Constant Insight Checks

[DaveOfTheDead]

Hello Playgrounders!

I have a problem that I have expressed my concern with the problem player at hand (in this case, my wife during our solo game we play during off weeks when schedules don't align).

The problem? SHE INSIGHT CHECKS EVERYONE. LITERALLY EVERY NPC. I mean, I guess this would be fine if she had a reason? She claims "My character doesn't trust anyone! She would do that!"

I'm just curious as to what other DMs have done about this issue, because I literally can't introduce an NPC without her going "What's this guy really about? Insight! Are they lying to me? Insight!"

[JackPhoenix]

The player doesn't call for checks, the GM does. Player describes what her character is doing, the GM decides what happens and what check does it require, if any.

[Catullus64]

The player doesn't call for checks, the GM does. Player describes what her character is doing, the GM decides what happens and what check does it require, if any.

That said, the problem stands; the player can still ask if they think any given individual is lying, and as a DM, I wouldn't feel right doing anything other than calling for Insight. Even if the DM calls for the checks, the expectation that you should be able to use your Insight score to consistently attempt to analyze motives is a reasonable one. However, just because it's reasonable doesn't make it fun.

I have a similar problem with characters spamming Search checks; my solution has been to usually ask the players what exactly they are looking for, and how they go about looking for it. People tend to be less spammy with actions that require thought and descriptive roleplaying. Sometimes it even gives me the opportunity to reward creativity with advantage or lower DCs.

For your player, maybe ask her to do the same. Ask her what statement she's scrutinizing, what tells she's looking for, or what kind of ulterior motives she suspects. Even if this doesn't make her cut back on the Insight spam (as this kind of detail might force her to realize the absurdity of compulsively mistrusting every random NPC), it might at least make said Insight checks more of a fun part of gameplay and less of a chore.

[DaveOfTheDead]

The player doesn't call for checks, the GM does. Player describes what her character is doing, the GM decides what happens and what check does it require, if any.

I haven't had her do every check she wants. But it's that fact that she wants to with every new NPC is what the problem is.

[Maelynn]

You could try having the NPCs react to her. See if she realises how unnatural her behaviour is.

"Ehr.. why are you staring at me like that?"
"You're standing a bit too close for comfort, ma'am, it's making me uncomfortable..."
"Look, if that's how you apparently feel about me, then I suggest we part ways here" (especially good if the NPC is a quest giver or otherwise important)
"You accuse me of lying? I beg your pardon?" (who then proceeds with less friendly reactions towards her character)

[Orc_Lord]

The player doesn't call for checks, the GM does. Player describes what her character is doing, the GM decides what happens and what check does it require, if any.

I totally agree. I find that it assists with role-play as well.

Having said that even in real life some people ping others continuously to see their emotional state. Unironically my wife pings like that in RL.

Get your wife's passive insight. 10+insight bonus.

When you describe an NPC give her what she might gather by her passive insight versus the NPC. If they are trying to deceive then the NPC rolls against her passive insight.

The key here is you describe their emotional state as part of the NPC description. I do this occasionally as flavor for NPCs. I kind of feel like it's another sense like touch, smell etc.

Some examples

You approach the guard, he is rather short, a 5ft 4in male with a comically square face, he seems annoyed at something.

The merchant says, "this is the best price I can offer" and instinctively looks down averting his eyes, you think he has something to hide. (Failed deception check)

The local master of whispers, "this is the best price I can offer", he looks at you straight in the eyes and smiles (his deception was higher than the passive insight)

[DaveOfTheDead]

For your player, maybe ask her to do the same. Ask her what statement she's scrutinizing, what tells she's looking for, or what kind of ulterior motives she suspects. Even if this doesn't make her cut back on the Insight spam (as this kind of detail might force her to realize the absurdity of compulsively mistrusting every random NPC), it might at least make said Insight checks more of a fun part of gameplay and less of a chore.

I'll try that. I have the next session planned out and (whattya know) they meet someone new. Thank you!

[DaveOfTheDead]

I totally agree. I find that it assists with role-play as well.

Having said that even in real life some people ping others continuously to see their emotional state. Unironically my wife pings like that in RL.

Get your wife's passive insight. 10+insight bonus.

When you describe an NPC give her what she might gather by her passive insight versus the NPC. If they are trying to deceive then the NPC rolls against her passive insight.

The key here is you describe their emotional state as part of the NPC description. I do this occasionally as flavor for NPCs. I kind of feel like it's another sense like touch, smell etc.

Some examples

You approach the guard, he is rather short, a 5ft 4in male with a comically square face, he seems annoyed at something.

The merchant says, "this is the best price I can offer" and instinctively looks down averting his eyes, you think he has something to hide. (Failed deception check)

The local master of whispers, "this is the best price I can offer", he looks at you straight in the eyes and smiles (his deception was higher than the passive insight)
Oh my goodness, passive skills! I totally forgot I could have passive insight! If she's doing that with all new NPCs, that could be a good way to handle it. Thanks for the tips!

[Keravath]

Hello Playgrounders!

I have a problem that I have expressed my concern with the problem player at hand (in this case, my wife during our solo game we play during off weeks when schedules don't align).

The problem? SHE INSIGHT CHECKS EVERYONE. LITERALLY EVERY NPC. I mean, I guess this would be fine if she had a reason? She claims "My character doesn't trust anyone! She would do that!"

I'm just curious as to what other DMs have done about this issue, because I literally can't introduce an NPC without her going "What's this guy really about? Insight! Are they lying to me? Insight!"

If she is literally doing it all the time as part of her character's normal interaction with the world then just use her passive insight score at least as a starting point. Keep in mind that most of the time NPCs won't have anything to hide and if they do it most likely is not something they are hiding from the PC they are conversing with. Insight isn't mind reading, it is watching how the NPC or other character responds to your remarks or their reactions. If they are telling a big lie you might get some inkling that something in their story is off. On the other hand, if it is a a lie of less significance to the other person or they aren't worried about it then you might not notice at all.

e.g. Chatting in a bar with some patrons about the recent raids on caravans coming into town. If one of the patrons is directly involved then you might roll a deception check for the NPC against the player character's passive insight to see whether they accidentally give something away. If they only know something about it but aren't directly involved you could give the NPC a bonus to the deception roll.

This way most of the time the player won't have to ask whether they can tell if an NPC is telling the truth since you will be able to tell them the occasions when they notice something out of the ordinary. (In my opinion, I think that might be a preferable way for the skill to be used since it give a much more seamless narrative. The player doesn't interject with game mechanics trying to figure out whether they notice anything ... the player just needs to roleplay interacting with the NPCs and the DM narrates what happens without the player necessarily every knowing that a die roll was involved or what it meant).

The only caveat in this case is that the DM has to keep in mind that they have to do the checks and they should occasionally show something though it may not be directly relevant to what the PC is looking for (e.g. it could be an NPC who is a bit nervous about cheating on his wife reacting when his girlfriend unexpectedly walks into the bar during the conversation with the player ... totally unrelated to the PC conversation).

[Derpaligtr]

You don't need to be lying to deceive someone.

You can tell the truth and allow the person to draw their own conclusion from it. Hell, you don't even need to leave out anything.

Player: Where can I fimd some bar wenches
Barkeep NPC: You can find some bar wenches in the basement my friend!
Player: Can I roll insight to see if he's lying?
DM: Sure.
Player: Rolls 20 + 5 cha + prof.
DM: The NPC is not lying.

5 minutes later... The party is locked in the basement and up to their chins in zombie bar wenches trying to eat their brains.

The NPC didn't decieve them. Didn't lie to them. Maybe he needed a zombie infestation to be gotten rid of... Maybe he was just feeding his wenches.

Insight will only do what the player asks it yo do. If the player only asks for lies... That's all they're looking for.

Also, have NPC take offense to the PC being rude and change outcomes if the PC uses insight on the wrong NPC.

