D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Beleriphon]

Thanks for the response. I guess I just don't see a difference between "Can I get an insight check" and "I study his body language..." or similar. I think the end result is the same.

After all I don't say "I swing my sword with the intent of doing bodily harm". I simply say "I attack and get ___". Sometimes we use shorthand to communicate meaning, whether that's typing LOL or saying "I make an insight check".

I'd want, as a 5E DM, to have the request phrased differently. Even if its as simple as a "can I make a check here to determine if Ned lying/hiding something?" That way it reinforces that 5E doesn't have skill checks, it has ability checks proficiency bonus applied. In this specific instance the difference is negligible, but I want to reinforce its the DM that gets to pick what if any checks are being used, rather than the players picking what check is being used.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd want, as a 5E DM, to have the request phrased differently. Even if its as simple as a "can I make a check here to determine if Ned lying/hiding something?" That way it reinforces that 5E doesn't have skill checks, it has ability checks proficiency bonus applied. In this specific instance the difference is negligible, but I want to reinforce its the DM that gets to pick what if any checks are being used, rather than the players picking what check is being used.

I agree with this as a general thing about skill checks. I'd rather have players say, "I try to accomplish X" so that I, the DM, decide what ability and what skill (which may not be the traditional pairings) get used.

But also, in the specific context of this thread, I don't want players just making general perception or insight or investigation checks without describing what they do. Any challenges that can be resolved that way just did add anything interesting to the game in the first place.

In fact, I think I wanna go back and reply to 5ekyu again...

 

[Guest 6801328]

It has been brought up more than once, yes, cuz while it was fun to play thru it and the results, it was also fun cuz of the "and failed skill checks get lots of fun going" since I dont run the game as binary.

As for best, awesome, greatest" blah blah, eye of beholder.

Ok, so I will take it at face value that this session was great fun. But it seems to me that is more about the DM taking input from the roll and using that to weave a good scene, rather than the action represented by the roll being dramatically interesting in its own right.

Contrast that with my Athletics example: the actual outcome of the failed Athletics roll is something that got narrated in a way that itself became memorable. And had it succeeded, it might also have been narrated in a memorable way.

Does that difference make sense?

It's tough for me to improvise imaginary "memorable" scenarios because they tend to arise organically, but here goes...

Iimagine Insight being used in the way I suggested earlier: the player describes how he is going to keep mentioning NPC-B's name, looking for reactions from NPC-A. The first time he rolls high, and the DM says, "It looks like the corner of his moustache twitched." The PC says, "I'll do it again!" Again a solid roll, and the DM says, "It's clear his hands are trembling." At this point the PCs could accept that he's lying and do whatever it is they wanted to do with that information. But the player goes for it again, and the third time he crits, and the NPC totally loses it, breaking down in confession, or attacking the PCs, or whatever.

Like I said, hard to improvise.

But I'm trying to demonstrate that by describing specific approaches (actions that don't take ANY real-life player expertise) it creates narrative opportunities, that the actions represented by the dice rolls can be memorable, in a way that I just don't see happening with "I roll Insight to see if he's lying."

 

[Oofta]

I'd want, as a 5E DM, to have the request phrased differently. Even if its as simple as a "can I make a check here to determine if Ned lying/hiding something?" That way it reinforces that 5E doesn't have skill checks, it has ability checks proficiency bonus applied. In this specific instance the difference is negligible, but I want to reinforce its the DM that gets to pick what if any checks are being used, rather than the players picking what check is being used.

I just find that kind of phrasing to be clumsy at times. To me, an insight check is not just detecting lies, it's paying close attention to body language, mannerisms, a bunch of little things. The PC may pick up a lot of things, not just lies.

So a result of "he seems to be telling the truth but he's hiding something" or "he seems to be telling the truth but he's scared" or even "he's telling the truth but you notice that every time the gnome asks a question he's dismissive".

These are all common tropes from TV/detective shows. I'm not a good enough actor and I don't expect my players to always pick up on these things.

But I also don't always think of it as them doing something unusual - it's just a reminder to me as a DM what their PC would be doing while questioning someone.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but I do want to point out that what you originally wrote:



Maybe this is phrased as an "if" but, come on man , do you REALLY want to argue that this was a genuine question, posed in a spirit of curiosity?

Do you want to put forth the your rewrite was actually the takeaway I took? What it was was actually a conditional - the if part of an if then - not a statement of conclusion or takeaway and you knew that, I suspect, hence the rewrite.

 

[Beleriphon]

I just find that kind of phrasing to be clumsy at times. To me, an insight check is not just detecting lies, it's paying close attention to body language, mannerisms, a bunch of little things. The PC may pick up a lot of things, not just lies.

......

But I also don't always think of it as them doing something unusual - it's just a reminder to me as a DM what their PC would be doing while questioning someone.

