In a game I recently ran there was a player who kept asking for permission to Perception(Insight) check every NPC they had a conversation with. I found this slightly frustrating as I as a DM knew that the NPC wasn't lying but I also felt a bit bad for not letting them make the roll as I wasn't sure what I would have done depending of the results. What could I do to improve the situation if some player goes into that mood where they just keep on asking for Insight check permission on everything?
Just give them an auto succeed where it isn't relevant, and tell them a bit about what they glean about the personality of the NPC. "They seem honest", or "They don't appear to be hiding anything", and occasionally throw in an actual "you notice their eyes are shifty" for a bad seed type that might give a red herring type side quest. Remind the players gently that they are skilled adventurers and not everything in the game needs to be dictated by dice.
In a game I recently ran there was a player who kept asking for permission to Perception(Insight) check every NPC they had a conversation with. I found this slightly frustrating as I as a DM knew that the NPC wasn't lying but I also felt a bit bad for not letting them make the roll as I wasn't sure what I would have done depending of the results. What could I do to improve the situation if some player goes into that mood where they just keep on asking for Insight check permission on everything?
Is this player new? Or are they experienced? It seems a bit if they are expereinced, perhaps they were in a campaign where every NPC turned against them in some way. So long as you are not running that type of campaign, what I would do is this:
Randomly allow the check or don't allow the check. What I mean by this is, when he asks to check them, either tell him you "don't detect any subterfuge/he is telling the truth/he is on the up and up" no check required. In those cases it tells him that this NPC can be trusted and that he never needed to check them. When you do allow the check and it was unnecessary, no matter what his roll is (save a nat 1) give the same response as before.
What this should do over time is condition him to realize that you do not need to check every single NPC in the game for a traitor. But it does it in a way that you are not openly calling him out on his ridiculousness.
Alternatively, you could ask him why are they doing this? Is it a character choice or a player choice? You could also do it in game and ask why his character suspects that this NPC is not being truthful, what tipped him off? If he can't justify it, then there is no reason to roll.
Reframe it by asking what their character is *doing* rather than what "check" they want to make.
Once they explain what their character is trying to do, then you as DM get to make the call whether that action needs a roll to resolve - it only needs a roll if it has a chance of success AND a chance of failure. If no matter how good the character is at doing their thing, the effect is the same, there's no need to roll.
In a game I recently ran there was a player who kept asking for permission to Perception(Insight) check every NPC they had a conversation with. I found this slightly frustrating as I as a DM knew that the NPC wasn't lying but I also felt a bit bad for not letting them make the roll as I wasn't sure what I would have done depending of the results. What could I do to improve the situation if some player goes into that mood where they just keep on asking for Insight check permission on everything?
Short answer is: you can't make rolls unless the DM says you can. In the particular case of Insight, its normal use is passive, as a target number for hostile Deception, so the answer to "can I roll Insight" is "No, I'll tell you if you notice something wrong".
Have you talked to your player? If what they're doing is disruptive, pull them aside and say "dude, the amount of dice rolls you're forcing is disrupting the flow of the game." Then work with them to come up with a solution. Often with new players, it's an issue of trust. Saying to them, "hey, I'll let you know when an insight check is warranted" and then doing that can be all it takes to build trust and allow better flow. I'd make sure to reward a vigilant player for their vigilance by giving them regular opportunities to pick up on lies or hidden truths. They're signaling to you what they think is important. Use that to make them feel like superheroes sometimes.
In a game I recently ran there was a player who kept asking for permission to Perception(Insight) check every NPC they had a conversation with. I found this slightly frustrating as I as a DM knew that the NPC wasn't lying but I also felt a bit bad for not letting them make the roll as I wasn't sure what I would have done depending of the results. What could I do to improve the situation if some player goes into that mood where they just keep on asking for Insight check permission on everything?
Short answer is: you can't make rolls unless the DM says you can. In the particular case of Insight, its normal use is passive, as a target number for hostile Deception, so the answer to "can I roll Insight" is "No, I'll tell you if you notice something wrong".
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. Insight is as much an active skill as Perception or Investigation. Certainly they have passive applications - you might notice an unexpected assassin sneaking up on you, or detect a hidden quaver in somebody's voice - but if you're suspicious of someone and actively trying to catch them in a lie, then you can make a roll. This can help you make your argument to your player, however. Unless their character is obsessively suspicious (which would be a fun wall you and his teammates could work to break down over the course of play!), then they would need to mistrust the information they're given before asking to check for it. And consider that a person actively trying to catch you in a lie is also going to look like they're actively trying to catch you in a lie. They're going to stare into your eyes suspiciously, or ask you the same question over and over, or something like that. It might cause some characters to clam up, or act nervous or hostile. I'm not for using in-game punishment to train out bad table habits, but maybe it's something you can suggest to your player - their overly suspicious behavior might cause complications in the future. This could, again, be a fun character flaw that you and your party could train out of his character in-game, both by teaching him to trust, and teaching him the downside of being overly suspicious.