[RSP]

You don't need to be lying to deceive someone.

You can tell the truth and allow the person to draw their own conclusion from it. Hell, you don't even need to leave out anything.

Player: Where can I fimd some bar wenches
Barkeep NPC: You can find some bar wenches in the basement my friend!
Player: Can I roll insight to see if he's lying?
DM: Sure.
Player: Rolls 20 + 5 cha + prof.
DM: The NPC is not lying.

5 minutes later... The party is locked in the basement and up to their chins in zombie bar wenches trying to eat their brains.

The NPC didn't decieve them. Didn't lie to them. Maybe he needed a zombie infestation to be gotten rid of... Maybe he was just feeding his wenches.

Insight will only do what the player asks it yo do. If the player only asks for lies... That's all they're looking for.

Also, have NPC take offense to the PC being rude and change outcomes if the PC uses insight on the wrong NPC.

Not quite. From the PHB:
“Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.”

Insight isn’t simply a lie-detector, it’s the character’s ability to determine intentions. In your example, a successful Insight check would more accurately be displayed as “you don’t know why, but he seems to want you to go to the basement,” rather than “the NPC is not lying.”

[Fnissalot]

My table uses passive insight more often than we use passive perception. It makes social encounters flow a lot smoother and the players don't act weirdly of their failed rolls.

[Derpaligtr]

Not quite. From the PHB:
“Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.”

Insight isn’t simply a lie-detector, it’s the character’s ability to determine intentions. In your example, a successful Insight check would more accurately be displayed as “you don’t know why, but he seems to want you to go to the basement,” rather than “the NPC is not lying.”

Player: Awesome, the barkeep is a pimp and wants to get us laid! Woot woot!

Let the players assume stuff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Player: Awesome, the barkeep is a pimp and wants to get us laid! Woot woot!

Let the players assume stuff.

Any communication with the intent to deceive is deception. Even if it's true. Lying =/= deception, although lying (communicating false information while knowing it's false) is per se deceptive. In fact, most of the best deception relies on selective truth.

This is a long way of saying that that NPC darn well better be rolling Charisma (Deception), either against the PC's passive or against an active check. He's intentionally trying to get the PCs to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, and doing so by manipulating perceived truth (as opposed to threats or sweet-talking).

[Derpaligtr]

Any communication with the intent to deceive is deception. Even if it's true. Lying =/= deception, although lying (communicating false information while knowing it's false) is per se deceptive. In fact, most of the best deception relies on selective truth.

This is a long way of saying that that NPC darn well better be rolling Charisma (Deception), either against the PC's passive or against an active check. He's intentionally trying to get the PCs to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, and doing so by manipulating perceived truth (as opposed to threats or sweet-talking).

There was no deception. The barkeep wasn't decieving them, his intentions were 100% in line with what the players/PCs asked for.

The barkeep was 100% honest. The barkeep was unable to lie about intent as the players never gave intent. Players/PCs are assuming the barkeep is on the same conversation.

[Mikal]

There was no deception. The barkeep wasn't decieving them, his intentions were 100% in line with what the players/PCs asked for.

The barkeep was 100% honest. The barkeep was unable to lie about intent as the players never gave intent. Players/PCs are assuming the barkeep is on the same conversation.

Except that the barkeep was hiding the fact that the wenches were a) undead and b) hungry

As already stated, Insight reveals the true intentions of the target. The true intentions here were "get horny adventurer's downstairs to feed by undead lovelies."

Any DM who tried to throw the "lol but you didn't ASK about that specifically!" would likely never see me or anyone I game with at their table again.

[willdaBEAST]

You could try having the NPCs react to her. See if she realises how unnatural her behaviour is.

"Ehr.. why are you staring at me like that?"
"You're standing a bit too close for comfort, ma'am, it's making me uncomfortable..."
"Look, if that's how you apparently feel about me, then I suggest we part ways here" (especially good if the NPC is a quest giver or otherwise important)
"You accuse me of lying? I beg your pardon?" (who then proceeds with less friendly reactions towards her character)

I like this approach. I wouldn't overly punish the player for it, but show that there are consequences for antisocial behavior like always being suspicious. Some NPCs might not care, others may take great offense. I would think any nobility would have a real problem with some commoner second guessing them and staring intently at them for long periods of time.

Going the route of passive insight is also a great way to speed things up and avoid excessive ability checks.

[Keravath]

Except that the barkeep was hiding the fact that the wenches were a) undead and b) hungry

As already stated, Insight reveals the true intentions of the target. The true intentions here were "get horny adventurer's downstairs to feed by undead lovelies."

Any DM who tried to throw the "lol but you didn't ASK about that specifically!" would likely never see me or anyone I game with at their table again.

Sure but all a successful insight check might reveal in this case is that the barkeep is very keen to get you downstairs ... he may just be thinking of all the coin he will make from this transaction though there could be something else going on. Insight isn't mind reading. All the characters should get is a sense that more is going on than is obvious.

[Mikal]

Sure but all a successful insight check might reveal in this case is that the barkeep is very keen to get you downstairs ... he may just be thinking of all the coin he will make from this transaction though there could be something else going on. Insight isn't mind reading. All the characters should get is a sense that more is going on than is obvious.

Not mind reading yes, but it would tell you whether someone is holding something back, not just whether they're keen for you to get downstairs. It'd probably be something like "The barkeep seems quite anxious about making sure you go down stairs." which could go either the greed or murderous psycho route, and let the players themselves try and discern which, if either, it is.

It's not however "lol you didn't ask about it, so you didn't have a clue despite rolling a 24 insight vs. his 5 deception."

[mephnick]

Always use passive Insight. I've literally never had a player roll an Insight check in a social scene.

[GlenSmash!]

I like active insight, but I think the player needs to describe both their approach and goal before I can determine if a roll is called for.

If a player of mine yells "Insight!" I'll flat out say, "You don't determine any useful information" If they describe "I observe their body language in an attempt to determine if they are lying" Then I'm likely to call for a roll.

If they try it on every person they meet. I'm less likely to call for any checks, and just have more autofailures "No useful knowledge is gained" or auto successes "You are very confident that hey are telling the truth.

Also It's perfectly fine to encounter someone so good at deceit that the players would auto fail, just like it's perfectly fine to encounter a cliff to high to jump over.

[Naanomi]

Always use passive Insight. I've literally never had a player roll an Insight check in a social scene.
Kind of kills some of the Inquisitive Rogue's abilities eh?

[RSP]

I like active insight, but I think the player needs to describe both their approach and goal before I can determine if a roll is called for.

If a player of mine yells "Insight!" I'll flat out say, "You don't determine any useful information" If they describe "I observe their body language in an attempt to determine if they are lying" Then I'm likely to call for a roll.

If they try it on every person they meet. I'm less likely to call for any checks, and just have more autofailures "No useful knowledge is gained" or auto successes "You are very confident that hey are telling the truth.

Also It's perfectly fine to encounter someone so good at deceit that the players would auto fail, just like it's perfectly fine to encounter a cliff to high to jump over.

So you just dislike Insight? If players constantly ask you what they see, do you just say the auto fail perception checks?

Some people are just really good at reading other people. It seems very punitive to punish a player who tries to play this type of character by just autofailing them whenever they try to use a skill in the game the way it’s intended to be used.

I’m assuming you tell your players straight out that they shouldn’t try to make this type of character or waste proficiencies on taking Insight (much less choose it for expertise).

[GlenSmash!]

So you just dislike Insight?

No. I love it.

I dislike players settling on one thing thinking it will work for them every time. If a Player states "I want to make an insight check" on every NPC they meet that's going to seriously bog the game down.


If players constantly ask you what they see, do you just say the auto fail perception checks?

