D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Campbell]

But that seems more like an issue with how to handle the check, not necessarily an inherent problem. As with anything players are attempting to do, if it's not clear what's happening then I ask for clarification.

So I would never assume anyone was touching the statue, I'd assume looking first and then let them know what their options are.

There are times when I'll do an Indiana Jones put your hands in the spider-infested hole to turn the lever or some such, but it's always obvious what the risk is and there will be an alternative.

In general the consequence is either that you do not see anything or you perceive it in the wrong area, like you believe the wrong floor tiles have pressure plates. I am willing to handle this one of two ways. Either I can make the rolls behind the screen and your actions are not bound by my descriptions or you can make the roll with an open DC and will be bound to play it with a measure of integrity.

In general for more Step On Up challenge focused play I tend to prefer secret rolls so the player is more free to act. If we are doing more focused character exploration sort of play I prefer the shared tension of the die roll. Of course searching for traps tends to not be a feature of character exploration focused games.

 

[5ekyu]

But that seems more like an issue with how to handle the check, not necessarily an inherent problem. As with anything players are attempting to do, if it's not clear what's happening then I ask for clarification.

So I would never assume anyone was touching the statue, I'd assume looking first and then let them know what their options are.

There are times when I'll do an Indiana Jones put your hands in the spider-infested hole to turn the lever or some such, but it's always obvious what the risk is and there will be an alternative.

Yeah, I get this.

Everytime I see this kind of example that goal and approach is supposed to solve, I see a case where the GM just doesnt need to take a non-specific check and run it off the cliff.

I mean, literally if someone says I " head forward towards the cliff" and its 25' away and their normal move is 40, do you have them plunge off the cliffside? I assume they get close- based on context, or I ask.

But again this gets back to is there an assumption of confidence or not?

I mean, in ye olde days when the player's casual description could get him groping the poisoned door and not saying "I look up" meant you were blind and never saw the ceiling- we had lists of SOPs for doors , standard camp write-ups, trap routines, etc.

But the other issue is, when he examines or looks at the stsue for secret doors, was his search enough to spot signs of poison? Or, since he didn't say " looking for poison" as his goal does he not get a chance- the tell me what you are looking for issue.

Cuz if its that he doesnt have what it takes to spot the poison, seems like we will be there soon anyway even if we stop at "you dont spot sny sign of doors by just looking. What now?"

Then again, contact poison out of the blue is a good way to teach players always use Gloves and daggers cuz anything can be poisoned.

 

[Ashrym]

I remembered another active use for insight that doesn't come up in out games much.

Playing games with someone is a good way to gain understanding of their personality, granting you a better ability to discern their lies from their truths and read their mood.

-- XGE

Gaming sets are used to gain insight into character with a 15 DC to help guage the ability.

 

[Campbell]

I value specificity of the fiction because focusing in on those details makes the experience of playing the game more fun for me. This is true as a player and as a GM. These small moments matter and I want to give them the weight that they deserve. Speaking generally while character goals are important for some things and I very much want to know them for the sake of my curiosity having a detailed understanding of what is going on right now in this moment is more important to me.

I want to know what's going on so firm consequences for failure and success can be set. I want to know what's going on so we can focus on the drama of the moment. For me the entire point of playing roleplaying games are these moments of tension where the decisions I make and risks I take impact the outcome. There is no where to get to. That will work itself out. The group can find that out together.

Sometimes we can elide details like say exhaustively searching while we go along dungeon corridors might simply mean we need to travel at a much slower pace which should still be consequential, but when we get to a room with an elaborate set of traps to navigate where we search may become more salient. Just like some conversations can be covered in broad strokes while in others we drill down to the specific exchanges.

The point is that play is all about the choices we make and the impact those choices have. There is no need to rush through things because there is nothing to rush to.

 

[5ekyu]

I value specificity of the fiction because focusing in on those details makes the experience of playing the game more fun for me. This is true as a player and as a GM. These small moments matter and I want to give them the weight that they deserve. Speaking generally while character goals are important for some things and I very much want to know them for the sake of my curiosity having a detailed understanding of what is going on right now in this moment is more important to me.

I want to know what's going on so firm consequences for failure and success can be set. I want to know what's going on so we can focus on the drama of the moment. For me the entire point of playing roleplaying games are these moments of tension where the decisions I make and risks I take impact the outcome. There is no where to get to. That will work itself out. The group can find that out together.

Sometimes we can elide details like say exhaustively searching while we go along dungeon corridors might simply mean we need to travel at a much slower pace which should still be consequential, but when we get to a room with an elaborate set of traps to navigate where we search may become more salient. Just like some conversations can be covered in broad strokes while in others we drill down to the specific exchanges.

The point is that play is all about the choices we make and the impact those choices have. There is no need to rush through things because there is nothing to rush to.

Ok, sure. That's great.

My bet is most folks here would say that making choices thst matter is huge part of rpg play too, so you are certainly in a big pool of folks.

