D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Oofta]

I'll echo some advice I've heard before here on ENWorld: Why would a player ask to make a specific ability check in 5e? Given that the 5e DMG points out that the DM should "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure", a player requesting to make a specific ability check is asking for a chance to fail and thus harm the party in some way. Wouldn't the better play be for the player to describe what their character is doing and what they hope to accomplish - perhaps invoking a trait or a resource or a past experience that makes them particular good at the task they describe - in order to suggest to the DM that they should auto-succeed at the given task? Or at the very least have the DM grant them advantage or lower the DC because of their described approach? Just seems like a smart play. That's not to say you can't have fun in a game where the players call for rolls - its literally just not how the 5e gameplay was designed to run. So yeah, Angry is not wrong (except - and this is a big except for Angry - in his schticky, blatant under- and overtones of "badwrongfun", which only serves to turns people off to what is often very sound advice):


Context is kinda key to that quote, especially the first sentence:

Finally, the Core Mechanic very explicitly spells out that the rules for action resolution are TOOLS used by the GM to determine the outcome of ACTIONS chosen by the players. It may not seem like a big deal – because we all know that’s how it’s supposed to be anyway – but that wording is very useful to new GMs and new players. And some experienced players and GMs need to hear that too. Under these rules, a player who asks the GM “can I make an Insight check” is not playing the game properly. They are playing against the rules.​

Again, everyone should feel free to use the rules however you like as DM. But when that causes some issue or awkwardness at the table (like the cascade of player-invoked rolls to accomplish the same task mentioned previously, for example), just refer back to p6 of the PHB for the intended general flow of 5e play and to p237 of the DMG for the 5e designers' intent for how ability scores are to be used in play.

The player is declaring an action, just not an action that has any physical effect in the game world. They are actively trying to determine if the NPC is lying. I guess I could have the players state "Can I tell if they're telling the truth?" or "I study them closely looking for signs of nervousness" but it's just unnecessarily clumsy and requiring specific phrasing that communicates exactly the same thing IMHO.

As far as "punishing" players for asking for a check ... I don't. In the case of insight and a few other skills I use the better of passive or the roll.

Having a PC in the party who is naive and gullible is quite common in my experience. If a PC's flaw is to be gullible and they're they only one questioning an NPC, the NPC can lie their ass off. As a DM I need some indication and reminder that they aren't going to be suspicious.

So maybe a different question: a PC has the flaw "I put too much trust in those who wield power within my temple's hierarchy. " They're questioning someone superior in the hierarchy that is lying but is proficient at deception.

To me this is a scenario where I would like to call for an insight check, but I don't know my player's characters to that level of detail. Any other PC would have a decent chance to detect the deception but it's not guaranteed.

For me it's simpler and more fair to the player's vision of their PC to let them ask for an insight check now and then.

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't call it an "argument" against rolling all the dice at once, just a preference. We tried it, and didn't find it really sped things up much. By switching to average damage instead, that worked better for us. The color-coded dice for multiple attacks might help and maybe we will give it a try.

Fair enough, didn't mean to misrepresent. I was just pointing out that to me this topic is also just a preference ... which for some reason seems to frequently devolve into an argument.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fair enough, didn't mean to misrepresent. I was just pointing out that to me this topic is also just a preference ... which for some reason seems to frequently devolve into an argument.

Very true.

 

[Blue]

I don’t know if this is your intent, but you seem to be implying that games where the players are expected to declare actions in terms of what their character does and roll when the DM asks them to can’t be casual, “beer-and-pretzels” games. I can assure you this is not the case.

They way I read @ccs 's comment was quite the opposite. It was that they accept any way of communicating with the DM, be it in terms of what the character does (interact narratively in-world) or in terms of what the player does (interact with the mechanics). It's accepting of either way of communicating.

On the other hand, in my personal opinion, a game that restricted communicating to the DM to only one way is not a casual game.

Mind you, I prefer a game that is primarily narrative. But not enough to be a gatekeeper that it is the only allowed way. Between good roleplayers who happen to say "I'd like to make an perception roll" instead of framing it "what can my character perceive?", to DMing and running in public and thinking it's the wrong message to crap over someone's play style when we're all there to have fun. I'll make an effort to be inclusive in what I accept.

 

[Blue]

The difference between “I examine Ned’s body language to see if I can identify any signs that he might be lying” and, “can I make an Insight check to see if Ned’s lying?” is that the former gives the DM information about how the character is attempting to discern if Ned is lying, and leaves the decision of whether or not the outcome of that approach is uncertain up to the DM.

So ... regardless of my character's proficiency you are also requiring player proficiency to come up with a reasonable approach?

I personally can't describe how to pick a lock. I can play a character who can.

It's a roleplaying game. We explicitly play characters that has abilities we do not. If my character knows how to do something then the DM is simply wrong to deny the character the chance to apply that proficiency simply because the player may not also be fluent and able to give a reasonable approach.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So ... regardless of my character's proficiency you are also requiring player proficiency to come up with a reasonable approach?

I personally can't describe how to pick a lock. I can play a character who can.

It's a roleplaying game. We explicitly play characters that has abilities we do not. If my character knows how to do something then the DM is simply wrong to deny the character the chance to apply that proficiency simply because the player may not also be fluent and able to give a reasonable approach.