I think that's the difference. I don't want the players calling for a check. They might not need to even roll anything, never mind that 5E doesn't have skill checks at all. I'd much rather have the player explain to me what they envision the character doing. It can be third person like a movie director instructing an actor, and then working with me to determine if a check is even needed.

If a player says "I'm going to roll Insight!" my response is going to be "What do you envision your character doing?" or "What is your goal?" The response will determine what the next step is going to be. Players might respond: "I want to see if Ned is hiding something from us" or it could be "I want to threaten Ned into talking to us and tell the truth." The first one is Wisdom (Insight) the second is probably Charisma (Intimidation).

I'm never going to make a player try hard to use the buttons and levers they have access to, but I want to be clear about what buttons and levers they are trying to use. Sometimes abilities and skill proficiencies are important, sometimes literally describing either by accident or design the answer to a problem results in the solution working (as with searching a room for example).

 

[billd91]

I think that's the difference. I don't want the players calling for a check. They might not need to even roll anything, never mind that 5E doesn't have skill checks at all. I'd much rather have the player explain to me what they envision the character doing. It can be third person like a movie director instructing an actor, and then working with me to determine if a check is even needed.

If a player says "I'm going to roll Insight!" my response is going to be "What do you envision your character doing?" or "What is your goal?" The response will determine what the next step is going to be. Players might respond: "I want to see if Ned is hiding something from us" or it could be "I want to threaten Ned into talking to us and tell the truth." The first one is Wisdom (Insight) the second is probably Charisma (Intimidation).

I'm never going to make a player try hard to use the buttons and levers they have access to, but I want to be clear about what buttons and levers they are trying to use. Sometimes abilities and skill proficiencies are important, sometimes literally describing either by accident or design the answer to a problem results in the solution working (as with searching a room for example).

Sure, and you can be tolerant about it, ask for your clarifications, without being a dysfunctional pedant about it. They'll get the picture what levers you want them to push by your clarifying questions and nudges toward the style you want them to use.
The point, for me anyway, is to be understanding and flexible - not inflexible - because not everyone is going to feel very strongly about the importance of following the 'right style' for the edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, and you can be tolerant about it, ask for your clarifications, without being a dysfunctional pedant about it. They'll get the picture what levers you want them to push by your clarifying questions and nudges toward the style you want them to use.
The point, for me anyway, is to be understanding and flexible - not inflexible - because not everyone is going to feel very strongly about the importance of following the 'right style' for the edition.

Do you think that anyone is pedantically telling their players, “I’m sorry, that action wasn’t phrased correctly, so I’m not going to allow it”? Cause I don’t think that’s what anyone is doing. I, personally, need to know what a player’s goal is and how they envision their character trying to achieve it, in order to feel confident in adjudicating the action. But I don’t tell my players, “you must express all actions in the form ‘I try to _ by _” or anything. If a player at my table asks to make a check, I don’t admonish them for it. I ask for clarification so as to figure out the things I need. I generally start with what I was able to glean from their request, and then ask for the information I require that I am still unsure about. For example, “I’m hearing that you want to learn more about Ned’s intentions. I’m not sure what you hope to learn or how. Can you be a bit more specific?”

 

[Beleriphon]

Sure, and you can be tolerant about it, ask for your clarifications, without being a dysfunctional pedant about it. They'll get the picture what levers you want them to push by your clarifying questions and nudges toward the style you want them to use.
The point, for me anyway, is to be understanding and flexible - not inflexible - because not everyone is going to feel very strongly about the importance of following the 'right style' for the edition.

By no means am I saying there's a right style for any edition, but I want my players to know that skill checks aren't a thing. There's a reason they aren't a thing though, and its because the action resolution system for anything other than combat is driven by ability checks and proficiency. It's one of those things that I want to drive into them because it makes the game flow better if they're actually using the rules they way the designed intended instead of the way they think they work based on a previous edition.

I'd even be okay is players just outright ask "Can I use Insight here?" I'll probably ask a few extra questions to clear up what they want, but I don't want to have declarations of checks being used since I as the DM might not even need them to be made for any of a variety of reason.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, and you can be tolerant about it, ask for your clarifications, without being a dysfunctional pedant about it. They'll get the picture what levers you want them to push by your clarifying questions and nudges toward the style you want them to use.

The point, for me anyway, is to be understanding and flexible - not inflexible - because not everyone is going to feel very strongly about the importance of following the 'right style' for the edition.

Agreed.

The question then becomes, if the players in a 5e game are constantly just invoking the name of a skill when they want to do something outside of combat, and the DM is more often than not asking for clarification, won't the players naturally migrate to front loading the clarity? You know, declaring an action their PC is taking in the fiction and what they hope to accomplish?

I know that is how our table has evolved. It started out with players just mentioning skills and, over several months of playing, it morphed into them stating actions within the fiction. It has made our sessions more interesting, fun, and memorable. No pedantry involved.