D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Oofta]

None of the above apply to me or the example I provided.

Try:

5. Players declare actions on how they interact with the scene, providing a goal and the approach to that goal. The DM then determines if the results are uncertain, and if there's a consequence for failure. If so, a check is called for. In all cases, the DM then narrates the results.

So, if the players declared an action to elicit information from the owner by appraising his body language when being questioned, I'd either provide that information outright, say you notice nothing outright, or call for a Wisdom check that the player could apply Insight to, if that seemed appropriate. Usually, in my play, this information would be provided outright, because the owner lying seems a poor challenge for the PCs (if an insight check rolled around by everyone can solve it, we're just gambling (at bad odds for the house)). Instead, finding out why the owner NPC is lying, and what about, and maybe doing something about that seems like a great challenge for the PCs.

I would say that falls under option 1, just with different language. Like I said in another post, the goal is to determine the true intentions of the NPC, the approach is to make an insight check.

Or whatever language your players would use to achieve the same result. As far as auto-success, those happen in my games at times as well; I just usually do it by making the lie blatantly obvious. Then again I don't have anyone on the autism spectrum in my game.

 

[abirdcall]

I like to ask the players what their characters are doing.

I also like to use ability checks only in exciting and interesting situations. Too many rolls makes the rolls less dramatic.

For insight, I assume the characters in general are looking out for lies. If an NPC seems weird I describe it. If there is a PC at the table that has a high passive insight then I try to give out more clues as to an NPC's nature. It's not just for lying, all sorts of emotions can be displayed.

Here are 2 examples of making an insight check at our table:

1. The PCs come upon another group of adventurers who are looting the dungeon they are in. After some tension they come to agreement in order to avoid fighting. The NPCs will allow the PCs to choose one of 3 treasure sacks that they have just gathered. The PC who gets to pick said that they wanted to study the reactions of an NPC as they were about to pick trying to gauge which one has the better treasure. A DC 10 check was called for to give +10 to the treasure hoard roll.

2. The PCs come find a library in a dungeon with a sickly NPC in it. After introductions I ask the PCs what they are going to do. One takes watch, looking out for the other 2 doors and listening for disturbances. One searches the library for anything interesting. One talks to the NPC to find out more about what they know. The final PC pretends to search the library but secretly watches the NPC looking for odd behaviour. During resolution of their actions the final PC makes an insight check and is given clues about the NPC's nature getting 1 clue every 5 points of their check.

 

[Maxperson]

I have frequent auto successes and auto failures. I don't make them roll for super easy things.

 

[Ashrym]

Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.

Note the "even if they aren't searching". Not searching is the lack of action to demonstrate what I have been stating. The other arguments in this thread so far are rationalizations to push forth opinions that are not part of the rules.

Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses.

What was described earlier relates to active checks. Passive checks also exist for characters based on "general awareness" and "even if they aren't searching".

Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat.

A party can be giving even less attention while moving at a fast pace and all that does is give a penalty of 5 to the passive ability score. There is no action required to notice the threats.

Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.

Unless a character is actually engaged in a list of activities while traveling that precludes passive perception they are given a passive perception check. The list given is: navigate, map, track, forage. The DM can create more but this is an example of a specific rule beating the general rule.

The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature

There is no action required to make perception checks as part of surprise. The default is characters are behaving in a way that they are paying attention. I can keep pulling up examples but I think I've demonstrated my point.

The passive score isn't the relevant part, to be clear. Passive checks are used when the DM doesn't want the player to know something is being resolved by rolling the dice and giving it away. That's exactly the type of situation that applies to checks like insight. If the players know the DM is using passive insight checks then they know they don't need to ask.

A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

What's important is there is no specific action required of characters to make passive checks. They are done because the DM doesn't want the players to know that they are making checks at all, and therefore are not predicated on specific player actions.

I'm not going to keep arguing it. It seems clear to me. Other players can play the game the way they want, OC, but the rules don't require what's been described.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've played frequently with a player on the Autism spectrum. Telegraphing to a player may not work like you think it does at all.

I do too, actually. She’s great, she comes up with some of the most fun and interesting characters I’ve seen. She’s not big on the social interaction portion of the game, but when she does chime in she always has something great to say. She’s also one of five players in that group, so if she doesn’t pick up on a telegraph, there are four others who might.

If there is something where the character should notice it explicitly (say because their passive insight beats the DC), then you need to tell the player explicitly.

And on the occasions where a character should notice something explicitly, I tell them explicitly. Personally, I don’t think that an NPC failing a Deception check is something the PCs should notice explicitly. I try to keep my descriptions to what the PCs can directly observe - you might see the NPC twitch, or hear a slight waver in their voice, but you don’t know explicitly that such a sign means the NPC is lying. If you’re not sure what to make of such a telegraph, that’s a good reason to take action, perhaps directly asking the NPC what they’re so twitchy about, or watching them for micro expressions that might indicate their emotional state.

(This is not putting down telegraphing, I like how you do it. Just saying don't use it as a reason to ignore mechanics.)

Given that this whole exchange is predicated on a failed Deception roll on the NPC’s part, and is intended to hint to the player that it might be a good time to take an action if their own, I’m not sure what mechanics you think I’m ignoring.

Though to be honest, with this particular player it was the opposite. He thought SO many things were telegraphs, especially about plots, and would come up with these wonderfully complex viewpoints of what was happening in the campaign that was 20% real hints and 80% thinking things were telegraphed hints but were really just random bits or throw-away lines.

That is fantastic! Sounds like a really fun player.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would say that falls under option 1, just with different language.

And you would be wrong.

Like I said in another post, the goal is to determine the true intentions of the NPC, the approach is to make an insight check.

Maybe in the specific example you’re referring to it does. But first of all, that was not clear to me from the request to make an Insight check alone, and second of all, there are many other situations where “can I make an Insight check?” means something else. I’m not interested in trying to guess what the player’s goals and approaches are based solely on the name of a skill they think would be applicable.

 

[Hriston]

Huh? Are we playing the same game? Sometimes people add dramatic flair, but the vast majority of times it's "I attack the orc and get an 18, do I hit?" or some variation therein.

I had one guy who added a lot of, shall we say "flourish" to every single attack. We all thought they were a boring attention hog after a while. Improvise in combat? Absolutely. Describe what you're doing and how now and then? Go for it. Witty repartee? Fantastic as long as you keep your quips quick. Have a cookie. Or inspiration.

But describe every single attack? Nope.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. “I attack the orc.” is not the same statement as “I make an Attack roll.” This should be obvious.

 

[Ashrym]

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. “I attack the orc.” is not the same statement as “I make an Attack roll.” This should be obvious.

That's like comparing "I insight the orc" vs "I use insight on the orc because I think he's lying to me". The comparison based on the discussion is more along the lines of requiring "have at thee orc, taste my blade" to initiate an attack. Better immersion but unnecessary.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's like comparing "I insight the orc" vs "I use insight on the orc because I think he's lying to me". The comparison based on the discussion is more along the lines of requiring "have at thee orc, taste my blade" to initiate an attack. Better immersion but unnecessary.

It’s even more along the lines of requiring “I Attack the orc with my longsword.” In fact, it’s literally that.

 

[Ashrym]

It’s even more along the lines of requiring “I Attack the orc with my longsword.” In fact, it’s literally that.

So you are good with "I use my insight to see if the orc is lying?"