I do think players shouldn't ask the DM what they see. The should describe what their characters are doing. It doesn't have to be a grand desrcription. A simple "I take a look around to see anything out of the ordinary" is pretty great, though a more specific "I take a look around to see if there are traps/Loot/Bad guys" is a better.

It shows both the goal the player is trying to reach and the approach they are taking to try and reach it.


Some people are just really good at reading other people. Of course. A Sherlcok Holmes type character for example. That sound great.


It seems very punitive to punish a player who tries to play this type of character by just autofailing them whenever they try to use a skill in the game the way it’s intended to be used.

I disagree that taking the same approach when meeting every single NPC is how it is intended to be used.

It's the Ability Check version of finding a Combo that you think should win every combat enocounter.


I’m assuming you tell your players straight out that they shouldn’t try to make this type of character or waste proficiencies on taking Insight (much less choose it for expertise).

You assume wrongly.

[Derpaligtr]

Not mind reading yes, but it would tell you whether someone is holding something back, not just whether they're keen for you to get downstairs. It'd probably be something like "The barkeep seems quite anxious about making sure you go down stairs." which could go either the greed or murderous psycho route, and let the players themselves try and discern which, if either, it is.

It's not however "lol you didn't ask about it, so you didn't have a clue despite rolling a 24 insight vs. his 5 deception."

You're trying to push it toward mind reading. Also, no, it isn't about "lulz". It's about letting people jump to assumptions.

What, do you want the pkayers to roll an inaight check against themselves to see if they're assuming something?

[sophontteks]

A player can not say "I want to make an insight check." In a roleplaying game and expect any effect. They state what their character is doing and the DM determines if it requires a roll and what they would learn. Everything covered by an insight check can be done but it still requires the player to state what they are doing in the game to create such an effect.

[Naanomi]

I mean... a high level inquisitive Rogue may have a +17 or more Insight and never roll less than a 10... a guaranteed 27 Insight *should* automatically detect most deception from most people

[RSP]

A player can not say "I want to make an insight check." In a roleplaying game and expect any effect. They state what their character is doing and the DM determines if it requires a roll and what they would learn. Everything covered by an insight check can be done but it still requires the player to state what they are doing in the game to create such an effect.

Asking the player to come up with a new way to say “I want to make an Insight check,” every time they want to make one, rather than just having them say “I want to make an Insight check, seems overly strict. When they want to cast a spell, do they have to tell you how they fulfill the V, S, and M requirements, which need to be different for each spell, or do you allow “I cast Mage Armor?”

[sophontteks]

Asking the player to come up with a new way to say “I want to make an Insight check,” every time they want to make one, rather than just having them say “I want to make an Insight check, seems overly strict. When they want to cast a spell, do they have to tell you how they fulfill the V, S, and M requirements, which need to be different for each spell, or do you allow “I cast Mage Armor?”
Its not strict to expect people to roleplay a roleplaying game.
Yes, You don't just say "I make an insight check" You actually have to tell what your player is doing. The DM decides when a check is necessary. The player doesn't.

Player "Does it appear that the man is being honest?"
DM "Roll insight."

Player "Does this person seem to be hiding something?"
DM "Roll insight"

Player "I'm rolling insight"
DM "I have no idea why you are, but if you want to roll dice around, knock yourself out."

[RSP]

No. I love it.

I dislike players settling on one thing thinking it will work for them every time. If a Player states "I want to make an insight check" on every NPC they meet that's going to seriously bog the game down.



I do think players shouldn't ask the DM what they see. The should describe what their characters are doing. It doesn't have to be a grand desrcription. A simple "I take a look around to see anything out of the ordinary" is pretty great, though a more specific "I take a look around to see if there are traps/Loot/Bad guys" is a better.

It shows both the goal the player is trying to reach and the approach they are taking to try and reach it.

Of course. A Sherlcok Holmes type character for example. That sound great.



I disagree that taking the same approach when meeting every single NPC is how it is intended to be used.

It's the Ability Check version of finding a Combo that you think should win every combat enocounter.



You assume wrongly.

According to your statements, if a character wants to try and read people, and as such the player declares they want to make Insight checks when they meet people, you auto-fail them for asking. That seems to me a pretty good situation to not take Insight proficiency and a real waste to use expertise on it.

[RSP]

Its crazy. Expecting people to roleplay a roleplaying game.
Yes, You don't just say "I make an insight check" You actually have to tell what your player is doing. The DM decides when a check is necessary. The player doesn't.

Player "Does it appear that the man is being honest?"
DM "Roll insight."

Player "Does this person seem to be hiding something?"
DM "Roll insight"

Player "I'm rolling insight"
DM "I have no idea why you are, but if you want to roll dice around, knock yourself out."

So you force them to stay in character the entire session? Do they have to describe every attack they make differently? Or can they just say “I Attack?” Again, do they need to describe all the somatic and verbal components they make, or can they say “I cast a spell?” You seem overly locked into the specifics of describing an Insight check, and I’m curious how far you take it in your games. Do players need to describe how they kneel down and examine the area around them (obviously using unique descriptions every time, or can they say “I try to track them with Survival?”

[RSP]

Its not strict to expect people to roleplay a roleplaying game.
Yes, You don't just say "I make an insight check" You actually have to tell what your player is doing. The DM decides when a check is necessary. The player doesn't.

Player "Does it appear that the man is being honest?"
DM "Roll insight."

Player "Does this person seem to be hiding something?"
DM "Roll insight"

Player "I'm rolling insight"
DM "I have no idea why you are, but if you want to roll dice around, knock yourself out."

So you’re completely baffled by what a Player means if they “can I make an Insight check?” when talking to an npc?

[guachi]

So you’re completely baffled by what a Player means if they “can I make an Insight check?” when talking to an npc?

Yes. If I, as a DM, don't know what the person is attempting to accomplish I can't adjudicate their actions properly.

"I make an attack roll"

Whom did I attack? What did I attack with?

[Nettlekid]

One other thing is that not every NPC should be a stuttering, sweating, shifty-eyed idiot to give away the fact that they're lying just because the PC rolls a high Insight and expects some kind of tell. I think it's entirely valid for a DM to ask the player who's asking to make an Insight check "What would lead you to think this guy is lying? Why are you suspicious of him?" If they have no reason (and no, "I'm suspicious of everyone" isn't a reason, because then it means they have no gauge for shiftiness) then don't allow the roll. This is just as applicable for someone who really IS lying. If later on they get upset that they weren't allowed an Insight roll, you can point out that they were suspicious of everyone and were spending too much time asking the baker if he really bakes.

[RSP]

Yes. If I, as a DM, don't know what the person is attempting to accomplish I can't adjudicate their actions properly.

"I make an attack roll"

Whom did I attack? What did I attack with?

Sure, if something is uncertain, ask for clarity. That’s different then pretending you have no idea what a requested Insight check would be for when talking to an npc.

[Keravath]

Yes. If I, as a DM, don't know what the person is attempting to accomplish I can't adjudicate their actions properly.

"I make an attack roll"

Whom did I attack? What did I attack with?

I find that asking for an insight check is very DM dependent.

In a recent session, I had a long conversation with a kobold sorcerer who had surrendered to our party after we almost killed him. He had the rest of his forces surrender too and I was asking him for all sorts of information about the city we were in, who else was in the city, creatures we should watch out for, where other creatures lived in the city, what the various groups they had recently seen were doing in the city. I had been watching the kobold the entire time we were interacting and I was collecting information. Towards the end of the conversation, I mentioned to the DM that I was using insight to try to see if the information I was receiving was accurate. In this particular circumstance, I don't think it would have happened otherwise, since it seemed to me that I needed to indicate to the DM that I was using the specific skill in this particular context. The DMs response in this case was that the information appeared to be true as far as the kobold was concerned.

In this case, I am not so much asking for a skill check as reminding the DM that I am using the insight skill during the conversation to assess the NPC responses. Many DMs will not assume a skill is being used unless a player makes specific mention of using the skill in a particular context.

