D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Blue]

If there’s something hidden, I telegraph it. I give the players some kind of indication in my description that there is something to be found. Maybe a draft to indicate a secret door, maybe a bit of unmortared tile to indicate a pressure plate, maybe a faint scuffling sound to indicate a creature preparing an ambush, what have you. In the past, I might have gated the telegraph behind a minimum passive Wisdom (Perception), but I don’t really do that any more. Then it’s up to the players to announce actions (with goal and approach) if they want to follow up on that hint, and I will resolve those actions as per my usual process (chance of success, chance of failure, you know the drill by now.)

I've played frequently with a player on the Autism spectrum. Telegraphing to a player may not work like you think it does at all. If there is something where the character should notice it explicitly (say because their passive insight beats the DC), then you need to tell the player explicitly.

(This is not putting down telegraphing, I like how you do it. Just saying don't use it as a reason to ignore mechanics.)

Though to be honest, with this particular player it was the opposite. He thought SO many things were telegraphs, especially about plots, and would come up with these wonderfully complex viewpoints of what was happening in the campaign that was 20% real hints and 80% thinking things were telegraphed hints but were really just random bits or throw-away lines.

 

[MNblockhead]

While I can respect every table has a different style of play, I can tell I would not enjoy playing your style, but I am glad it works for your group.

It is odd, we have done a lot to speed up game play, but we don't make attack rolls and damage rolls at the same time. We had a player join us for a few months who did that, and the DM found it so annoying--I'll admit, so did I.

At any rate, it is always interesting to hear how different tables run things.

Well, I don't demand that players roll attacks and damage at the same time, and I'll enjoy my time under just about any table rules, I'm there to have fun not be as efficient as possible. But I have found, especially at higher levels, that when players have their actions determined and

I wouldn't call it an "argument" against rolling all the dice at once, just a preference. We tried it, and didn't find it really sped things up much. By switching to average damage instead, that worked better for us. The color-coded dice for multiple attacks might help and maybe we will give it a try.

I use average damage for monsters and NPCs. Players don't like using averages, they prefer to roll and that's cool. I like rolling for damage but I find it easier as a DM to use averages, especially when dealing with multiple attackers or higher CR foes where I'll have to roll lots of dice.

But recently, I've added an Alexa skill that will allow me to say "Alexa, roll 10d6", I rarely use it because we generally don't use digital dice at our table. We like physical dice. But sometimes the number of dice to roll and add up for damage rolls become more of chore and we let Alexa roll.

 

[5ekyu]

What they want to do? This request seems like asking for a roll so that it's acceptable for the PC to think something. Not my responsibility as a DM to determine or adjust what a PC thinks.

This is my fundamental issue with Insight as it's usually discussed. It's usually discussed in a manner of "is there a clue so that my PC is justified in having this opinion of the fiction?" The response is to use Insight to find this clue. The problem this creates was identified in the last thread on this topic -- what happens if the NPC is telling the truth and the PC fails the check? This gets into the GM presenting fiction specifically to mislead the players, only it's either known (the PC sees the roll) or always hidden (the GM always makes secret rolls, so the player isn't really getting any reliable information to begin with). Instead, I use Insight (and all skills) as active resolution mechanics. Insight, for me, is used when trying to find out information from an NPC via social interaction. This requires interaction with the NPC and isn't a check made against what the NPC has said to determine truthiness.

For example, using the OP example, the PCs may try to find out more about the owner, eliciting Insight checks to extract information (against the NPC's attitude DC). When they feel like confronting the owner, their approach may be trying to find out information from the NPC leveraging clues they've found, which would be an Insight check.

Mabye Bob's character starts by trying to intimidate the owner into telling the truth by looming and yelling that the owner's lying. Susan's character takes the opportunity of the owner's being distracted to look around the store for anything about the owner she can leverage if the intimidate fails. Which it does, and the shopkeep backs away from Bob's character sticking to his story and threatening to call the watch. Susan's character's perception check succeeds and she sees a child's drawings pinned under the counter and a few toys. Susan's character steps in between the shopkeeper and Bob's character and tries to defuse the situation by shooing Bob's character away and apologizing to the owner for the bad behavior (persuasion check success), then starting up a talk with the owner about their child, trying to improve attitude (Insight check with advantage for having good info, success). Now that the owner is placated and talking Susan tries to leverage concern for the child into finding out more information about the murder last night by promising protection for the owner's family and silence on where any information comes from. This is another Insight check (trying to elicit information), success meaning the owner talks and failure causing him to shut up and demand they characters leave the store.

But, at no point would I let a player ask for a check to determine if their character thinks something or not. The players are either suspicious, or they aren't. I also follow an 'active PC' mode of play where NPCs don't usually roll against PC outside of combat. NPCs do things, and players act. If an NPC is being intentionally deceptive, I'll use their passive Deception as the DC for any elicitation checks against them rather than the usual attitude checks. A successful Insight check uncovers the deception, but the player has to be engaging the NPC with a goal and approach (as above) that would result in asking for a check. Failure means the deception would be repeated. The owner just not being willing to offer information isn't an active deception, in my book, just recalcitrance. The owner being the murderer, on the other hand, would likely be an active deception.

