Passive Insight Dispute

[FendenKrell]

hi youse guys! i just joined the forums and this is my first post.
the other night something happened that didnt make sense to me. it was my first 4e game so its possible i dont have all the facts and my ignorance could be why i have this dispute to begin with.
so i understand the rule of how "passive" insight works and im totally fine with that, in fact i like it much. but this is where things break down.
i am playing a dragonborne that is a cautious/suspicious character by nature. i was having a conversation with an NPC and i decided i wanted to make a regular insight(not passive of course) check to see if he might be lying to me. my DM said no i cant make that roll because i already failed my "passive" insight check.
see that didnt make sense to me. i understand that passive insight is for the purpose of noticing something out of the corner of your eye, something that you are not necessarily "looking" for at the time. but i think that given my character's naturally distrusting personality, that i shoulda been given the chance to roll an active perception check.
my DM said that because i did not notice anything suspicious about him "passively" then it would give me no cause to even think for one moment that i should "actively" use my insight skill on the NPC.
what do you guys think?

 

[DracoSuave]

hi youse guys! i just joined the forums and this is my first post.
the other night something happened that didnt make sense to me. it was my first 4e game so its possible i dont have all the facts and my ignorance could be why i have this dispute to begin with.
so i understand the rule of how "passive" insight works and im totally fine with that, in fact i like it much. but this is where things break down.
i am playing a dragonborne that is a cautious/suspicious character by nature. i was having a conversation with an NPC and i decided i wanted to make a regular insight(not passive of course) check to see if he might be lying to me. my DM said no i cant make that roll because i already failed my "passive" insight check.
see that didnt make sense to me. i understand that passive insight is for the purpose of noticing something out of the corner of your eye, something that you are not necessarily "looking" for at the time. but i think that given my character's naturally distrusting personality, that i shoulda been given the chance to roll an active perception check.
my DM said that because i did not notice anything suspicious about him "passively" then it would give me no cause to even think for one moment that i should "actively" use my insight skill on the NPC.
what do you guys think?

By the book, for him to successfully bluff, he has to beat your Insight -check-, not your Passive Insight. In some cases, he might have to beat multiple Insight -checks- based on the number of observers.

Passive Insight is more for situations where someone's not -actively- opposing you and you're not -actively- trying to detect it. For example, you're walking down a hallway, Passive Insight tells you if you notice that wall is an illusion, that guy in the corner is actually a doppleganger, or that king over yonder is under the influence of mind control. In those cases you're not actively hunting lies (unless you've received some clue as to their existance, which you should at some point in 4e dungeon design)

 

[On Puget Sound]

I'm not aware of any rule that decrees when you may make an insight or perception check, as long as you are willing to spend an action to do it. However, I can think of a few reasons that your DM might have chosen not to allow it:
1. If his plot absolutely depended on the NPC's duplicity going undetected. If so, this is bad DMing in my opinion; characters have skills for a reason and should get to use them; your plot should be able to withstand successful skill use and even be enhanced by it.

2. If you were metagaming; that is, deciding to make an insight roll only because you heard the ominous sound of a d20 behind the screen, or because you had read this adventure.

3. If the DM simply wanted to avoid the precedent of rolling insight every time you order a beer or buy 20 arrows, and this was essentially a meaningless encounter.

Generally, passive insight/ perception is a way to give the PCs a chance to notice something that the players weren't paying attention to, because the PCs are "on the ground" and have every detail available to them while the players are forced to rely on a two-sentence description. I don't think it should ever preclude a player stopping to pay attention. In older editions you could spend a turn actively "disbelieving" to see if something was an illusion, even if you had no reason to suspect it. Doing so cost you your turn, which was usually enough penalty to keep it from being a problem.

 

[GoLu]

If it worked like that, inight would be a passive-only skill. Either you'll succeed on 10+skill and not need to roll, or else you will fail and not be able to roll at all. If you need an 11+ to counter a bluff, you'll never succeed.

That's just kinda lame.

The way I see it, passive scores determine how much information the DM should volunteer and active scores are used when the player gets suspicious (possibly after getting a subtle hint as a result of a low DC passive check) and specifically asks for more information. The mere fact that you, the player, were suspicious is enough reason to get an active check. And from the sounds of it, it was entirely in-character as well.

 

[Kaldaen]

By my understanding, you can't "fail" passive insight or passive perception checks, because they are not "checks" in the normal sense of the word. They act as skill defenses that an NPC has to beat when the players aren't deliberately looking for something.

If the NPC beats your passive insight with a skill check, that just means his deception is believable until you decide to deliberately flush it out. That means making an active insight check -- rolling a d20 and adding your insight modifier. If you then fail the active check, the DM would be within his rights to deny a second or third, but I don't think a character's passive insight counts against that.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, lying is Bluff, and Bluff is an actively opposed check, not a roll against Passive Insight, according to the text on Bluff, whereas other things might not be.

What the Bluff check tells you, if it fails to beat your Passive Insight, is that you'll figure it out if you beat his roll or not, because the Passive Insight can't be 'rolled' away.

 

[FendenKrell]

cool

from what i hear then i shouldnt have been denied the check. thats what i figured. but also i'd like to add that i technically did not have any good reason to be suspicious other than my characters personality. does that have any bearing?

 

[DracoSuave]

It has no bearing at all. Bluff is a check that is actively opposed by Insight. That's how the Bluff skill works.

 

[FendenKrell]

soooo

so whether or not the DM's NPC had anything to hide is irrelevant right? i should have been given the chance to make my check anyway.

 

[MarkB]

It has no bearing at all. Bluff is a check that is actively opposed by Insight. That's how the Bluff skill works.

It is opposed by Insight. Nothing says it is opposed by active Insight.

The whole point of having passive Insight is for opposed checks like this one where the character has no reason to be suspicious, but might just happen to catch the bluffer in a falsehood in any case.

That certainly does not preclude making an active check if your character is feeling suspicious. You're well within your rights to make one, as only you can decide whether your character finds this particular situation suspect or not.

Where it gets sticky is when a player decides he wants to make an check simply because, effectively, the DM failed his real-life Bluff check. In those circumstances, the DM might well feel a bit miffed and respond badly - it's a player using meta-game knowledge to decide character behaviour.

I'm not accusing the OP of that - I'm just mentioning that it can be a factor. It's perfectly fine to play a character who's naturally suspicious, but just as the DM has an obligation to play his NPCs fairly, you have an obligation to choose when that suspicious nature should rear its head based upon in-character considerations, not out-of-character ones. The DM shouldn't have to feel self-conscious and defensive simply because he doesn't have a good poker face.