So .. in many cases "asking" for a skill check is a mechanism to indicate to the DM that you are utilizing a particular skill your character has. You could say "I am carefully watching what the NPC is doing, his reactions, his movements, is he sweating, to try to determine if he is being honest or if he is hiding something significant" ... which most DMs should recognize as using the insight skill ... but they might not. However, all of that is covered by saying "my character is using his skill at insight to assess the NPC responses during the conversation". Both of these should be adequate to inform the DM of what you are doing but only the latter specifically states the skill you wish to use (the first could be confused with perception or investigation depending on exactly how it is phrased).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find that asking for an insight check is very DM dependent.

In a recent session, I had a long conversation with a kobold sorcerer who had surrendered to our party after we almost killed him. He had the rest of his forces surrender too and I was asking him for all sorts of information about the city we were in, who else was in the city, creatures we should watch out for, where other creatures lived in the city, what the various groups they had recently seen were doing in the city. I had been watching the kobold the entire time we were interacting and I was collecting information. Towards the end of the conversation, I mentioned to the DM that I was using insight to try to see if the information I was receiving was accurate. In this particular circumstance, I don't think it would have happened otherwise, since it seemed to me that I needed to indicate to the DM that I was using the specific skill in this particular context. The DMs response in this case was that the information appeared to be true as far as the kobold was concerned.

In this case, I am not so much asking for a skill check as reminding the DM that I am using the insight skill during the conversation to assess the NPC responses. Many DMs will not assume a skill is being used unless a player makes specific mention of using the skill in a particular context.

So .. in many cases "asking" for a skill check is a mechanism to indicate to the DM that you are utilizing a particular skill your character has. You could say "I am carefully watching what the NPC is doing, his reactions, his movements, is he sweating, to try to determine if he is being honest or if he is hiding something significant" ... which most DMs should recognize as using the insight skill ... but they might not. However, all of that is covered by saying "my character is using his skill at insight to assess the NPC responses during the conversation". Both of these should be adequate to inform the DM of what you are doing but only the latter specifically states the skill you wish to use (the first could be confused with perception or investigation depending on exactly how it is phrased).

I agree (mostly), but...

There are no skill checks. There are ability checks to which you might add proficiency if you have it in a related skill or tool. That may sound pedantic, but it matters. Specifically, you're describing what you're doing, not "using a skill". You don't "use skills" in 5e, you attempt actions. And then those actions may be resolved using an ability check that might involve a skill proficiency. It might not even be Wisdom based, although that's the default for such actions. You might be able to add a different proficiency instead of Insight (depending exactly on context)--for example if someone claims they ran from point A to point B (a known route), someone with Athletics proficiency might realize they have to be lying (because that's impossible in the given time or whatever) using an Intelligence (Athletics) check.

The point is that players don't call for checks. Or even reference skills until later in the action-resolution process.

1) DM describes a scene and asks "what do you do."
2) player describes a desired action (with enough details to enable a decision as to resolution)
3) The DM decides on a resolution method for the proposed action, which might involve a check, attack roll, or saving throw. Or might just happen. Or might automatically fail. Or might get a "you'd know that wouldn't work, try something else."
3a) if a check is called for, the DM decides what the ability score and may allow a proficiency to be added.
3b) if so, the player can suggest an alternate proficiency--the DMG's instructions are to be generous with this.
4) The player and the DM use the chosen resolution mechanic to determine if the action succeeded or failed.
5) The DM narrates the changes to the scene as a result of the action (regardless of success or lack there-of).

Skill proficiencies are at step 3a/3b. Not before. Many, if not most, actions completely skip those parts and proceed directly to step 4.

[sophontteks]

So you force them to stay in character the entire session? Do they have to describe every attack they make differently? Or can they just say “I Attack?” Again, do they need to describe all the somatic and verbal components they make, or can they say “I cast a spell?” You seem overly locked into the specifics of describing an Insight check, and I’m curious how far you take it in your games. Do players need to describe how they kneel down and examine the area around them (obviously using unique descriptions every time, or can they say “I try to track them with Survival?”
Wow, we are talking about skill checks and you are making a million assumptions on how I DM talking about spells. How about we stick to the subject and not jump to wild conclusions, please.
Do your players also announce "I'm making a persuasion check" and "I'm making a deception check."
We don't want to be super strict but saying "I'm making a check" is literally nonsense to a DM.

[RSP]

One other thing is that not every NPC should be a stuttering, sweating, shifty-eyed idiot to give away the fact that they're lying just because the PC rolls a high Insight and expects some kind of tell. I think it's entirely valid for a DM to ask the player who's asking to make an Insight check "What would lead you to think this guy is lying? Why are you suspicious of him?" If they have no reason (and no, "I'm suspicious of everyone" isn't a reason, because then it means they have no gauge for shiftiness) then don't allow the roll. This is just as applicable for someone who really IS lying. If later on they get upset that they weren't allowed an Insight roll, you can point out that they were suspicious of everyone and were spending too much time asking the baker if he really bakes.

The deception check (or set DC) determines how well a character conceals their lie, mislead, true motives, etc.

Ask a player “what he’s looking for” by making an Insight check means you don’t understand what Insight does. It’s not a lie detector. It’s the ability to “determine the true intentions of a creature.” So yeah, it really should be used every time a pc interacts with another creature because it’s something that’s just naturally done every time two or more people interact, because “what’s going on here” is basic to those interactions, even when that’s taken at face value.

[RSP]

Wow, we are talking about skill checks and you are making a million assumptions on how I DM talking about spells. How about we stick to the subject and not jump to wild conclusions, please.
Do your players also announce "I'm making a persuasion check" and "I'm making a deception check."
We don't want to be super strict but saying "I'm making a check" is literally nonsense to a DM.

Your prior response was enforcing Players to have to role play. My question from that response is does that just apply to Insight checks for some reason or everything.

It’s also rather self absorbed to think every table needs to play as you see fit. I’m pretty sure every table I’ve played at, whether DM or as a Player, players have regularly used “I Attack,” or “I want to make an Insight check,” or “I want to try Persuasion.” Sometimes, that results in the DM needing to ask for clarity, such as “what are you trying to persuade them to do?” Sometimes, like when the npc is telling you what happened to their brother and asking the PCs for help, the statement “I want to make an Insight check” is enough; clearly the Player is asking to determine the npc’s true intentions.

I’m not sure how you expect a Player to describe an Insight check as it’s something that just happens in interactions with people. You don’t need to stare them down or anything, it’s just about noticing inconsistencies in words and manners.

[Zanos]

You're trying to push it toward mind reading. Also, no, it isn't about "lulz". It's about letting people jump to assumptions.

What, do you want the pkayers to roll an inaight check against themselves to see if they're assuming something?
Insight is insight. It's getting a bad feeling about a situation. Maybe it's something in your gut. Maybe it's the barkeep glancing at the door to make sure nobody else is coming in. Maybe he's tapping his foot nervously. Maybe you realize that in all the time you've been in a bar, nobody has really been particularly keen on having you see the basement.

In any case, a successful insight check in a situation where something is off should tell your character that something feels off. That's what insight is for. It won't tell you that the Barkeep wants to take you into the basement to murder you, but the result also shouldn't be "the Barkeep wants you to go into the basement for totally legit reasons." You feel somethings not right.

[sophontteks]

Your prior response was enforcing Players to have to role play. My question from that response is does that just apply to Insight checks for some reason or everything.

It’s also rather self absorbed to think every table needs to play as you see fit. I’m pretty sure every table I’ve played at, whether DM or as a Player, players have regularly used “I Attack,” or “I want to make an Insight check,” or “I want to try Persuasion.” Sometimes, that results in the DM needing to ask for clarity, such as “what are you trying to persuade them to do?” Sometimes, like when the npc is telling you what happened to their brother and asking the PCs for help, the statement “I want to make an Insight check” is enough; clearly the Player is asking to determine the npc’s true intentions.