"The problem this creates was identified in the last thread on this topic -- what happens if the NPC is telling the truth and the PC fails the check?"

It's hard to say without context but since 5e allows a failed ability check to be either just no progress or some progress with setback a wide latitude of redolutions is possible - assuming a failure was possible of vourse.

Your character gets no real clues from their observation him beyond whatever has already been described.(no progress.)
He's clearly annoyed by the loud gang over in the corner, so you arent seeing anything except that (no progress tied to circumstances )
He is not telling everything, some signs of holding back. (Someceith set back since he is holding back about something unrelsted.)
Careful study, tough read eith the hustle and bustle of this crowded bar but seems to be honest about it. (Meanwhile pocket is picked while PC is distracted. Will notice it later on.)
Etc.

 

[5ekyu]

"Ok, so we have:
A. The rules do say that the DM should only call for a roll if there is a meaningful cost for failure.
B. There is, in this hypothetical situation, no cost for failure.
C. The player asks to make a check.
Because there is no cost of failure, and the rules tell us only to call for a check if there is, the rules suggest that the DM should not allow the roll in this case.
Saying that “the player is asking for a chance of failure” is meant to express this, not to suggest that, because the player asked for a check, the DM ought to create a chance of failure where none existed before."



That, like the other, would be a wonderful total repackaging of the ststement's meaning- totally removing any definition of "asking for a chance to fail" in the process - if the rest of the paragraph was ignored. But the following sentences right after that explain some of the details that show, clearly, this was about more than just a no-fail situation where a gm would not have required a roll at all

"a player requesting to make a specific ability check is asking for a chance to fail and thus harm the party in some way. Wouldn't the better play be for the player to describe what their character is doing and what they hope to accomplish - perhaps invoking a trait or a resource or a past experience that makes them particular good at the task they describe - in order to suggest to the DM that they should auto-succeed at the given task? Or at the very least have the DM grant them advantage or lower the DC because of their described approach? Just seems like a smart play. "

As anyone can see, this touted as good advice and smart play goes on to rptrll you what the better play is - trying to suggest suto-succeed or gain advantage or lower DC - which seem to belie the proposition that this was just about a no-fail situation.

In spite of the retro-meaning we see most times this comes up, the paragraph seems to make it look a lot like "asking for a chance to fail" means what it sounds like.

But that fat has been chewed before and beliefs and doctrines are subjective to be sure.

 

[Hriston]

Funny, but in the end, both are communications between player and gm, they are the bridge between choice and resolution. One is expressing it as z description of the character in tier world, the other as the description of it in ours.

For dome that is a meaningful or even vastly important thing of almost dogma import. For others, its just two different routes between the same start and finish.

This seems to me to just be a matter of style, a case of poe-tae-toe poe-tah-toe. In the case of insight (and a couple other skills) all the action is internal, there is no "action" per se (at least no visible action) which is why I don't care. In the case of insight checks, it's just shorthand, the same way I don't expect people to tell me every round what weapon they're attacking with unless they switch. I assume they have a default weapon that they use and if they switch from ranged to melee or vice versa they tell me. The only time I care is if they're using GWM or SS.

I very much doubt there’s anyone at either of your tables who says, when it’s his/her turn in combat, “I make an Attack roll,” as his/her action-declaration, and if there were, that you wouldn’t find it somewhat disappointing roleplaying.

 

[Oofta]

So the options of how you deal with insight at your table are (roughly)

1. The player can indicate that they are making a check
   1. By saying "I make an insight check".
   2. Some other way of saying "I make an insight check" that doesn't use the game term.
2. Passive insight, whether or not the PC is the gullible type that never suspects anyone of lying.
3. The DM asks for insight checks if the NPC is using deception*.
4. The DM somehow discerns that a PC deserves to use their skill without input from the player and asks for a check.

I think that covers the options, at least as I understand them.

*Which somehow doesn't clue in the players as to when the NPCs are lying because there's a one in a million chance the NPC is soo good at deception there's no chance of success or because insight can be used for something else. Except that the only stated purpose of insight is to determine the true intentions of a creature.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So the opposite of the passive perception score that been used for the last two editions.

Sorry for the snip, but this one line really calls out a big deviation in thinking. 5e is its own game, and doesn't care what or how things were done in the last two editions. I don't care how you chose to play except that I sincerely hope it's in a way that's fun and engaging for you. Really, I do. 5e, though, isn't the last editions and playing it in the style of previous editions will lead to some things being odd, or some conversations about the game being odd. I think it's very much worth it to understand the game as it is written, even if you chose to do something else entirely with your own play.

