Secretive PCs and Insight vs other PCs

[Decstarr]

Hey guys,

in our latest session one of the PCs chose to be suspicious towards a fellow PC (mainly because the guy all of a sudden took off by himself to "purchase a healing potion" when normally the group handled the purchase part together). So suspicious PC started to ask all kinds of questions, after the other one got back from his "supply" run and didn't seem happy with the answers he was given. So he asked if he could roll an Insight check.

If it was an NPC, I would know how to handle this. But how do you handle it when it regards another PC? Would a roll-off still make sense (INS vs Deception)?

On the one hand, I dislike the idea that players roll against each other - unless they are fighting or just messing with each other - and since every PC has their own back story and maybe secrets they are unwilling to share yet, I feel like it could be opening Pandora's box if I allow them to Insight check each other. At the same time, in terms of immersion it makes perfect sense to question your teammates, especially after your PCs have been together for a while and suddenly the behavior seems "off" somehow.

Has something like this come up in your sessions and how do you handle it?

[Anderlith]

For me, i let them roll to see if the other is telling the truth. Both roll & tell me the total without talking. I then tell the asker that "yes they are telling the truth" or "you think they are lying". Whether they decide to stop being suspicious is up to them though. Like he player could be like "Sure you were just buying a potion but thats weird to go alone, maybe you did more than just that" & keep an eye on the other for a bit.

I dont stop player agency but i also l make sure that as long as the liar makes the rolls the other characters have no proof of shadiness until more things come to light

[Decstarr]

For me, i let them roll to see if the other is telling the truth. Both roll & tell me the total without talking. I then tell the asker that "yes they are telling the truth" or "you think they are lying". Whether they decide to stop being suspicious is up to them though. Like he player could be like "Sure you were just buying a potion but thats weird to go alone, maybe you did more than just that" & keep an eye on the other for a bit.

I dont stop player agency but i also l make sure that as long as the liar makes the rolls the other characters have no proof of shadiness until more things come to light

That's exactly my trouble with the roll-off: The "liar" wants to keep it secret and by having him roll, if he fails you directly intervene with PC agency, which could piss players off a lot imho. At the same time, I see why one would do it and even the justification to do so, since it was another PC who became suspicious because of "weird" behavior, so it is kind of the PC's fault in the first place that a check was demanded. Then again, let's say the PC wants to actually do something without the rest of the group noticing, he pretty much has no choice but to venture off by himself for a little bit and by allowing these Insight checks amongst PCs it feels like prohibiting planned sneakyness/secrets to some degree.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Clear this up first:

Is the Player or the Character keeping a secret? Because if it's the Player, you have already failed as a DM.

Otherwise, talk to the suspicious one OOC and see why he's pushing the issue, especially if the "liar" doesn't want his secret revealed yet. Make him realize that while it's okay for him to suspect something, like a good mystery novel, the truth must come out at the proper (narrative) time.

[Decstarr]

Clear this up first:

Is the Player or the Character keeping a secret? Because if it's the Player, you have already failed as a DM.

Otherwise, talk to the suspicious one OOC and see why he's pushing the issue, especially if the "liar" doesn't want his secret revealed yet. Make him realize that while it's okay for him to suspect something, like a good mystery novel, the truth must come out at the proper (narrative) time.

I thought I was being clear that it is the Players Character not the player who is suspicious :smallconfused:

That's really good advice, but I got the feeling that while the player will understand, his suspicious PC might not be willing to let go of the issue that easily :P

[Ninjadeadbeard]

That's really good advice, but I got the feeling that while the player will understand, his suspicious PC might not be willing to let go of the issue that easily :P

Kill him.

...

Or his character. And only if he goes too far. :smallwink:

[Decstarr]

Kill him.

...

Or his character. And only if he goes too far. :smallwink:

A quick demise of his character would probably be easier - and legally safer - to pull off :smallbiggrin:

This helps for the one situation, but I'm also looking into a "general" way of doing it. Do other DMs allow Insight checks between PCs?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I do, but only because my players are...weird.