I’m not sure how you expect a Player to describe an Insight check as it’s something that just happens in interactions with people. You don’t need to stare them down or anything, it’s just about noticing inconsistencies in words and manners.
You couldn't respond to the question because you know how ridiculous it is to say "I'm making a persuasion check." And you've decided instead to write a rant about how horrible I am, putting words in my mouth.

How I expect a player to describe an insight check.
"Can I tell if <NPC> is lying?"

You are making it out to be something outlandish. You're making me feel sorry for offering the OP help. (Remember the subject at hand is someone declaring that they are sick of a player saying that they are making an insight check.)

[RSP]

You couldn't respond to the question because you know how ridiculous it is to say "I'm making a persuasion check." And you've decided instead to write a rant about how horrible I am, putting words in my mouth.

How I expect a player to describe an insight check.
"Can I tell if <NPC> is lying?"

You are making it out to be something outlandish. You're making me feel sorry for offering the OP help. (Remember the subject at hand is someone declaring that they are sick of a player saying that they are making an insight check.)

Um, I did respond to your question. I said sometimes the DM needs to ask for clarification, as with asking for a Persuasion check. But to state a Player can’t just use the skill as shorthand for what they want to do, is just wrong.

You made the statement: “You don't just say "I make an insight check" You actually have to tell what your player is doing. The DM decides when a check is necessary. The player doesn't.”

It is true that the DM has the authority to call for a check, but that doesn’t mean the names of skills can’t be used to relay what you want your character to do. Insight, like History or Religion, doesn’t really involve your character doing something. If an npc mentions a past war and a Player says “can I make a History check?” there’s nothing that the character does physically in game to represent that ability check; the character just either knows something or they don’t (and in-game, it’s probably something the character always knew it just wasn’t known to the Player because it wasn’t relevant).

Insight is similar: you just pick up on certain cues, or you don’t, but the character isn’t doing anything to “put their radar up.”

Again, the idea that you make your players come up with ways to role play how their character does an Insight check intrigued me, both with how they would ever do that, and with whether or not you enforce that with other character actions.

So in reference to the OPs question, again, how would you role play Insight checks? Asking “are they lying” every time isn’t roleplaying, it’s just the same as asking for an Insight check (that is, it’s an out of character question from the Player to the DM, not anything that the character is doing). If your goal is to stop having them want to make checks, just relay the info: “you think they’re being genuine.”

And really, if the goal is to stay in character, then the DM should just use Passive Insight to relay what the PC gets out of the exchange so the Player doesn’t need to out of character ask if the DM if the npc is lying.

[Sigreid]

Perfectly reasonable to say "I get that your character is paranoid. I'm going to use the insight check for run of the mill encounters assuming they are always alert for lies. If you have something specific you are suspicious of, then I may have you roll. But you'll need to be more specific than 'I don't trust anyone'".

[Lunali]

In my experience, players usually ask for insight checks because the DM never tells them that their passive insight made them aware of something. In almost every case, this is because the DM is completely ignoring passive insight, so the request is completely justified.

[sophontteks]

It is true that the DM has the authority to call for a check.

I'm glad you agree.


, but that doesn’t mean the names of skills can’t be used to relay what you want your character to do. Insight, like History or Religion, doesn’t really involve your character doing something

But the DM remains the person who calls for checks, not the player. A player literally can not call for an insight check because that is the DM's call.


. If an npc mentions a past war and a Player says “can I make a History check?” there’s nothing that the character does physically in game to represent that ability check;
the character just either knows something or they don’t (and in-game, it’s probably something the character always knew it just wasn’t known to the Player because it wasn’t relevant).

Absolutely, they can ask "can I make a history check to see if I know more." They can't say "I make a history check." Again, thats the DMs call.



Again, the idea that you make your players come up with ways to role play how their character does an Insight check intrigued me, both with how they would ever do that, and with whether or not you enforce that with other character actions.

So in reference to the OPs question, again, how would you role play Insight checks? Asking “are they lying” every time isn’t roleplaying, it’s just the same as asking for an Insight check (that is, it’s an out of character question from the Player to the DM, not anything that the character is doing). If your goal is to stop having them want to make checks, just relay the info: “you think they’re being genuine.”

And really, if the goal is to stay in character, then the DM should just use Passive Insight to relay what the PC gets out of the exchange so the Player doesn’t need to out of character ask if the DM if the npc is lying.
And none of this has anything to do with how skills work. These are conclusions you jumped to. I'm not talking about forcing people to stay in character. I'm talking about how skills work and who's call it is on when skill checks are made.


A player can not say "I want to make an insight check." In a roleplaying game and expect any effect. They state what their character is doing and the DM determines if it requires a roll and what they would learn. Everything covered by an insight check can be done but it still requires the player to state what they are doing in the game to create such an effect.
You already agreed with this. The player states their intention, the DM determines what check would be used. This is how skills work in 5e.

You may not be aware of how many uses insight has...
-Use it to tell if someone is lying.
-Use it to tell if someone is scared.
-Use it to tell if they may have hostile intentions.
-Use it to tell if they are acting unusual.
-Use it to tell if they are hiding their emotions.
-Use it to try to predict their next move.

The broad number of uses insight has requires a bit more input from the player. The DM has a problem where the player just says they are making the check. But for what? To tell if the NPC is lying? To tell if they are being blackmailed? To tell that they are under the influence of a charm? To determine their emotional state?

It really isn't obvious why the check is being made without any input from the player, because it can be used in so many ways. If a player only asks to make a check maybe the DM can say "Well, they are acting unusual." But thats more of a passive check thing, like others said. In these cases our DM doesn't make passive checks either, but instead calls for checks right away.

EDIT: forgot my favorite use of inspiration. My glamour bard frequently needs to make this check. "Does NPC find my character attractive?":smallcool:

[Magzimum]

Let the player act on their instinct. If they constantly think everyone lies, then let the player act on that.

This may become the main issue in the campaign, and perhaps you are writing a story together about the social development of a very disturbed mind, rather than the dungeon crawler that you originally planned.

[RSP]

Absolutely, they can ask "can I make a history check to see if I know more."

Hmmm...
A player can not say "I want to make an insight check." In a roleplaying game and expect any effect.

So you’re so strict at your table that a player must say “can I” rather than “I want to” to have you allow something? Because that’s the difference between these two statements you’ve made.



These are conclusions you jumped to. I'm not talking about forcing people to stay in character.

again...
Its not strict to expect people to roleplay a roleplaying game.
Yes, You don't just say "I make an insight check" You actually have to tell what your player is doing.

This seems like a contradiction (though I am assuming “tell what your player is doing” is supposed to be “tell what your character is doing”). You expect people to role play Insight; yet there is no role play to whether or not you pick up on cues someone else makes, any more than you can role play a History check; it’s an out of character issue, not an in-character or role playing one.



You may not be aware of how many uses insight has...
-Use it to tell if someone is lying.
-Use it to tell if someone is scared.
-Use it to tell if they may have hostile intentions.
-Use it to tell if they are acting unusual.
-Use it to tell if they are hiding their emotions.
-Use it to try to predict their next move.

The broad number of uses insight has requires a bit more input from the player. The DM has a problem where the player just says they are making the check. But for what? To tell if the NPC is lying? To tell if they are being blackmailed? To tell that they are under the influence of a charm? To determine their emotional state?

It really isn't obvious why the check is being made without any input from the player, because it can be used in so many ways. If a player only asks to make a check maybe the DM can say "Well, they are acting unusual." But thats more of a passive check thing, like others said. In these cases our DM doesn't make passive checks either, but instead calls for checks right away.