 

[Oofta]

I value specificity of the fiction because focusing in on those details makes the experience of playing the game more fun for me. This is true as a player and as a GM. These small moments matter and I want to give them the weight that they deserve. Speaking generally while character goals are important for some things and I very much want to know them for the sake of my curiosity having a detailed understanding of what is going on right now in this moment is more important to me.

I want to know what's going on so firm consequences for failure and success can be set. I want to know what's going on so we can focus on the drama of the moment. For me the entire point of playing roleplaying games are these moments of tension where the decisions I make and risks I take impact the outcome. There is no where to get to. That will work itself out. The group can find that out together.

Sometimes we can elide details like say exhaustively searching while we go along dungeon corridors might simply mean we need to travel at a much slower pace which should still be consequential, but when we get to a room with an elaborate set of traps to navigate where we search may become more salient. Just like some conversations can be covered in broad strokes while in others we drill down to the specific exchanges.

The point is that play is all about the choices we make and the impact those choices have. There is no need to rush through things because there is nothing to rush to.

Depends on a whole lot of things. For example if you're just engaging one player while everyone else is bored. Does it add to the story, or at least to the richness of the world. Is it fun.

I do use traps and puzzle-like locks now and then, but I don't make assumptions about what a player is doing without giving them details and a general idea of risk. I don't want to get to the point where the PCs have to go buy a ten foot pole so they can describe how they tap the floor ahead of them to detect traps.

 

[jasper]

......

But again this gets back to is there an assumption of confidence or not?

I mean, in ye olde days when the player's casual description could get him groping the poisoned door and not saying "I look ip"mesnt you were blind and never saw the ceiling- we had lists of SOPs for doors , standard camp write-ups, trap routines, etc.

But the other issue is, when he examines or looks at the stsue for secret doors, was his search enough to spot signs of poison? Or, since he didn't say " looking for poidon" as his goal does he not get a chance- the tell me what you are looking for isdue.

Cuz if its thst he doesnt have what it takes to spot the poison, seems like we will be there soon anyway even if we stop at "you dont spot sny sign of doors by just looking. What now?"

....

AMEN AMEN AMEN EVERYONE GIVE THIS PERSON AN AMEN. PRAISE THE GREAT E.G.G. PRAISE THE LORD. AMEN AMEN AMEN.
I got tired of the SOPs back before 4E. And ticked off players by enforcing the SOP. Sorry Bob you rolled for traps and failed so you were in the front of the party.
Now days if they roll a perception ability (skill is a skill check haahahah) check, and they hit the DC then they discover everything. Secret doors, the poison trap, and key to dad's adult mags.

 

[jasper]

I feel they do need to clarify a bit further.
I have many times had conversations like:

Player: I check the chest for traps.
GM: As you touch the chest, it feels sticky. You are poisoned.
Player: That's not fair! I didn't say I was touching it!

So, for physical actions, there should be a bit more clarification. Things like how close the character is getting to the object, whether they are touching it or not, whether they are using their fingers or poking it with a stick, how thick their gloves are (thick gloves might grant advantage on the poison save but disadvantage on the ability check).

As for knowledge based activities like insight, I would one ask for one clarification, which is how hard the character is studying the person. If they are being very attentive I might give advantage or automatic success, but allow the target a chance to notice the character is paying close attention. "What are you looking at, bub!"

Hmm Ok. Back in 1E Player: I check the chest for traps.75% DM Your Detect Traps is 45% you fail badly.
In 5EPlayer: I check the chest for traps. Perception total is 9. DM the DC was 15. You fail badly.
and back to you.
GM: As you touch the chest, it feels sticky. You are poisoned.
Player: That's not fair! I didn't say I was touching it!..
GM. Ok fine I don't exactly what you did but you are poisoned. Give me a con save. Bob what are you doing.
End of scene.
Unless the trap says contact poison I would just go ahead with pc being poisoned. Now if the player gives me extra clarification, I may change the DC but not always.
And back in the day I was poisoned a lot by touching things. That is why I wear glasses now days.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

So in my game, that would go something like this...

DM: Neatly squirreled away under a cleverly disguised false floorboard, Briggs finds the assassin guildmaster's lockbox. What do you do?
Walt: It has to be trapped, there have been traps all over the place. Briggs checks it for traps. I got a... oh. 19.
DM: Briggs does not find the trap that he is sure is there. What do you do?
Walter: Briggs tells Gabriel that the lockbox is probably trapped.
Dave: Gabriel tells everyone to stand back. He breaks the lock.
DM: Gabriel is exposed to the poison when he breaks the lock. Please make a Fortitude save.
Dave: Gabriel is immune to poisons.
DM: Right. Well. The poison tastes a bit like cracked pepper and sea salt. Now that the lockbox is open, what do you do?

 

[Ashrym]

I was watching season 3 of Stranger Things and saw another example of insight in media. Hopper vs the Russian in the stawberry / cherry slurpee scene.