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. Insight is as much an active skill as Perception or Investigation. Certainly they have passive applications - you might notice an unexpected assassin sneaking up on you, or detect a hidden quaver in somebody's voice - but if you're suspicious of someone and actively trying to catch them in a lie, then you can make a roll.
No, if you're suspicious you can tell the DM that you're suspicious and trying to catch them in a lie, and he will tell you what to do. My general policy is that rolls where the player shouldn't know if they succeeded should be made by the DM, and that commonly means roll vs a passive, though it could also be a roll made by the DM.
You do the rolling. If it is a bad roll then you say something like, "He doesn't appear to be lying." If he gets a good roll you say more emphatically, "He is telling you the truth." If you have a character that is going to do this every time and you tell him, "Don't worry, I'll tell you if you think he's lying." Then you have given away every time when you don't roll that this was always going to be the truth. And then later, because you rolled, even if you say "He doesn't appear to be lying." your PC kinda knows he is because you rolled.
In private I would just ask him if he understood that it takes the fun out of the game if he exercises every mechanical option in every situation to avoid being surprised. Some degree of RP would suggest that a character would only become "alert" if there was a reason to be "alert." Maybe that would have to be your compromise ... "What alerted you that you make this check?" Good answer = roll: Bad answer = no roll.
In my current game, another party member says he ALWAYS SLEEPS IN HIS PLATE ARMOR. Now this is patently ridiculous, but the DM lets him do this. If it were me being DM I would have to explore the DMG and PH for some method of imposing some reasonable consequence for this. I know there are rules for exhaustion for example. As a member of the party I asked if he would simply take "last watch" so he could put his armor on and receive some protection, but he refused.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In my current game, another party member says he ALWAYS SLEEPS IN HIS PLATE ARMOR. Now this is patently ridiculous, but the DM lets him do this. If it were me being DM I would have to explore the DMG and PH for some method of imposing some reasonable consequence for this. I know there are rules for exhaustion for example. As a member of the party I asked if he would simply take "last watch" so he could put his armor on and receive some protection, but he refused.
Check out the variant rules for sleeping in Xanathar's and ask the DM if you can use them in the campaign.
You do the rolling. If it is a bad roll then you say something like, "He doesn't appear to be lying." If he gets a good roll you say more emphatically, "He is telling you the truth."
Eh, I disagree. You shouldn't telegraph whether the roll was good. Just give the same response for a good roll on a subject who is not being deceptive and a bad roll.
You can use passive insight and just narrate the result most of the time. If the player is role playing the character as suspicious of everyone then using passive makes sense to keep the dice rolling down. Ask the player to make a die roll in the circumstances where there might be something to be learned and their passive isn't enough.
Also, consider whether insight should be 100% reliable. Is there the possibility that a low roll actually means the character disbelieves their statements even if they are telling the truth? Or is the character just feel uncertain of the statements.
Finally, if there is nothing to be found, then the check can be an auto success and you can either just narrate the result or ask for a roll and narrate the same thing. By asking for the occasional die roll when there is nothing out of the ordinary the player won't know if there is extra significance to the request to make a die roll.
I do it where you only get an insight roll if the Npc is acting reasonably suspicious. Otherwise if they do try to lie or trick you or whatever it is a secret deception check tested against your passive insight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In a game I recently ran there was a player who kept asking for permission to Perception(Insight) check every NPC they had a conversation with. I found this slightly frustrating as I as a DM knew that the NPC wasn't lying but I also felt a bit bad for not letting them make the roll as I wasn't sure what I would have done depending of the results. What could I do to improve the situation if some player goes into that mood where they just keep on asking for Insight check permission on everything?
Just give them an auto succeed where it isn't relevant, and tell them a bit about what they glean about the personality of the NPC. "They seem honest", or "They don't appear to be hiding anything", and occasionally throw in an actual "you notice their eyes are shifty" for a bad seed type that might give a red herring type side quest. Remind the players gently that they are skilled adventurers and not everything in the game needs to be dictated by dice.
Is this player new? Or are they experienced? It seems a bit if they are expereinced, perhaps they were in a campaign where every NPC turned against them in some way. So long as you are not running that type of campaign, what I would do is this:
Randomly allow the check or don't allow the check. What I mean by this is, when he asks to check them, either tell him you "don't detect any subterfuge/he is telling the truth/he is on the up and up" no check required. In those cases it tells him that this NPC can be trusted and that he never needed to check them. When you do allow the check and it was unnecessary, no matter what his roll is (save a nat 1) give the same response as before.
What this should do over time is condition him to realize that you do not need to check every single NPC in the game for a traitor. But it does it in a way that you are not openly calling him out on his ridiculousness.
Alternatively, you could ask him why are they doing this? Is it a character choice or a player choice? You could also do it in game and ask why his character suspects that this NPC is not being truthful, what tipped him off? If he can't justify it, then there is no reason to roll.