EDIT: forgot my favorite use of inspiration. My glamour bard frequently needs to make this check. "Does NPC find my character attractive?":smallcool:

And that’s where you’re wrong about Insight; it’s not a skill that works like picking a lock, where you select one specific thing. It’s the ability, in its entirety, to “determine the true intentions of a creature.” Detecting a lie is just one part of that. You, as a Player, May be interested in whether or not the npc is attracted to you, but a successful Insight check would still reveal whether or not they’re being honest with you, or (regardless of attraction) what their true motivations are.

One single Insight check can determine both attraction and whether someone is lying.

And again, it’s not something you roleplay: the character doesn’t do anything differently, the out-of-character roll determines whether in-game the character picks up on the cues that naturally occur.

[Anymage]

In my experience, players usually ask for insight checks because the DM never tells them that their passive insight made them aware of something. In almost every case, this is because the DM is completely ignoring passive insight, so the request is completely justified.

This. Plus the fact that the player thinks that they need to turn the lie detector skill on everybody that they meet is also telling. Either she fancies herself very perceptive and wants her character to express that trait too, or she was burned by an NPC lying to her and is trying to find some way to protect herself within the framework of the game. When her in-character justification is not trusting anybody, I'm leaning towards the latter.

So point out that passive perception is a thing. If she really wants to invest heavily, let her; I wouldn't normally suggest letting somebody double pick a skill for expertise, but if this is a solo game it isn't like you have to worry about interparty balance. And then make a point to remember that yourself. Let her know if somebody seems trustworthy or if they seem shifty, and let those passive Insight based observations prove true most of the time. She gets to enjoy a character type she enjoys (or avoid elements she wants to bypass), you get to avoid having the game slow down with constant checks.

[Pelle]

In my experience, players usually ask for insight checks because the DM never tells them that their passive insight made them aware of something. In almost every case, this is because the DM is completely ignoring passive insight, so the request is completely justified.

Or you know, the DM checks the players' passive score, roll secretly for the npc, and try to roleplay out the result. As a DM I prefer to do this. If I roll high for the NPC, I try to fool the player. If I roll low, I try to portray the npc such that the player do pick up on hints and actually becomes suspicious. It's understandable that the player is unsure of if their skill was accounted for if it has not been brought up explicitly, but that doesn't mean that the DM ignores it. Just confirm with the DM that he knows what your passive insight scores is, there's usually no need to be confrontational.

[Mikal]

You're trying to push it toward mind reading. Also, no, it isn't about "lulz". It's about letting people jump to assumptions.

What, do you want the pkayers to roll an inaight check against themselves to see if they're assuming something?

Hardly. I'm trying to use the insight check the way it's meant to be, not use it as a weapon against my players or against me as a player by the DM, and waste time by at best playing "20 questions" for every single insight check and at worst having an empty table due to bad DMing.


A player can not say "I want to make an insight check." In a roleplaying game and expect any effect. They state what their character is doing and the DM determines if it requires a roll and what they would learn. Everything covered by an insight check can be done but it still requires the player to state what they are doing in the game to create such an effect.

Yes they can. Do you force players who say "I attack X" have no effect? Do you force players who say "I cast Y" have no effect when it's clear what the target is? If you're really that pedantic about your checks, you must have a really fun table.

I can see it now. 5 PCs against the lone enemy
Player with a melee Fighter: I attack!
DM: Sorry, it misses.
Player: But... I didn't roll yet.
DM: Sorry, no effect. You didn't state what your character was doing.
Player: ...


Yes. If I, as a DM, don't know what the person is attempting to accomplish I can't adjudicate their actions properly.

"I make an attack roll"

Whom did I attack? What did I attack with?

Bit of a strawman, as the discussion in this case has an obvious target (Insight vs. the person being talked to) not say... rolling Insight randomly while walking down the thoroughfare of the Imperial Capital.

[Douche]

How can you insight check someone before they even start speaking? That's just, like, judging a book by it's cover, man.

Sounds like your wife is a really judgmental person. Immediately, based on appearances alone, she's deciding whether she can trust someone or not? That's messed up bro. You should get to know someone before you make judgments

[sophontteks]

Hardly. I'm trying to use the insight check the way it's meant to be, not use it as a weapon against my players or against me as a player by the DM, and waste time by at best playing "20 questions" for every single insight check and at worst having an empty table due to bad DMing.

Insight has many uses, its not simply a lie detector. You can use it to tell if someone is attracted to you, if they are charmed, if they are acting unusual, if they are being blackmailed, if they have an ulterior motive, what emotion they are feeling, if someone else is making them uncomfortable, how they feel about you, etc etc.

I use insight on my shepard druid to tell what animals are doing. Are they hunting for food? Are they in heat? Is this there territory? Are they behaving strangely?

When you tell the DM "I'm making an insight check." It'd be fine if insight only had one use, but it doesn't. Perhaps you are underestimating all the things the skill can be used for.



Yes they can. Do you force players who say "I attack X" have no effect? Do you force players who say "I cast Y" have no effect when it's clear what the target is? If you're really that pedantic about your checks, you must have a really fun table.

No one is suggesting anything remotely close to this.



Bit of a strawman, as the discussion in this case has an obvious target (Insight vs. the person being talked to) not say... rolling Insight randomly while walking down the thoroughfare of the Imperial Capital.
It has an obvious target, but what they are trying to ascertain from the insight check is uncertain and players do not call for checks in 5e. DMs call for checks. Players can ask. "Can I make an insight check." and the DM would almost certainly ask for more information on what their character's intention is every time.

Its not uncommon for me to look for information I thought would require one skill, but the DM calls for another. They may rule that an investigation check would be more relevant, for example, depending on the nature of the situation.

[GlenSmash!]

According to your statements, if a character wants to try and read people, and as such the player declares they want to make Insight checks when they meet people, you auto-fail them for asking. That seems to me a pretty good situation to not take Insight proficiency and a real waste to use expertise on it.

If that is what I wrote then I was not getting my point across, and I do apologize. I did mention auto success in addition to auto failure did I not?

When I call for checks, any ability check, what I want is not auto failure. What I want is auto success. I want for the player to describe their characters actions so that I have no reason not to just have them succeed. Or if there is uncertainly, I can give advantage to the check.

I have trouble doing that if all they say is "I make an insight check". I find it easy to do do if they say something along the lines of "Using my experience from being a City Guard I try to determine if they are trying to deceive us" Relating it to a background or past campaign experience is a good way to get success or advantage in my games.

Stating specific things like paying attention to Body language, tone of voice, perspiration would further tip things toward the players favor.

I do this because I like to reward players that are thinking about how their character would interact with the world.

As to the specific example brought up in the OP. I see little value brought to the game by a player saying
"I make an insight check" for every NPC they meet, any more than I see a player saying "I make a slight of hand check" trying to rob every NPC they meet.

[RSP]

If that is what I wrote then I was not getting my point across, and I do apologize. I did mention auto success in addition to auto failure did I not?

When I call for checks, any ability check, what I want is not auto failure. What I want is auto success. I want for the player to describe their characters actions so that I have no reason not to just have them succeed. Or if there is uncertainly, I can give advantage to the check.

I have trouble doing that if all they say is "I make an insight check". I find it easy to do do if they say something along the lines of "Using my experience from being a City Guard I try to determine if they are trying to deceive us" Relating it to a background or past campaign experience is a good way to get success or advantage in my games.

Stating specific things like paying attention to Body language, tone of voice, perspiration would further tip things toward the players favor.

I do this because I like to reward players that are thinking about how their character would interact with the world.

As to the specific example brought up in the OP. I see little value brought to the game by a player saying
"I make an insight check" for every NPC they meet, any more than I see a player saying "I make a slight of hand check" trying to rob every NPC they meet.

But having prof in a skill isn’t necessarily tied to a background, and if it is, it just seems repetitive to repeat “I want to use my past experience as a city guard to see what this person’s true motivations are” rather than just asking for an Insight check.

