D&D 5E (2014) How do you handle insight?

[jasper]

Let me clarify. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE If Bob Calls for an Insight check, or Maxperon asks for about body language. The DC is going to be the same.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me clarify. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE If Bob Calls for an Insight check, or Maxperon asks for about body language. The DC is going to be the same.

That's much different.

I agree that the DC will be the same. The bonus to the roll might be different, though. You're far more likely to get some sort of circumstance bonus or advantage if you give the DM a good description of what you are doing and how, and what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[Mort]

That's much different.

I agree that the DC will be the same. The bonus to the roll might be different, though. You're far more likely to get some sort of circumstance bonus or advantage if you give the DM a good description of what you are doing and how, and what you are trying to accomplish.

Conversely, if you're too specific or describe in a way the DM doesn't think works, the DM might actually assign a penalty, or even automatically fail you, it cuts both ways.

Personally, I would never do that, I think player engagement should be rewarded.

But, I've seen enough DMs penalize a player for failing their "guess what the DM is thinking" roll to not discount it.

Ultimately, it comes down to communication. The DM has to be clear with the players as to how he wants things done, and the players have to be clear on their preferences as well.

 

[Maxperson]

Conversely, if you're too specific or describe in a way the DM doesn't think works, the DM might actually assign a penalty, or even automatically fail you, it cuts both ways.

Generally not, though. You tend to get rewarded or left at 0 modifiers unless you describe talking the Duke into helping you by calling him a ninny or something that's just really, really bad.

Personally, I would never do that, I think player engagement should be rewarded.

But, I've seen enough DMs penalize a player for failing their "guess what the DM is thinking" roll to not discount it.

"Guess what the DM is thinking" is different, though. It can intrude into this sort of situation, but it exists as a separate and different problem.

Ultimately, it comes down to communication. The DM has to be clear with the players as to how he wants things done, and the players have to be clear on their preferences as well.

I agree.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

I think you are describing how the NPC telegraphs. How the player describes looking for the lie is a different question.

Which I think I answered above: "checking to see if he's lying" is about as specific as "I try to kill the monster". ("Can I make a Strength check?")

Players should state:
1) What specific thing they think the NPC might be lying about.
2) How they are going to try to trigger revealing behaviors in the NPC.

And, as Ovinomancer says, they should be describing what they are going to do next, not what they want to retroactively apply to what has already happened.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm being a little facetious/snarky here, but I'm imagining the following conversation:

Player: "Can I tell if he's lying?"
DM: "How are you doing that?"
Player: "Do I see any tics or other revealing behaviors?"
DM: "Well, do you think he's lying?"
Player: "Yes."
DM: "Then, yes, you see him blink rapidly, he keeps fiddling nervously with his ring, and he seems to stammer."

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I think about people, organizations, motivations and goals, how groups relate to each other, what's going on, etc.

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.

 

[Mort]

I'm being a little facetious/snarky here, but I'm imagining the following conversation:

Player: "Can I tell if he's lying?"
DM: "How are you doing that?"
Player: "Do I see any tics or other revealing behaviors?"
DM: "Well, do you think he's lying?"
Player: "Yes."
DM: "Then, yes, you see him blink rapidly, he keeps fiddling nervously with his ring, and he seems to stammer."

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

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not something the player should discover during the game.

There should be an upfront statement (preferably in a handout or in session 0) to the affect of "here's what insight is and can and can't do in my game..."

As long as everyone (players and DM) is on the same page and has the same expectations - then everything should be all good.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let me clarify. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE If Bob Calls for an Insight check, or Maxperon asks for about body language. The DC is going to be the same.

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

 

[Oofta]

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.

I never said it was. There was a concern that some DMs want players to guess what they are thinking, that players have to ask the "right" question or use whatever the DM decides is the "correct" approach.

I don't do that. If someone asks for an insight check, it simply tells me as a DM that they've been paying close attention to the person they are talking to. Maybe that gives the player some additional information, maybe it doesn't.

For example, let's say Brog doesn't trust people and suspects everyone of lying so he pays close attention. He may notice that Ned is giving signs of deceit or he may notice that while there's no sign of deceit, Ned is frightened. At that point it's up to the player to decide if and how Brog acts on this information.

So I didn't set up this encounter with "The players will discover that Ned is afraid of the syndicate and their protection racket", it's "There's a protection racket in the neighborhood, the body sends a signal to the shopkeepers that they'd better pay up."

Now maybe I decide it makes sense that Ned is the type of person that will be visibly nervous and there's no check required. Maybe I decide he's okay at hiding his emotions and I rely on passive insight. Or maybe I decide that as a merchant, he's good at bluffing people so it's a bit tougher.

In any case, this won't be a dead end if the group doesn't detect or act on his fear, it's just one path they have. If they're successful they get a bit of information more quickly.

They don't have to ask specifically what they are looking for, and I don't plan out "when A happens then B". That's all.