What is the secret, if you don't mind my asking?

[Rynjin]

Why not? It's what the skills are for.

All you get is a vague "Yes/No" on if they're lying anyway, so it doesn't even confirm any suspicions beyond "Yes, he's keeping something from me".

That secret could be anything from "Is actually a space alien and plans to conquer earth" to "Has an irritating sexually transmitted rash and is too embarrassed to talk about it".

[Decstarr]

I do, but only because my players are...weird.

What is the secret, if you don't mind my asking?

It's nothing bad actually. One of the PCs is a rather dumb Barbarian and he is married, yet his wife has been living with another guy for quite a while because of the Barbarian's habit to stupidly gamble away all their money. Yet the dude claims that she just "took a roommate" and refuses to see that they are split up. So the group's rogue decided to go off, gathering the ingredients for a little poison to make the "roommate" fall sick with something nasty yet not life threatening. The fighter of the group has some - historically created - trust issues towards the rogue, so when he asked questions about where the rogue was, he didn't really buy the answers - mainly because the rogue claimed he bought a healing potion for a way too high prize when the rogue has been a cheap money hoarder all the time. So this particular "secret" isn't really bad, but not resolving it will enforce the trust issues between two of the group's characters and while that can be very entertaining to watch I also see the potential for stronger conflict in the future.

Additionally, the idea of Insight checks also came up when characters talk about their past. And in such a case, especially when the past is relevant to the main story, I dislike the idea of forcing people to give away something they don't want to. But thinking about how Insight is supposed to work by reading body language etc, it would make sense to allow it and it probably should be allowed.

[Cespenar]

Talk with your players OOC and decide together how you want to run opposed Insight checks.

[RSP]

Yeah it should be a group decision how to resolve PvP (whether combat or skill checks).

In general I'm in favor of rolling (it's what the skills are there for and rewards those characters who went more skills than combat in their creation), though if a Player really wants to be "super shady mysterious guy" but didn't want to waste valuable optimizing potential, I'd let them have their fun so long as it didn't interfere with my RP.

The more common way I see this come up is the Rogue palming gems from treasure hoards. This, in my opinion, needs to be okay with the Players if it's going to be done, as it can lead to PvP combat pretty quickly.

[hymer]

That's exactly my trouble with the roll-off: The "liar" wants to keep it secret and by having him roll, if he fails you directly intervene with PC agency, which could piss players off a lot imho. At the same time, I see why one would do it and even the justification to do so, since it was another PC who became suspicious because of "weird" behavior, so it is kind of the PC's fault in the first place that a check was demanded. Then again, let's say the PC wants to actually do something without the rest of the group noticing, he pretty much has no choice but to venture off by himself for a little bit and by allowing these Insight checks amongst PCs it feels like prohibiting planned sneakyness/secrets to some degree.

What about the agency of the other PCs? Why should the fighter be disallowed his chance to find out a secret? Keeping secrets from the people who you trust with your life and who are supposed to trust your with theirs is dicey business no matter how you slice it. No wonder the fighter is suspicious, particularly since there's history.

[StoicLeaf]

My rule of thumb for PvP-skill checks is (provided the players RP and don't meta game the game to bits):
No rolls against other players unless both agree to it.


In the situation you describe, you don't need rolls. One of your players is already suspicious because the other guy is doing something questionable. The next logical step is to either talk it out in game or follow the guy next time.
Also it feels like you think insight is some form of mind reading; it isn't.

[Dr.Samurai]

Will the player accept a result of "you think he's telling the truth"?

I'm really not a fan of pvp rolls. If the one character is sypicious of the rogue, he should just role play a lack of trust in the game. What is he going to do if you tell him the rogue's explanation is fishy? Halt the game and force the rogue to tell "the truth"?

The insight check seems meaningless to me, and if a pc is optimized in bluff, it could mean the party would have to accept every far-fetched lie a character feels like spinning. Especially if the rolls are hidden, I'm not sure it will do much to resolve this suspicion.