And again, whenever two characters interact, there should be a Passive check, much like the previous example I used of History checks. The PC isn’t doing anything special when doing an Insight check, anymore than they do anything special when the character “recalls” what they know on a successful History check. Whenever two characters interact, you either pick up cues (successful Insight check) or don’t (unsuccessful check), it’s not something necessarily actively done; it’s inherent in paying attention to whom you’re talking to.

[sophontteks]

Insight is not an on or off skill. Cues are always there. Insight is used to make predictions based on cues. You are underestimating the number of ways this skill can be used.

You could roll insight to determine if said person is hungry.
Roll insight to tell if they may have a drinking problem.
Roll it to determine if they have the hots for your friend.
Roll to figure out who may be the owner of said house at a house party.
Roll it to determine if they are under the influence.

I can go on and on.

If the DM doesn't know what information you are looking for, its hard for him to play along. In social encounters insight allows you to determine the nature of someone's character far beyond wether they are lying or hiding something.

[GlenSmash!]

But having prof in a skill isn’t necessarily tied to a background, and if it is, it just seems repetitive to repeat “I want to use my past experience as a city guard to see what this person’s true motivations are” rather than just asking for an Insight check.

I'm not discussing proficiency I'm using an example of descriptive narrative a player can use to succeed without a check or gain situational advantage on a check. It need not be tied to background.


And again, whenever two characters interact, there should be a Passive check, much like the previous example I used of History checks.

I would also give situational advantage, or success without a check if the Player can describe what they are doing for the History check. It could be tied to a background like Sage, but wouldn't necessarily have to be. "I try and recall something about about..." would call for a check, but "I try to recall what the archmage said about this when I learned history form him" would probably get me to have the player roll with advantage, if not succeed outright.


The PC isn’t doing anything special when doing an Insight check, anymore than they do anything special when the character “recalls” what they know on a successful History check.

But when they are doing something special I can reward them for it. And I like to.


Whenever two characters interact, you either pick up cues (successful Insight check) or don’t (unsuccessful check), it’s not something necessarily actively done; it’s inherent in paying attention to whom you’re talking to.

What is the point of having a passive check isn't the NPC isn't being deceitful? There's no DC or roll to check against. There is no point in a check passive or otherwise unless there is uncertainty to resolve.

[RSP]

I'm not discussing proficiency I'm using an example of descriptive narrative a player can use to succeed without a check or gain situational advantage on a check. It need not be tied to background...

What is the point of having a passive check isn't the NPC isn't being deceitful? There's no DC or roll to check against. There is no point in a check passive or otherwise unless there is uncertainty to resolve.

As I said upthread at some point, there’s no issue with “you think they’re being honest” thrown in to show when there’s no need for an ability check. Per RAW, Passive are used when there’s a reason for an ability check, but you don’t want the players to know about it. That fits very well with interactions with an npc and using Passive Insight when needed. When not needed, it’s an auto-pass: “you think they’re being honest/forthright/[whatever wording applies best]”

[GlenSmash!]

As I said upthread at some point, there’s no issue with “you think they’re being honest” thrown in to show when there’s no need for an ability check. Per RAW, Passive are used when there’s a reason for an ability check, but you don’t want the players to know about it. That fits very well with interactions with an npc and using Passive Insight when needed. When not needed, it’s an auto-pass: “you think they’re being honest/forthright/[whatever wording applies best]”

Something like?


auto successes "You are very confident that they are telling the truth.

[RSP]

Insight is not an on or off skill. Cues are always there. Insight is used to make predictions based on cues. You are underestimating the number of ways this skill can be used...

If the DM doesn't know what information you are looking for, its hard for him to play along. In social encounters insight allows you to determine the nature of someone's character far beyond wether they are lying or hiding something.

The cues are always there, which is why when there’s info that’s being concealed in an interaction with NPCs and PCs, Passive Insight should be used. Likewise, if the DM doesn’t use that check, it’s fine for a Player to ask for an Insight check regarding those cues that occur throughout the interaction. It’s not that the PC is looking for something specific, it’s that they’re interested in knowing what their character picks up in interpreting the cues to determine the true intentions of the npc.

[RSP]

Something like?

I think that would work for anytime a PC believes an npc is being honest (including autopasses and either Passive Insight or Insight check failures).

[GlenSmash!]

I think that would work for anytime a PC believes an npc is being honest (including autopasses and either Passive Insight or Insight check failures).

Sweet. I'm glad I thought to include it in my first post in this thread.

[RSP]

Sweet. I'm glad I thought to include it in my first post in this thread.

I, too, was pleased to find it there. My questions were not with the auto-success portion of that post, but with what came before it of auto-failing checks when asked for by Players, though I think we’ve resolved that now with your prior post clarifying your views.

[Lunali]

Or you know, the DM checks the players' passive score, roll secretly for the npc, and try to roleplay out the result. As a DM I prefer to do this. If I roll high for the NPC, I try to fool the player. If I roll low, I try to portray the npc such that the player do pick up on hints and actually becomes suspicious. It's understandable that the player is unsure of if their skill was accounted for if it has not been brought up explicitly, but that doesn't mean that the DM ignores it. Just confirm with the DM that he knows what your passive insight scores is, there's usually no need to be confrontational.

How do you manage to play a character in such a way that one player picks up on the cues and others do not?

[Reversefigure4]

I don't know how applicable this would be to your wife's situation, OP, but I've used a method in the past. Players didn't like getting their Insight (this is Sense Motive, from 3.5, technically, but the advice remains the same) result being "You trust this person". So I changed it to "You receive no further information from the GM", and leave it to the players to decide whether their characters trust the NPC or not.

I roll behind a screen for the NPC to generate different outcomes.

If the results are inconsequential (the NPC is just passing along some minor facts, or is merely Bob Bartender), I'll often just fake a roll for no purpose (so the players can't tell when they're running into somebody who needs more Insight rolls against them than not). Adding in inconsequential details - "She twirls her hair, an ingrained habit that indicates she's the sort of person who constantly fiddles with things", "He sighs whistfully, thinking of better days, and seems unhappy with being a barman" - work well to create the impression your PC is Sherlock Holmes.
If the NPC is lying outright or trying to trick the PCs into something, they roll Deception. The higher the success difference on the roll, the more information the PC gets. A just pass is "He seems nervous talking to you." A better pass might be "He seems nervous, and his eyes flicker to the basement. He's hiding something he's worried about down there." A really good pass might be "His eyes dart to the basement as he lies to you. His hand twitches for a weapon, as if he's worried about something down there getting out."
If the NPC is trying to make a good impression or garner the PCs aid, they roll Persuasion instead. Successes might be "She tries to subtly adjust her cleavage, but it's obvious to you she's happy to use her feminine wiles to persuade you" or "He seems more desperate than he's letting on, and you might be able to negotiate another 100gp payment out of him" or "you feel he's told you everything he knows" (rather than "you trust him").
A failed Insight roll only ever generates one result "You receive no further information from the GM". Players can decide for themselves whether the NPC is lying, whether they are sending signals to flirt with them further, or if they are about to call for the Guard. Players maintain control of their characters, without invalidating the Insight skill.
It's also worth noting none of this is divination. No amount of Insight success will tell you that the evil Vizier has kidnapped his brother and is holding him to ransom against the dragon's tooth he wants. You might get "He seems nervous and lowers his voice, as if afraid some external source will hear him", "He seems terrified of failing. This is clearly a matter of life and death to him".
Irrelevant in your case, but you can also generate different results for different players in a group. I've used "Bob, Sarah, you receive no further information. Alice, you can tell he's nervous and looking to the basement. Jim, you pick up what Alice does, but also that he's afraid of something coming out of it."


The fun part of this set-up is that it allows your wife's character to continue to distrust everyone, if that's what she wants as a player. She'll behave paranoidly, which looks like what the character is aiming for?

