D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Guest 6801328]

You're letting the real world and your own dislike of this use of the insight skill dictate here.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I was being facetious.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I asked this a page ago, but I want to try again:

For anybody advocating a straightforward "skill check" where a successful Insight check reveals lying/truthfulness, do you have any great stories you love to tell about "that one time I rolled Insight, and..."

Not about what happened in the game later as the result of the roll, but where the narration of the success or failure of the roll is the story?

Example: "This one time I tried to leap onto the banquet table, jump up and grab the chandelier (because that's what chandeliers are for), and swing onto the bad guy. But I totally flubbed my Athletics roll, so just as I reached for the chandelier my foot landed in a plate, and I ended up skating the entire length of the banquet table, dishes and silverware everywhere, and crashed off the far end."

What's your story like that that involved using Insight to detect a lie?

(Note: as you may suspect, I'm not expecting much. But if somebody DOES have a great story I actually think that will help move this conversation in a productive way.)

 

[Mort]

Maybe you missed the part where I said I was being facetious.

Yes, you stated you were being somewhat facetious.

That doesn't change the fact, that you've stated, quite plainly, In this thread and others, You do not like insight being used to directly discern lies.

 

[coolAlias]

Insight is one of those that I dislike the idea of the players knowing the result; having the NPC make the check vs. the PCs' passive scores is a suggestion I've seen that I might try at my table.

As for the results, a success means the PC gets a good read on the situation, a failure means they don't get any read, and a massive failure (e.g. by 5 or more) means they read the situation incorrectly.

In play, this might look like:

NPC: "These are not the droids you're looking for" (lying)
DM: rolls Cha [Deception] check for NPC, tells players:
1. You're fairly certain the NPC is lying to you
2. Nothing; if player asks, tell them they're not getting any clear indicators of deceipt or truthfulness
3. You're fairly certain the NPC is telling the truth

Now it's up to the players to decide how their characters use the information available to them. Just like in real life, you can be certain someone is lying through their teeth, but without hard evidence or admission of guilt, you can't really prove it.

Perhaps a PC wants to try to catch the NPC in their lie with loaded questions / finding inconsistencies; okay, roll Int [Investigation].

Perhaps the PC wants to accuse the NPC of lying and force them to admit it; okay, roll Cha [Persuasion or Intimidation, depending on tactic]

Perhaps the PC decides while they don't have any indication otherwise, they believe or disbelieve the NPC anyway and go off searching for evidence to support their view, such as examining the droids more closely to verify the NPC's claims.

TLDR I use Insight to give players an idea of their characters' read on a situation, but the player shouldn't know for certain whether that read is factually correct or not without trying something else.

 

[MaximusArael020]

In the case discussed in the OP, I wouldn't use Passive Insight because, to me, this is a situation in which someone could be actively suspicious about what is going on (because there's a dead body in the alley behind a shop). Passive Insight might be for if a food dealer has poisoned your food and says "Oh this hot dog is to die for." Passively, something might strike you as odd about that, but there's no reason to be actively suspicious.

I would say having the PC say "I make an insight check" is fine. I know what they are attempting, because trying to determine if the PC is lying without an investigation is going to be a matter of body language, speech tones, etc. Is it really so bad that the PC say "I make an insight check" every time instead of "I check his body language to see if he's lying" every time? It's just shorthand.

Now that doesn't go for some other checks, as if the PC says "I make an athletics check" I'll ask them specifically what they are attempting. In the case of an Insight Check, I just don't really think there's a lot of variation on what they are going to do. If they really explain to me, Sherlock style, what they are looking for, then maybe I'll give them a bonus or lower the DC.

 

[jasper]

You’re saying this would be the case at your table?

I saying it should be the case at all tables.

 

[5ekyu]

There are lots of ways it can look. From letting me know they look for signs of deceit, like sweating, licking lips, not making eye contact, etc., to telling me that they guide the conversation back on subjects that get those sorts of reactions to learn the person they are talking to. Those sorts of descriptions can help considerably, including auto successes, depending on the NPC in question.



It's not really player knowledge so much as it's roleplaying the situation in more detail and depth. Given the iffyness of skills like insight, it will be hard to get an auto success, but not so hard to get a small bonus to the roll or perhaps advantage. It's not really a way to avoid failure. It just helps reduce the chances of failure.

And tossing in this from Elfcrusher
""I want to know if he actually knows Vinnie the Snake. I'm going to casually mention some untrue things about Vinnie that would surprise somebody who actually knows him, and watch his reaction."
"I want to know if he had feelings for her. I'm going to keep bringing her back into the conversation, and watch to see what he does."
"I want to know if he has a prior relationship with the city watch. I'll keep the conversation going for a while, then suddenly announce that the city watch should be here any minute, and see his reaction." (Player2: "Ooh...I want to try to slip out, and then knock on the door loudly!")"

