D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Maxperson]

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?

I don't know what happens. It depends on the specific circumstances that are occurring in the game which I don't even come close to having here. At worst, we have some really good roleplaying.

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."

Then don't get that detailed. You can just tell me that you examine the object to see if you can figure out if it has arcane worth. Don't expect an auto success or even a bonus, though. Don't expect a penalty, either. If you are going to be basic in my game, you are just going to get basic chances. You only need to be as detailed as you want to be.

 

[Oofta]

You can have one person asking the leading questions and another gauging the reaction - that's covered by the help action, granting advantage on any related ability check.

Understanding what the other party in a conversation actually means / what their intentions are is part of communication, and that aspect of it is covered by Wisdom (Insight).

Aside from just generally observing the person you're communicating with as you talk, which is assumed to be covered by the passive score, how are you going to search out a lie without doing something such as asking questions?

I don't make my players actually come up with the questions - they can simply state that that is how they intend to try to detect lies or motive or whatever, and the roll determines how well they did / what they were able to learn, if anything.

You're paying attention to their reactions. If your passive isn't high enough to make the DC, I go to (or allow people to call for) active rolls. Always telling everyone everything or always relying on passive scores would feel too ... passive to me.

We just do it differently. I generally like to use a mix of skills and techniques when we just don't handle it all with RP. I find that for me it allows me to give different people ways to contribute.

 

[Campbell]

On a fundamental level skilled use of fictional positioning, establishing that your character has the means to impact the ongoing game state, is a core skill of playing any roleplaying game. It has been the basis of games bearing the name Dungeons and Dragons since the beginning. The level of detail we go into can vary dramatically from situation to situation, but firmly showing what your character is actually doing in a meaningful way is something that I consider necessary to both establish rewards and consequences for what you are doing. For example if you are going to step back and really study someone's body language the obvious risk is they might notice and confront you. If you pursue a line of questions meant to trip them up and they navigate through it artfully you might close off that avenue and need to pursue another.

Additionally providing detail and context is just more fun. We get to pursue a fiction or game state that is richer in terms of character, motivations, and relationships.

 

[5ekyu]

I just don't see trying to "determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. " as having anything to do with asking questions.

The person doing the insight may or may not be the person talking for one. Second, communicating with another individual is covered under persuasion, intimidate and deception. Thinking of questions might be covered by a straight wisdom check or intelligence checks with arcana, history or religion proficiency bonuses as necessary.

In theory anyway. I've had games where it seemed to always devolved into the barbarian getting bored and hitting something. Frequently the party bard.

This gets st something I wanted to bring up earlier but had to go actually play my teleporter in FASERIP for a while.

I quote from the above thread a fewxexsmples to pose a question for you GMs - where do you draw the line between perception/insight and Investigation?

"""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!")""

Me? One of my dividing lines is "are you creating clues or working with and changing evidence into clues?" Or are you just observing.

To me, a somewhat literal example of scientific method and experiment is shown in the three examples cited in quotes. A question or hypothesis was raised, a test was initiated that was intended to produce new data and then those results assessed vs the question and expectations.

That to me is Investigstion, not just observation and that becomes one of the places where I divide between investigation snd the "as I see thrm" observation skills of perception and insight.

If someone looks in a room and I get asked "do we see any secret doors", I use percrption for any of those that can be seen without investigations.

But if they describe a search, something active like rapping on wall panels etc, that's interacting snd creating new data to analyze- so for me that shifts to investigation.

If it's a subject that interests you and is relevant to this discussion, do you have other criteria for when you feel you move from perception or insight as the way to resolve a uncertain result?

 

[Campbell]

In general I am not really a fan of Investigate as a skill. To my mind it is more an activity where other skills should rightfully be applied. If you are searching for Traps I would use Perception. If you are poring through arcane texts to suss out a detail on the ritual your enemies are preparing to cast that would be Arcana. If you are trying to catch someone in a lie that would be Insight.

 

[Maxperson]

This gets st something I wanted to bring up earlier but had to go actually play my teleporter in FASERIP for a while.

The old Marvel Superheroes game?

 

[5ekyu]

The old Marvel Superheroes game?

