Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="coolAlias" data-source="post: 7790534" data-attributes="member: 6998948">Insight is one of those that I dislike the idea of the players knowing the result; having the NPC make the check vs. the PCs' passive scores is a suggestion I've seen that I might try at my table.As for the results, a success means the PC gets a good read on the situation, a failure means they don't get any read, and a massive failure (e.g. by 5 or more) means they read the situation incorrectly.In play, this might look like:NPC: &quot;These are not the droids you're looking for&quot; (lying)DM: rolls Cha [Deception] check for NPC, tells players:&nbsp; 1. You're fairly certain the NPC is lying to you&nbsp; 2. Nothing; if player asks, tell them they're not getting any clear indicators of deceipt or truthfulness&nbsp; 3. You're fairly certain the NPC is telling the truthNow it's up to the players to decide how their characters use the information available to them. Just like in real life, you can be certain someone is lying through their teeth, but without hard evidence or admission of guilt, you can't really prove it.Perhaps a PC wants to try to catch the NPC in their lie with loaded questions / finding inconsistencies; okay, roll Int [Investigation].Perhaps the PC wants to accuse the NPC of lying and force them to admit it; okay, roll Cha [Persuasion or Intimidation, depending on tactic]Perhaps the PC decides while they don't have any indication otherwise, they believe or disbelieve the NPC anyway and go off searching for evidence to support their view, such as examining the droids more closely to verify the NPC's claims.TLDR I use Insight to give players an idea of their characters' read on a situation, but the player shouldn't know for certain whether that read is factually correct or not without trying something else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="coolAlias, post: 7790534, member: 6998948"] Insight is one of those that I dislike the idea of the players knowing the result; having the NPC make the check vs. the PCs' passive scores is a suggestion I've seen that I might try at my table. As for the results, a success means the PC gets a good read on the situation, a failure means they don't get any read, and a massive failure (e.g. by 5 or more) means they read the situation incorrectly. In play, this might look like: NPC: "These are not the droids you're looking for" (lying) DM: rolls Cha [Deception] check for NPC, tells players: 1. You're fairly certain the NPC is lying to you 2. Nothing; if player asks, tell them they're not getting any clear indicators of deceipt or truthfulness 3. You're fairly certain the NPC is telling the truth Now it's up to the players to decide how their characters use the information available to them. Just like in real life, you can be certain someone is lying through their teeth, but without hard evidence or admission of guilt, you can't really prove it. Perhaps a PC wants to try to catch the NPC in their lie with loaded questions / finding inconsistencies; okay, roll Int [Investigation]. Perhaps the PC wants to accuse the NPC of lying and force them to admit it; okay, roll Cha [Persuasion or Intimidation, depending on tactic] Perhaps the PC decides while they don't have any indication otherwise, they believe or disbelieve the NPC anyway and go off searching for evidence to support their view, such as examining the droids more closely to verify the NPC's claims. TLDR I use Insight to give players an idea of their characters' read on a situation, but the player shouldn't know for certain whether that read is factually correct or not without trying something else. [/QUOTE]

Verification