[Anderlith]

That's exactly my trouble with the roll-off: The "liar" wants to keep it secret and by having him roll, if he fails you directly intervene with PC agency, which could piss players off a lot imho. At the same time, I see why one would do it and even the justification to do so, since it was another PC who became suspicious because of "weird" behavior, so it is kind of the PC's fault in the first place that a check was demanded. Then again, let's say the PC wants to actually do something without the rest of the group noticing, he pretty much has no choice but to venture off by himself for a little bit and by allowing these Insight checks amongst PCs it feels like prohibiting planned sneakyness/secrets to some degree.

No it doesnt effect agency. Even if the rogue fails his lie against the fighter, he still doesnt have to tell the truth.

My way of doing it is basically an empty gesture meant to give the players a bit of closure to the situation without actively messing with anything.

Regardless of the results the fighter could believe the rogue or still be suspicious, the rogue could successfully lie or be really bad at it. But the players will still have thier hang ups, you cant really stop that. But you can deescalate the situation by having a pointless roll that effectively means nothing, but gives the illusion that something is resolved. Its like in a tv show where one guy acts like a ****, is called out on it, they say or do somethig to return to status quo, but then several episodes later it all comes out. Like a drama bandaid

[Larpus]

You have to juggle two players agencies here, the agency or one wanting to keep a secret and the agency or another wanting to know such secret. It's also hard as it's the perfect situation for a player, even if subconsciously, break the fourth barrier and not accept the outcome due to out-of-game knowledge.

You can let them roll it out, but that's likely to leave a sour taste, this is also where 5e shows its weakness in that rolls are overall standardized with few ways to boost them, so it's likely that both characters have the same bonus when rolling for their respective skill, so it might very well end up with a "whoever rolls higher wins".

There are some ways out of that, tho, both mechanically and with RP.

Mechanically, you can give the lying PC advantage or a bonus on the roll supposing this secret is something very important to them, not just something they're hiding for farts and giggles. Bonus is better because you can handle it yourself and make the roll in secret, though if you're doing that you might as well roll two dies (or let them roll the dies) and just decide whatever outcome you think will be best.

As for RP, even with the rolling, the lying PC might just evade the truth or state "it is a private matter that has nothing to do with you, relax, I'm not going to put you in danger or anything" or whatever, as long as it's all truth, no deception needed. They can also play the "don't you trust me" and/or "we've been through so much" cards.

It might pay off to just let them duke it out with RP, but that's only if both players are mostly equally versed in intensive social interactions as their characters might be decked out for lying/detecting lies, but it doesn't mean that the player is any good with that.

Ultimately, you can step in at any point and remind the players of things that happened, sure, the character is acting suspicious now, but up to this point they were a true companion and never gave any reason to be suspicious about, so the suspicious PC remains suspicious, but ultimately decides to let it slide for now, until something else happens.

TL;DR
I'd disallow rolls as it's likely to devolve in "whoever rolls higher wins", would let them RP it out some but would suggest the lying PC says it's personal and has nothing to do with the other PC (supposing it's true) and remind the suspicious PC that he has little to no reason to be so demanding of an answer to the other PC, but that he's allowed to feel suspicious and keep an eye on the lying PC from now on.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd tell the player of the suspicious PC to relax. The guy did something out of the norm. It's not a reason to freak out. The twenty questions when the guy got back is weird enough. This just smells to me like metagaming. The player knows the other player is doing something in private, and knowing that, is doing everything he can in-game to figure out what it is. In real life, this is hardly a common reaction. If he questioned the guy, okay, no problem. If he didn't like the answers, okay, no problem. Then there is lost trust between them. And that comes up throughout the sessions as they adventure together.

This is the kind of thing that can be roleplayed and be a tension between them until eventually the reveal happens and the suspicious character realizes that the rogue was trying to help the barbarian with an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation.

But if you're metagaming and just want to know the secret right now because you know there's a secret and you just have to know it right now because you know it's there... that's just annoying. It's not really roleplaying unless you're playing an obsessive controlling paranoid tyrant. Which may be the case. The DM would know better than me I suppose.

