Pleh
2020-12-10, 06:42 AM
I don't know, maybe this is common knowledge already, but I think I've figured out the best way to run Insight, based on the balance of meta game knowledge and player agency.
Most of this logic would apply to Passive Perception as well. It simply made the most sense in my mind to treat this with Insight.
You want to set a precident with your players that you use Passive Insight or or less constantly on their behalf any time it would apply. This allows them to relax some of their vigilance around NPCs, because they aren't going to be hoodwinked by any low rolling enemy liars by the virtue of the player failing to ask to roll for Insight.
Before we move on, note that this does two things. For one, it rewards players for having higher Insight scores immediately without requiring any further skill at the game. Their characters will naturally tend to find more useful information the moment they enter a situation where Insight is at play. The second thing this does is it raises the stakes for marginal cases where the player suspects the NPC has exceeded their passive insight. After all, if their suspicions are right, the player might have to roll higher than a 10 to catch the NPC in a lie.
Now for application.
When a player receives notice that a situation has been flagged by their Passive Insight, that is more or less all the information you give them at that moment. If the situation calls for it, such as the liar failing the player's passive insight by 5 or more, you might consider spilling the beans outright and giving the player relevant knowledge out of hand ("this person is clearly lying to you").
As a side note, insight failure is always ruled as the player not getting information. It never provides the player with misinformation, no matter how much they missed the target by. Let players come up with any false conclusions on their own.
But in general, the DM response to Passive Insight flagging something or someone should be along the lines of, "you get the sense this person might be trying to hide something from you."
Naturally, the player will likely want to either roll Active Insight to get more information, or they will want to confront the suspected liar. Actually, the DM should require the player to do both if they want to probe the NPC any further. This is where the Pheonix Wright reference comes in.
Triggering a player's Passive Insight should be an invitation for that player (and any allies that can and will participate) to enter a game of wits with the suspect.
Strategy for this game is entirely up to the player and the DM based on the context of the encounter, but generally the player wants to force a contested roll (presumably Deception vs Insight) in the hopes of catching the suspect in a lie. The player will typically need to be careful not to show their hand by their probing, or else the suspect may clam up, refuse to talk about it, or simply walk away and refuse to converse any further. On the other hand, a solid Intimidation check with a direct confrontation sometimes works.
If in doubt, use the rule of three. The first question about their previous statements is clarification. The second is merely conversation. The third question and the suspect will start to understand they are under investigation.
Most of this logic would apply to Passive Perception as well. It simply made the most sense in my mind to treat this with Insight.
You want to set a precident with your players that you use Passive Insight or or less constantly on their behalf any time it would apply. This allows them to relax some of their vigilance around NPCs, because they aren't going to be hoodwinked by any low rolling enemy liars by the virtue of the player failing to ask to roll for Insight.
Before we move on, note that this does two things. For one, it rewards players for having higher Insight scores immediately without requiring any further skill at the game. Their characters will naturally tend to find more useful information the moment they enter a situation where Insight is at play. The second thing this does is it raises the stakes for marginal cases where the player suspects the NPC has exceeded their passive insight. After all, if their suspicions are right, the player might have to roll higher than a 10 to catch the NPC in a lie.
Now for application.
When a player receives notice that a situation has been flagged by their Passive Insight, that is more or less all the information you give them at that moment. If the situation calls for it, such as the liar failing the player's passive insight by 5 or more, you might consider spilling the beans outright and giving the player relevant knowledge out of hand ("this person is clearly lying to you").
As a side note, insight failure is always ruled as the player not getting information. It never provides the player with misinformation, no matter how much they missed the target by. Let players come up with any false conclusions on their own.
But in general, the DM response to Passive Insight flagging something or someone should be along the lines of, "you get the sense this person might be trying to hide something from you."
Naturally, the player will likely want to either roll Active Insight to get more information, or they will want to confront the suspected liar. Actually, the DM should require the player to do both if they want to probe the NPC any further. This is where the Pheonix Wright reference comes in.
Triggering a player's Passive Insight should be an invitation for that player (and any allies that can and will participate) to enter a game of wits with the suspect.
Strategy for this game is entirely up to the player and the DM based on the context of the encounter, but generally the player wants to force a contested roll (presumably Deception vs Insight) in the hopes of catching the suspect in a lie. The player will typically need to be careful not to show their hand by their probing, or else the suspect may clam up, refuse to talk about it, or simply walk away and refuse to converse any further. On the other hand, a solid Intimidation check with a direct confrontation sometimes works.
If in doubt, use the rule of three. The first question about their previous statements is clarification. The second is merely conversation. The third question and the suspect will start to understand they are under investigation.