I differ a bit in how I apply knowledge skills and how social skills work in my game. This difference is that I dislike the odd passive nature of some of the descriptions of use in the game so I've made them all active skills that directly act against the fiction in game. Insight is the skill used to elicit information from someone. Persuasion is the skill used to convince. Deception is the skill used to hide information or convincing present false information. Intimidate is, well, intimidation. All actively work on the fiction to change it, none treat with what PCs think. Similarly, history, arcana, religion, etc., all actively work on the fiction and aren't used to recall lore passively. You might type a demon by using arcana, but it's going to be by studying the taxonomy of this demon and using that to determine the information, not checking to see if you remember something. Usually, though, arcana is being used to directly manipulate magic in game, by thwarting rituals or bypassing magical traps or applying a bit of loose magic to empower a portal. History is used to actively solve puzzles of what happened in the past -- think field researcher doing a dig, only faster and more cinematic. I've had a player use History to find a secret door by considering their knowledge of the time period, the architectural style, and the politics of the time to anticipate that a secret passage out of a room should be there and that this kind of mechanism was commonly used. Boom.

So, to your larger point, no, "I make an Insight check" or "I make a Perception check" is too vague to adjudicate without me making assumptions about what the player is trying to do. Yes, sometimes it's easy to do so, but sometimes it isn't. I'm consistent so that my players never ever have that "wait, he's clarifying, something's up" moment and because it's just good practice. Surely you aren't claiming that a consistent level of clarity in communications is somehow a bad things in games?

 

[Oofta]

I very much doubt there’s anyone at either of your tables who says, when it’s his/her turn in combat, “I make an Attack roll,” as his/her action-declaration, and if there were, that you wouldn’t find it somewhat disappointing roleplaying.

Huh? Are we playing the same game? Sometimes people add dramatic flair, but the vast majority of times it's "I attack the orc and get an 18, do I hit?" or some variation therein.

I had one guy who added a lot of, shall we say "flourish" to every single attack. We all thought they were a boring attention hog after a while. Improvise in combat? Absolutely. Describe what you're doing and how now and then? Go for it. Witty repartee? Fantastic as long as you keep your quips quick. Have a cookie. Or inspiration.

But describe every single attack? Nope.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So the options of how you deal with insight at your table are (roughly)

1. The player can indicate that they are making a check
   1. By saying "I make an insight check".
   2. Some other way of saying "I make an insight check" that doesn't use the game term.
2. Passive insight, whether or not the PC is the gullible type that never suspects anyone of lying.
3. The DM asks for insight checks if the NPC is using deception*.
4. The DM somehow discerns that a PC deserves to use their skill without input from the player and asks for a check.

I think that covers the options, at least as I understand them.

*Which somehow doesn't clue in the players as to when the NPCs are lying because there's a one in a million chance the NPC is soo good at deception there's no chance of success or because insight can be used for something else. Except that the only stated purpose of insight is to determine the true intentions of a creature.

None of the above apply to me or the example I provided.

Try:

5. Players declare actions on how they interact with the scene, providing a goal and the approach to that goal. The DM then determines if the results are uncertain, and if there's a consequence for failure. If so, a check is called for. In all cases, the DM then narrates the results.

So, if the players declared an action to elicit information from the owner by appraising his body language when being questioned, I'd either provide that information outright, say you notice nothing outright, or call for a Wisdom check that the player could apply Insight to, if that seemed appropriate. Usually, in my play, this information would be provided outright, because the owner lying seems a poor challenge for the PCs (if an insight check rolled around by everyone can solve it, we're just gambling (at bad odds for the house)). Instead, finding out why the owner NPC is lying, and what about, and maybe doing something about that seems like a great challenge for the PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

This may get down to a level of splitting hairs that's not too useful for the game. The character lives in the world, and without instruction of the player do things like see, hear, breath, etc. If there is an overwhelming stench, they need take no specific action to notice it. And the player should not need to ask the DM "do I smell anything" to get that feedback. The DM is the interface to the world and is supposed to describe to the player what the character experiences.

Sure. Obvious things are obvious, which is why when I describe a room to them, I just tell the players all of the obvious things that their PCs see. If they want to know more about the room, though, they have to actively look around.

Passive perception is a shorthand for the DM to know what they should describe just because the character is alive and in the world. For example, if instead of an overwhelming stench there was a mild taint of brimstone in the air, some characters might be oblivious (without taking a specific action, as you mentioned), while other characters may notice it as soon as entering the area.

I'm not sure I agree. An overwhelming stench is going to take a passive perception of 1 to notice. Meaning there's no point in even checking passive perception when it comes to obvious things. Passive perception is really about things that are not quite obvious, and not really hard to spot.

Active perception is better than passive perception, though. An unproficient PC with a wisdom of 12 has an 11 passive perception score. That same PC with an active search can hit 21.