[RSP]

Do you allow PvP combat at your table? If so, the Fighter's already at an advantage as they'll most likely win in a straight up fight. If you allow PvP combat, it's really a bad move to not allow PvP rolls.

I find it unlikely a fighter's Insight mod is better than the Rogue's Deception mod, but either way, if you allow combat to be decided by rolls, I kind of feel you need to let out of combat be decided that way to: give the Rogue a shot at talking his way out of it. Otherwise, the Fighter just gets to bully everyone else with the threat of combat.

Sounds like the Fighter has a preexisting distrust of the Rogue (and to be fair, it sounds like the Rogue is planning on assassinating someone). The rolls show us how the character's abilities would play out rather than having the PCs metagame it. To me it makes the game more fun, but I understand others can feel differently about it.

[Contrast]

Is the Player or the Character keeping a secret? Because if it's the Player, you have already failed as a DM.


I'm really not a fan of pvp rolls. If the one character is sypicious of the rogue, he should just role play a lack of trust in the game. What is he going to do if you tell him the rogue's explanation is fishy? Halt the game and force the rogue to tell "the truth"?

The insight check seems meaningless to me, and if a pc is optimized in bluff, it could mean the party would have to accept every far-fetched lie a character feels like spinning. Especially if the rolls are hidden, I'm not sure it will do much to resolve this suspicion.

I never really got why keeping secrets from other players is held with such horror by some people (or using the social mechanics in the game to help guide players on how to roleplay their characters for that matter).

Do you have to like the high charisma character? No, but your roleplaying should take account of the fact that they're a convincing liar. I recently finished playing in a Rogue Trader game where every member of the crew had their own secrets and agendas and the gameplay was probably about 60% GM plot and 40% secret plotting against each other, creating and breaking alliances. I'm currently playing in a 5E game where I took the charlatan background and am going under an assumed name (with my actual identity being on the run for a murder he didn't commit). The other players only know my character by his assumed name - they'll learn more as and when it comes up in game.

I'm not saying every game should be like this but I really don't see the problem. If two PCs were to arm wrestle you wouldn't worry about treading on their agency by making them roll off athletics. This is the same thing. Its worth saying that a failed insight check doesn't necesarily mean 'you trust them implicitly', particularly if the character has a history of being untrustworthy - it could just result in a 'you can't really get a good read on him' or 'you're not sure what to make of that'. Much like an successful insight check wouldn't reveal much other than 'you're pretty sure he's lying'. Its entirely up to the player how they choose to roleplay that going forward.

All that said - its probably worth pointing out to the fighter that 'going off on your own' is not a reason for suspicion. It may be unusual for a player to specifically highlight that they're going off on their own but in reality the characters not going to spend 24/7 in each others company. Unfortunately difficult to avoid metagaming wise (maybe suggest to the rogue that if he wants to sneak off in future he speak to you in private or pass you a note or something).

[Sigreid]

I don't think you need rolls, actually. The rogue told a bad lie. The fighter is suspicious. No rolls required as they are both in their proper place. It's not like insight actually makes the other person tell the truth, or tells you 100% they are lying.

Rogue should work on better lies thugh. "I was going to find a hhoker. Did you want to watch?

[Decstarr]

Thanks for all the advice. I doubt the fighter was breaking the fourth wall, he merely asked 'where did you go?' and as the Rogue told him he bought healing potions he asked for the prize as he didn't have any left himself and was curious how many he could afford. When the rogue named a really high prize, he got suspicious. That's when the interaction stopped. It'll likely come up at some other time and before the next session, I'll just ask the players how they wanna handle the whole 'not being honest with each other' topic. It was just another 'never been in situation' and out of the 4 players, 2 others are DMs for other groups, so there was a lot of discussion and no one was entirely sure about it. Thanks guys!

[Pex]

With the suspected player really not doing anything harmful against the party, metagame a little. Tell the suspicious player that while there is a cause for the suspected player to be secretive for now, it is Honest True of no harm to the party in any way. It's not a betrayal to bad guys. There is no loss of treasure. The roleplay will be enhanced by not knowing at this time for when what is happening becomes known.

