D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Ashrym]

I'm not a fan of Insight as a lie detector test. And that's what it usually boils down to. If the player rolls a 20 they expect to be told a PC is lying or not. I prefer to use the Insight checks to give them hunches or clues as to the NPCs mindset and attitude, not a Zone of Truth spell which is how many players want it to work.

Zone of Truth is save based and prevents deliberate lying in the first place and can be combined with insight to determine lies of omission or misdirection.

I think a lot of people don't realize the check is more than an action. A check made as part of the converstation is inclusive of the entire interaction up to that point, possibly including additional conversation. I would also point out learning to read body language doesn't really help facing some creatures. I've imposed disadvantage based on how insight works.

 

[Mort]

Which is a steaming crock of $%#@. There is no good training at detecting lies by picking up cues from behavior. The belief that there is has caused untold misery in terms of false convictions.

The only method that works is a long, complicated process of getting people to contradict themselves (or not) through long interrogations. It has nothing to do with "tells" or intuition, and is entirely a matter of taking really good notes and then cross-checking. And at best all you can determine is that they did or did not contradict themselves or change their story.

Here's some good journalism on the topic: The Interview

I don't disagree. In real life, it's hard to actually tell if someone is lying and the false positive (or false negative) rate is astoundingly high even with supposed experts.

But, in popular culture, the skill is much more reliable. The Avengers has already been mentioned. There was a show with Tim Roth (Lie to Me, I believe) where the whole premise was a group of people who could tell with extreme accuracy whether someone was lying.

 

[Ashrym]

I don't disagree. In real life, it's hard to actually tell if someone is lying and the false positive (or false negative) rate is astoundingly high even with supposed experts.

But, in popular culture, the skill is much more reliable. The Avengers has already been mentioned. There was a show with Tim Roth (Lie to Me, I believe) where the whole premise was a group of people who could tell with extreme accuracy whether someone was lying.

I hadn't even thought of that show but it's a great example of what we would expect from the trope.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's another way to look at it:

How many of us have a really good story about the time we rolled Insight and did or did not detect a lie? Not the story that ensued, but story as it hinged in that moment on the outcome of the roll?

In my opinion every mechanic should have the potential to produce great stories. That's really hard to accomplish; I acknowledge that. But it should at least be the goal.

 

[Ashrym]

There's no guarantee that the group or character will detect the lie. A couple of classes don't even get the option on their list of skill proficiencies even if they would have taken it. Those may or may not pick it up via background.

A barbarian outlander with 12 WIS exists in the same world as rogue urchin with 14 CHA and expertise in deception. Using passive insight with the barbarian PC (11DC at any level) still can detect something part of the time at low levels while generally failing.

If lying vs detecting becomes important in the campaign arbitrary "DM plot" can force it or a high level lore bard villain with glibness and expertise is probably still going to win a contested roll, let alone beat a passive check.

The bottom line is that if the DM wants a the PC's to miss being lied to it's entirely possible while still allowing for the characters to play to insight most of the time.

 

[Nebulous]

In my games, the PC will only get a general sense of intent it's not a "lie detector". On the other hand, I don't have a problem with using a trope that's so common in fiction whether or not it works in real life.

We're talking about a world with elves, dragons, things that go bump in the night not to mention longbows that can have pinpoint accuracy to three football fields with a bit of training by someone that in the real world wouldn't be strong enough to even pull it to a half draw.

Yes, you are totally right, the game is a semblance of reality, not anything near reality. Hell, I'm fine with them taking a nap for 8 hours and healing all wounds! lol

 

[Nebulous]

To be honest, I wish someone would rewrite the entire 5e skill system into something more detailed and fun, not the massively abstract thing it is now where rolling high is your objective, not actually being GOOD at something.

 

[Nebulous]

My last session, a yuan-ti told the players, "Fenthaza wants to see you." I'm rolling an Insight check! [18 + mods]. Is the yuan ti lying to me?

And I'm like, you don't F***** know. It's a serpent with no tells, and it just said a single line of dialog. The player didn't like that answer.

 

[Ashrym]

To be honest, I wish someone would rewrite the entire 5e skill system into something more detailed and fun, not the massively abstract thing it is now where rolling high is your objective, not actually being GOOD at something.

Bonuses are being good at something. Most monsters don't have any proficiencies and the randomness of the d20 only applies to opposed checks, working with distractions, or while in danger; the later two in seconds of time.

Outside of combat, spend the time for a 20 check guarantees a hard task for almost anyone and very hard task for almost anyone with training and natural talent even at low levels. At high levels, a +10 from ability and training tends to make very hard tasks 50/50ish even the mid of combat in seconds.

That sounds more like a perspective issue than an abstract issue, tbh. In game terms, a combination of bonuses to hit +5 looks to be "good at something" while +10 or more is great. Don't confuse the circumstances needing a roll as the skill instead of the actual bonuses.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was responding to a specific question of "would it be okay if ___". You've moved the goalposts a bit so the answer is no longer the same. Or maybe, as I responded earlier, I just misunderstood the original question.

I thought I made it clear that you did misunderstand the original question and I was rephrasing it to help get everyone on the same page.

As far as accepting that different people have different styles, well obviously they do. I think that's one of the strengths of 5E.

But in all of my years of playing D&D I've never had anyone as picky as you and a couple other posters seem to be as DM. People use shorthand and phrases like "Can I make an insight check" all the time and the world doesn't end. People still have fun. Chaos does not ensue.

No one has ever claimed that would happen. You’re the one who started this thread explicitly asking people to explain their preferences for a playstyle that is different than yours. Of course people still have fun in games where the DM runs things differently than I do. I take zero objection to the way you run things. It’s just not the way I like to run things.