Oh yeah... it's a blast. We are young and relatively incorigable teen mutants in a campaign we have unofficially dubbed Detention -X. Tonight's game did finally reveal my character's ties in N'awlins and they saw him go from cocky bamf-first-worry-never to far more respectful teen when around Mama Lavore. I even managed to actually dial up the southern with English as second language once he was home. Gallon milk jug of sweet tea "so sweet the spoon stands up" to go.

And of course... voodoo.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh yeah... it's a blast. We are young and relatively incorigable teen mutants in a campaign we have unofficially dubbed Detention -X. Tonight's game did finally reveal my character's ties in N'awlins and they saw him go from cocky bamf-first-worry-never to far more respectful teen when around Mama Lavore. I even managed to actually dial up the southern with English as second language once he was home. Gallon milk jug of sweet tea "so sweet the spoon stands up" to go.

And of course... voodoo.

My friends and I spent the 80s and early 90s playing D&D and Marvel almost exclusively. We through in a smattering of Gamma World, Boot Hill, Star Frontiers and James Bond, but 95% of our game play were those two games.

 

[Ashrym]

I just don't see trying to "determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. " as having anything to do with asking questions.

The person doing the insight may or may not be the person talking for one. Second, communicating with another individual is covered under persuasion, intimidate and deception. Thinking of questions might be covered by a straight wisdom check or intelligence checks with arcana, history or religion proficiency bonuses as necessary.

In theory anyway. I've had games where it seemed to always devolved into the barbarian getting bored and hitting something. Frequently the party bard.

So if I asked, "what brings you to these parts?" would you not think I could glean information from your reaction to my question? "Where were you 3 nights ago shortly after dusk?" could cause worry or concern, shifty eyes, acting defensively, etc.

Knowing how to probe is part of knowing how to gauge a response. It's not just how the target of the PC's insight checks act; it's also how they react, and a PC is capable of speaking and observing at the same time.

That gets back to my Black Widow example. When she was tied up in a chair interrogating her captor, she wasn't just sitting there and observing. She was leading the conversation and drawing her observations along the way. When she was interrogating Loki, she was leading the conversation and gleaning information from his responses along the way.

Active insight starts with two way communication. Passive insight stems from observation. That depends on whether it's the PC or NPC initiating the action to be resolved. Psychiatrists and psychologists would really struggle if all they did was watch the patient on the couch and hope for something useful. ;-)

Convincing someone to do something is what's covered under persuasion. Intimidation is causing fear and making threats. Deception is hiding something, or lying, or twisting the truth in order to deceive the person. Speaking to them and asking questions is none of those things. Communication is beyond just charisma checks. Wisdom and intelligence both have examples that factor in.

And it could very well be another PC asking the questions while the first PC observes. How does that second PC know which questions to ask?

 

[Oofta]

So if I asked, "what brings you to these parts?" would you not think I could glean information from your reaction to my question? "Where were you 3 nights ago shortly after dusk?" could cause worry or concern, shifty eyes, acting defensively, etc.

Knowing how to probe is part of knowing how to gauge a response. It's not just how the target of the PC's insight checks act; it's also how they react, and a PC is capable of speaking and observing at the same time.

That gets back to my Black Widow example. When she was tied up in a chair interrogating her captor, she wasn't just sitting there and observing. She was leading the conversation and drawing her observations along the way. When she was interrogating Loki, she was leading the conversation and gleaning information from his responses along the way.

Active insight starts with two way communication. Passive insight stems from observation. That depends on whether it's the PC or NPC initiating the action to be resolved. Psychiatrists and psychologists would really struggle if all they did was watch the patient on the couch and hope for something useful. ;-)

Convincing someone to do something is what's covered under persuasion. Intimidation is causing fear and making threats. Deception is hiding something, or lying, or twisting the truth in order to deceive the person. Speaking to them and asking questions is none of those things. Communication is beyond just charisma checks. Wisdom and intelligence both have examples that factor in.

And it could very well be another PC asking the questions while the first PC observes. How does that second PC know which questions to ask?

If you aren't using a skill such as persuasion or intimidate in a conversation, I'd say you were doing this thing called "role playing"*. Insight and other checks may influence what you are saying of course.

Insight as defined in the book is purely a mental/internal exercise no different than arcana, history or religion IMHO. It's getting a read on a person, that's all.

*Yes, I'm being a bit snarky here. But I can complain about answering the same basic question a dozen times as well.