I feel like you've been around long enough to have seen this before, but maybe not. "I pick the lock with my theive's tools" is a fine approach to a locked door. As a GM, I now know what fictional position ingand acts your character is undertaking and can adjudicate. "I make a theive's tool check," means I'm making assumptions about what action you're taking. I don't want to do tgat, hence a reasonable aporoach is needed.

Note the complete lack of lock picking details necessary.

 

[Charlaquin]

The line I was quoting from the blog post:

a player who asks the GM “can I make an Insight check” is not playing the game properly.​

You’re leaving out a lot of context here, including the part immediately proceeding that quote, where he says “under these rules” the rules referred to being the set of house rules he is proposing in the article.

There's no reason for Brog to be "visibly suspicious". Being suspicious is an internal mental state. Depending on the circumstances I might ask for Bob to make an opposed deception check.

Ok. If Bob doesn’t want Brog’s suspicion to be visible in his body language, that’s his call to make. He’s welcome to just be suspicious and keep quiet about it, or to express his suspicion verbally (again, Ned might not appreciate that, but it’s an option), or to express it out of character if he really feels he must.

Bob needs to communicate somehow that he's actively suspicious of Ned.

Why?

So how would I know to give Brog an insight check but not Suzia?

If Brog takes an action that would require a check to resolve and Suzia doesn’t.

Which is where we fundamentally disagree. The PCs are the ones directly interacting with the world. If someone puts resources into being able to read people, I'm going to reward it.

If a player chooses Insight as one of their skill Proficiencies, they are “rewarded” for that with the ability to add their Proficiency bonus on checks where their ability to read people is relevant. But checks are used to resolve actions, and suspicion is a feeling, not an action. If Brog acts on this feeling, and that action has an uncertain outcome, bob is welcome to apply his Insight proficiency to the check.

So you always rely on passive values? That's fine, I just want people to have a more active role in social situations.

Not always, no. When a character (PC or NPC) takes an action, the success of which is contingent on another character’s ability, I have the acting character make a check against a DC of the subject’s passive ability (+ proficiency if they have a relevant one). So, in this case, Ned is taking an action - trying to deceive Brog and Suzia - which is contingent on Brog and Suzia’s ability to read people. So he makes a Charisma (Deception) check against the higher of their Wisdom (Insight) DCs. If Brog takes an action - such as watching Ned’s body language for signs of nervousness - I would have Brog roll Wisdom (Insight) against Ned’s passive Charisma (Deception) If he is nervous and trying to hide it.

 

[Charlaquin]

So ... regardless of my character's proficiency you are also requiring player proficiency to come up with a reasonable approach?

I personally can't describe how to pick a lock. I can play a character who can.

Picking a lock is an approach, not a goal. I don’t expect you to tell me “I try to pick the lock by [description of how locks are picked in real life.]” I wouldn’t even know if such a description was accurate or not, cause I don’t know how to pick a lock either. Rather, I ask that you tell me that you are attempt to open the door by picking the lock.

It's a roleplaying game. We explicitly play characters that has abilities we do not. If my character knows how to do something then the DM is simply wrong to deny the character the chance to apply that proficiency simply because the player may not also be fluent and able to give a reasonable approach.

I’m not denying players a chance to apply proficiency to anything. I ask that my players relate their actions to me with a reasonable degree of specificity (reasonable being a key word here) so that I can adjudicate those actions without making assumptions.

 

[Charlaquin]

They way I read @ccs 's comment was quite the opposite. It was that they accept any way of communicating with the DM, be it in terms of what the character does (interact narratively in-world) or in terms of what the player does (interact with the mechanics). It's accepting of either way of communicating.

On the other hand, in my personal opinion, a game that restricted communicating to the DM to only one way is not a casual game.

The bolded section is the implication I was saying ccs’s post made

...sort of - I wouldn’t describe the goal-and-approach method of task resolution as “restricting communication to the DM to only one way,” but my point is, it’s entirely possible to run a game using goal-and-approach and keep it casual. I ran such a game last Friday. Everyone was joking, laughing, having a great time describing the crazy stuff they characters were doing.

 

[Charlaquin]

"I'll echo some advice I've heard before here on ENWorld: Why would a player ask to make a specific ability check in 5e? Given that the 5e DMG points out that the DM should "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure", a player requesting to make a specific ability check is asking for a chance to fail and thus harm the party in some way. "

That is where we fundamentally disagree and I believe there is a major difference in what we both see the rules saying.

If I as GM see a task as auto-success for a character, I will not ask the player to make a check barring some degree of success aspect at play.

That's just like your quite.

But, that quote does not say, nor will you find in the rules "if a player asks for a check, the hm must add a meaningful consequence of failure even if one did not exist before."

Ok, so we have:
A. The rules do say that the DM should only call for a roll if there is a meaningful cost for failure.
B. There is, in this hypothetical situation, no cost for failure.
C. The player asks to make a check.

Because there is no cost of failure, and the rules tell us only to call for a check if there is, the rules suggest that the DM should not allow the roll in this case.

Saying that “the player is asking for a chance of failure” is meant to express this, not to suggest that, because the player asked for a check, the DM ought to create a chance of failure where none existed before.