If she's calling for Insight checks for literally every NPC, then I'd also add in Passive Insight, to save the game slowing down overly. Or you might want a limitation than Insight can only be called for after you're actually spoken 3 or more sentences with the person.

Anyone who desires to see this in action can check our actual play podcasts (Curse of the Crimson Throne has a lot of politicing and Insight checks), but I can't point to anywhere specific.

[mephnick]

Kind of kills some of the Inquisitive Rogue's abilities eh?

Never had one, thus never used them. But yes, that is a badly designed ability. There is zero reason to hand the use of Insight in general to the player or make it active. I'll tell them if they feel uneasy by comparing the deception to their passive score, just as I'd let them know if their Passive Perception detected a breeze from a nearby wall. I suppose if I had an Inquisitive Rogue I'd just add a +5 to their passive or something. I don't think too hard about fixing the stuff the developers don't understand about their own system until I'm forced to.

[Mordaedil]

If it's a problem, just use the players paranoia against them.

PC: "I insight check him!"
DM: "Okay, what part to you wish to get insight on?"
PC: "The part where he works for the emperor."
DM: "Okay, do a roll." *DM always rolls regardless at this point*
PC: *rolls* "Okay, I got a 15."
DM: *knows there was no deception* "He appears to be legit as far as you can tell."

Heck, I feel it's fine for players to ask if they can perform checks even when they don't need to, but if they are passive in a situation where I feel like they should know better, I'll ask for passive insight first and allow the ones with higher scores to roll insight, without informing them on what they are rolling for right away.

If they pass, I will inform all of the players what they feel was out of place with the conversation they had, based on what their characters would know, but they as players might have forgotten (because this isn't their only reality and it's perfectly human to forget details of what has happened in a game where it might make less sense for the characters inhabiting that world.

For example, I might describe the holy symbol of a priest and say he's a priest of Pelor, but his holy symbol is that of a woman praying and ask for insight check to see if their character would catch on to the discrepancy.

[Reynaert]

Or you know, the DM checks the players' passive score, roll secretly for the npc, and try to roleplay out the result. As a DM I prefer to do this. If I roll high for the NPC, I try to fool the player. If I roll low, I try to portray the npc such that the player do pick up on hints and actually becomes suspicious.

This penalizes players who are bad at social skills who want to play characters who are good at social skills.

Part of the fun of roleplaying is having your character be able to do stuff you as a player cannot.
You don't have a big weight next to your playing table where the barbarian player can 'roleplay out' trying to move a heavy boulder, do you, so why treat social skills differently?

[Pelle]

How do you manage to play a character in such a way that one player picks up on the cues and others do not?

That's actually a challenge, and it doesn't work that well in a big group if only one specific character should get it. It works very well for when a single character is involved though, or when everybody has about the same score. Anyways, in practice I find that with bigger parties ususally someone at the table pick it up and then the players talk ooc, and then the most insightful character can be attributed the suspicion if that is important.



This penalizes players who are bad at social skills who want to play characters who are good at social skills.


No it doesn't, because the DM rolls first, following the normal rules which means the character social skill matters. It's just implicitly acting out the result instead of explicitly saying the result of the roll, but it's the same end result in both cases. If a player has bad social skills, the DM uses more hints until the player gets it.



Part of the fun of roleplaying is having your character be able to do stuff you as a player cannot.


And part of the fun is acting out social encounters and being clever as a player.



You don't have a big weight next to your playing table where the barbarian player can 'roleplay out' trying to move a heavy boulder, do you, so why treat social skills differently?

Because, for some it makes for a much more enjoyable experience at the table?

[Mordaedil]

Every table is different dudes, sometimes you have to prod the players to get out of their shell. That is when the DM asks for checks. If the players frequently initiates on their own, they are fine.

[Reynaert]

... If a player has bad social skills, the DM uses more hints until the player gets it. ...

Ah, well with that said, then I have no objections. I was under the (obviously false) impression that if the player doesn't get it, tough luck for the player.
I've seen a lot of other DMs do it that way so it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

[RSP]

For example, I might describe the holy symbol of a priest and say he's a priest of Pelor, but his holy symbol is that of a woman praying and ask for insight check to see if their character would catch on to the discrepancy.

Except this is an example of Investigation: it’s a deduction based off a clue. And it has nothing to do with Insight: wearing a holy symbol isn’t “body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms” so anything they draw from that cannot be Insight.

[sophontteks]

Thats a intelligence religion check. Someone who knows the religion well would notice the descrepency.

[Mordaedil]

My example was more for determining if the priest was speaking honestly, not that they'd recognize the holy symbol, since I think pretty much anyone could tell that his symbol isn't that of Pelor.

But regardless, it becomes sort of a bunch of checks.

[sophontteks]

My example was more for determining if the priest was speaking honestly, not that they'd recognize the holy symbol, since I think pretty much anyone could tell that his symbol isn't that of Pelor.

But regardless, it becomes sort of a bunch of checks.
Yeah, it could be. It depends on how you word your intentions to the DM. You could call upon your knowledge of the religion to determine if he is authentic. You could watch his demeanor and notice that he isn't acting very priestly. And you could note how the holy symbols in the room don't match those he wears with investigation.

The DM, as always, is the one who ultimately rules what kind of check would be required based on how we describe our action.

[Lorsa]

Couldn't you have a passive Insight value, and then roll Bluff in case an NPC is lying and inform her when her character feels something is wrong? Basically tell her "I know you are on your guard at all times, and I promise to tell you when something feels dodgy".

Another option is to convey the "shiftyness" of an NPC through your interactions. Tell her that she (the real life player) will probably be able to tell if something is fishy and then use your body language to make good on the promise.

[RSP]

Couldn't you have a passive Insight value, and then roll Bluff in case an NPC is lying and inform her when her character feels something is wrong?

This is inline with my understanding of the RAI (with the exception that the skill the npc uses is Deception rather than Bluff). The Passive score to me, at least in part, represents what the character would notice, regardless of whether or not the Player is on guard for such things.

[Lorsa]

This is inline with my understanding of the RAI (with the exception that the skill the npc uses is Deception rather than Bluff). The Passive score to me, at least in part, represents what the character would notice, regardless of whether or not the Player is on guard for such things.

Yes of course. It's called Deception in 5e. :)

[Malifice]

Hello Playgrounders!

I have a problem that I have expressed my concern with the problem player at hand (in this case, my wife during our solo game we play during off weeks when schedules don't align).

The problem? SHE INSIGHT CHECKS EVERYONE. LITERALLY EVERY NPC. I mean, I guess this would be fine if she had a reason? She claims "My character doesn't trust anyone! She would do that!"

I'm just curious as to what other DMs have done about this issue, because I literally can't introduce an NPC without her going "What's this guy really about? Insight! Are they lying to me? Insight!"

Her passive insight is 10+Insight bonus.

Get that off her at the start of the session, and let her know that you'll tell her when she catches an NPC lying to her.

Also never cheat on this woman, or leave your Facebook account unlocked.

[Asmotherion]

Hello Playgrounders!

I have a problem that I have expressed my concern with the problem player at hand (in this case, my wife during our solo game we play during off weeks when schedules don't align).

The problem? SHE INSIGHT CHECKS EVERYONE. LITERALLY EVERY NPC. I mean, I guess this would be fine if she had a reason? She claims "My character doesn't trust anyone! She would do that!"

I'm just curious as to what other DMs have done about this issue, because I literally can't introduce an NPC without her going "What's this guy really about? Insight! Are they lying to me? Insight!"

I'd call paranoia, and justify a disadvantage to all her Wisdom Checks until she stoped displaying this. Or, if you were playing with the variant rules about Sanity, a loss of Sanity.

On the other hand, calling your wife Paranoid can end you up with Bad Food and the Dishes not Washed for the Weekend. Your call :P