[Sigreid]

With the suspected player really not doing anything harmful against the party, metagame a little. Tell the suspicious player that while there is a cause for the suspected player to be secretive for now, it is Honest True of no harm to the party in any way. It's not a betrayal to bad guys. There is no loss of treasure. The roleplay will be enhanced by not knowing at this time for when what is happening becomes known.

I don't think it's meta gamy. The rogue used a lie that invites follow up questing he didn't have a good answer for. It's very realistic.

[Dr.Samurai]

I never really got why keeping secrets from other players is held with such horror by some people (or using the social mechanics in the game to help guide players on how to roleplay their characters for that matter).
If that's what you got from my post, let me clarify...

I think "secrets" or in this case, doing something on your own, is normal and to be expected. I also happen to think that in many cases, players just handle it poorly. And I think this is an example of that.

I was going to use another example, and then realized that you yourself brought it up.

But I think this is a case of you introducing yourself with the assumed name, and the player asking to make an Insight check because he knows it's not your real name.

I know I'm being cynical, and jumping to conclusions, and probably a little paranoid... but I suspect that the guy playing the fighter asked those questions solely to elicit a lie from the rogue to justify making an insight check to get to the bottom of the whole thing. I think he's metagaming, full stop.

In real life:

Rogue: So, while you guys do that I'm going to head into town and buy some stuff.

Fighter: Oh hey, I'll go with you.

Rogue: That's ok, I'd rather have the time to myself.

Fighter: Um... ok.
*after rogue leaves* Is he acting a little weird to you guys?

In this game:

Rogue: So, while you guys do that I'm going to head into town and buy some stuff.

Fighter: Oh hey, I'll go with you.

Rogue: That's ok, I'd rather have the time to myself.

Fighter: *squints eyes, suspects rogue is actually a lizard in human skin plotting world domination and human enslavement* INSIGHT CHECK!!!!


I'm not saying every game should be like this but I really don't see the problem.
It's not a problem until it's a problem.

If anytime someone wants to do something in private, and you have this guy with a chip on his shoulder always trying to root out what you're doing, that can be annoying. It's annoying in real life, it's annoying in-game. There are ways to handle trust without immediately trying to figure out "the truth".

[Pex]

I don't think it's meta gamy. The rogue used a lie that invites follow up questing he didn't have a good answer for. It's very realistic.

The idea is to avoid the suspicion escalating into a complete breakdown of trust and cohesion among the party, in and out of character. It doesn't matter how wrong one thinks it is, but if a player is suspicious of another nothing will convince the player to let it go and not worry about it unless and until the DM outright says so there is nothing to worry about. Of course that must actually be the case, because the first time the DM does say that but he was just covering for the suspected player who was doing something harmful to the party (accepted not in this particular case), worse if in collusion with the DM, then trust is forever broken and the players will demand Insight, Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception checks forever more in any campaign now and in the future. I know that's extreme, but that's how it works. It could still be a friendly game with no real world animosity and it's what the players like, but that's still going to be the norm. As long as the secrets are Honest True harmless trust and cohesion remain.

[Sigreid]

The idea is to avoid the suspicion escalating into a complete breakdown of trust and cohesion among the party, in and out of character. It doesn't matter how wrong one thinks it is, but if a player is suspicious of another nothing will convince the player to let it go and not worry about it unless and until the DM outright says so there is nothing to worry about. Of course that must actually be the case, because the first time the DM does say that but he was just covering for the suspected player who was doing something harmful to the party (accepted not in this particular case), worse if in collusion with the DM, then trust is forever broken and the players will demand Insight, Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception checks forever more in any campaign now and in the future. I know that's extreme, but that's how it works. It could still be a friendly game with no real world animosity and it's what the players like, but that's still going to be the norm. As long as the secrets are Honest True harmless trust and cohesion remain.

I think we're interpreting things differently. I believe all players are aware of the situation and it's the characters that are lying/being suspicious of each other. You seem to believe one player is hiding things from another player.