To me, it seems each of these is requiring a certain degree of detail in player specificstion of approach and aptitude of the player in the skill naming specific tells in advance, knowing specific tricks to surprise reactions etc" and also even a very specific focus- not just deception but pre-choosing deception about what. Wrong guess on what he is gonna be hiding and what then? Wasted effort and time?

When I compare that to the repeated claims about how nope, player just gives me something of an approach, not requiring player side knowledge etc... and I look at other skills like say arcana, medicine, survival for say foraging or spotting tracks etc or even stealth- it's hard to believe that those skills also require that much "player aptitude in how done."

Does the survivalist have to give you specific types of signs appropriate to the terrain (-and animal) and which type of animal tracks they are looking for or just say "check around for signs or tracks to see what's been by recently""

If I have to tell you "Somethings fishy, let's look for these tells snd bring up such snd such this way and that way" to either get a check or get advsntage or auto-success on a check then it really really seems like player skill in what the GM believes are the actual "tools of the trade" is heavily favored in this flavor of the goal and approach.

Yet, we kinda keep seeing comments saying that's not how it goes, it's not about letting plsyer skill ttump character skill etc.

 

[5ekyu]

An Insight check isn't about how a setting's people, organization, motivations and goals relate to each other, but how the DM wants to give players/PC's that information.

That is one perspective of gameplay, yes. But for dome, many, that "meta-scope" is not actually what the skill or skill use is about.

In actual play, I as GM don't "want" to give someone info x thru insight. My perspective is in the play of the NPCs and events in the setting as they appear. There is always more info in more directions than I expect the PCs to get, and rarely if ever is any of it mandatory. That's not counting the off the cuff stuff.

So failed insight or just choosing not to go after it is just fine.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To me, it seems each of these is requiring a certain degree of detail in player specificstion of approach and aptitude of the player in the skill naming specific tells in advance, knowing specific tricks to surprise reactions etc" and also even a very specific focus- not just deception but pre-choosing deception about what. Wrong guess on what he is gonna be hiding and what then? Wasted effort and time?

When I compare that to the repeated claims about how nope, player just gives me something of an approach, not requiring player side knowledge etc... and I look at other skills like say arcana, medicine, survival for say foraging or spotting tracks etc or even stealth- it's hard to believe that those skills also require that much "player aptitude in how done."

Does the survivalist have to give you specific types of signs appropriate to the terrain (-and animal) and which type of animal tracks they are looking for or just say "check around for signs or tracks to see what's been by recently""

If I have to tell you "Somethings fishy, let's look for these tells snd bring up such snd such this way and that way" to either get a check or get advsntage or auto-success on a check then it really really seems like player skill in what the GM believes are the actual "tools of the trade" is heavily favored in this flavor of the goal and approach.

Yet, we kinda keep seeing comments saying that's not how it goes, it's not about letting plsyer skill ttump character skill etc.

I like to differentiate between genuine domain expertise, and basic creativity. Certainly expecting players to know chemical formulae, or understand how a clock escapement works, or to know vocabulary from a foreign language (let alone a fictional foreign language) would be leaning too heavily on "player skill."

None of the examples I gave require a player to have any specific out-of-game expertise. It just requires following along with the plot, and being willing to think and improvise ideas.

Sure, you could excise all player judgment from the game. Why not eliminate spell descriptions, and just have a "Cast Spell" action, with the results appropriate to the need? After all, you can't expect players to be actual wizards. "I want to cast a spell that will do fire damage to all of them, but miss my friends, can I do that?" "Let's see, that's three criteria, so a DC of 18 for Arcana." "Drat, 15." "Nope, you didn't prepare a spell like that."

Same with tactical movement. Get rid of grid and positioning and distance, and just give players a Combat skill they can check every time there's uncertainty. "Can I get to the Wizard without drawing opportunity attacks?" "Gimme a Combat check." "17." "Yes, you can."

That doesn't sound very fun to me, and it's not very fun to me when "detecting traps" and "detecting lies" are reduced to a single binary die roll. It adds nothing to the game.

 

[ad_hoc]

In the case discussed in the OP, I wouldn't use Passive Insight because, to me, this is a situation in which someone could be actively suspicious about what is going on (because there's a dead body in the alley behind a shop).

Passive and active don't refer to what the character is doing.

All it means is whether the player is actively rolling a die.