used to oppose Bluff checks and as the social counterpart to the Perception skill. The skill can also be used to gain clues, to figure out how well a social situation is going, and to determine if someone is under the influence of an outside force.

When a creature uses Insight, it is making a best guess about another creature’s motives and truthfulness. Insight is not an exact science or a supernatural power; it represents the ability to get a sense of how a person is behaving.​

To me, that suggests that WotC did not identify any particular problems with the Insight skill over the (relatively short) life of the edition.

 

[Hriston]

@pemerton , I'm a little surprised at how detailed and explicit the 4e text is. It even addresses the "supernatural power" question many seem to have and makes things that much clearer!