Reframe it by asking what their character is *doing* rather than what "check" they want to make.
Once they explain what their character is trying to do, then you as DM get to make the call whether that action needs a roll to resolve - it only needs a roll if it has a chance of success AND a chance of failure. If no matter how good the character is at doing their thing, the effect is the same, there's no need to roll.
Short answer is: you can't make rolls unless the DM says you can. In the particular case of Insight, its normal use is passive, as a target number for hostile Deception, so the answer to "can I roll Insight" is "No, I'll tell you if you notice something wrong".
Have you talked to your player? If what they're doing is disruptive, pull them aside and say "dude, the amount of dice rolls you're forcing is disrupting the flow of the game." Then work with them to come up with a solution. Often with new players, it's an issue of trust. Saying to them, "hey, I'll let you know when an insight check is warranted" and then doing that can be all it takes to build trust and allow better flow. I'd make sure to reward a vigilant player for their vigilance by giving them regular opportunities to pick up on lies or hidden truths. They're signaling to you what they think is important. Use that to make them feel like superheroes sometimes.
Also:
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. Insight is as much an active skill as Perception or Investigation. Certainly they have passive applications - you might notice an unexpected assassin sneaking up on you, or detect a hidden quaver in somebody's voice - but if you're suspicious of someone and actively trying to catch them in a lie, then you can make a roll. This can help you make your argument to your player, however. Unless their character is obsessively suspicious (which would be a fun wall you and his teammates could work to break down over the course of play!), then they would need to mistrust the information they're given before asking to check for it. And consider that a person actively trying to catch you in a lie is also going to look like they're actively trying to catch you in a lie. They're going to stare into your eyes suspiciously, or ask you the same question over and over, or something like that. It might cause some characters to clam up, or act nervous or hostile. I'm not for using in-game punishment to train out bad table habits, but maybe it's something you can suggest to your player - their overly suspicious behavior might cause complications in the future. This could, again, be a fun character flaw that you and your party could train out of his character in-game, both by teaching him to trust, and teaching him the downside of being overly suspicious.
No, if you're suspicious you can tell the DM that you're suspicious and trying to catch them in a lie, and he will tell you what to do. My general policy is that rolls where the player shouldn't know if they succeeded should be made by the DM, and that commonly means roll vs a passive, though it could also be a roll made by the DM.
If the character is using insight on every NPC, then some NPCs will notice that they are being overly watched by the PC.
So some NPCs will take offence at the fact that they are being stared at intently by that PC.
(OK, so RWinnie beat me to it. :-) )
All the above is great advices…
But you could play with is paranoia 😂
A bit 😇
Peace be with you friend.
You do the rolling. If it is a bad roll then you say something like, "He doesn't appear to be lying." If he gets a good roll you say more emphatically, "He is telling you the truth." If you have a character that is going to do this every time and you tell him, "Don't worry, I'll tell you if you think he's lying." Then you have given away every time when you don't roll that this was always going to be the truth. And then later, because you rolled, even if you say "He doesn't appear to be lying." your PC kinda knows he is because you rolled.
In private I would just ask him if he understood that it takes the fun out of the game if he exercises every mechanical option in every situation to avoid being surprised. Some degree of RP would suggest that a character would only become "alert" if there was a reason to be "alert." Maybe that would have to be your compromise ... "What alerted you that you make this check?" Good answer = roll: Bad answer = no roll.
In my current game, another party member says he ALWAYS SLEEPS IN HIS PLATE ARMOR. Now this is patently ridiculous, but the DM lets him do this. If it were me being DM I would have to explore the DMG and PH for some method of imposing some reasonable consequence for this. I know there are rules for exhaustion for example. As a member of the party I asked if he would simply take "last watch" so he could put his armor on and receive some protection, but he refused.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Hi MusicScout
For sleeping in Armor for PC with proficiency
They sleep poorly and get only half HP or ¼ for full plate
No proficiency they get nothing no HP no recovery 😢
Peace be with you friend.
Check out the variant rules for sleeping in Xanathar's and ask the DM if you can use them in the campaign.
There is no dawn after eternal night.
Homebrew: Magic items, Subclasses
Eh, I disagree. You shouldn't telegraph whether the roll was good. Just give the same response for a good roll on a subject who is not being deceptive and a bad roll.
You can use passive insight and just narrate the result most of the time. If the player is role playing the character as suspicious of everyone then using passive makes sense to keep the dice rolling down. Ask the player to make a die roll in the circumstances where there might be something to be learned and their passive isn't enough.
Also, consider whether insight should be 100% reliable. Is there the possibility that a low roll actually means the character disbelieves their statements even if they are telling the truth? Or is the character just feel uncertain of the statements.
Finally, if there is nothing to be found, then the check can be an auto success and you can either just narrate the result or ask for a roll and narrate the same thing. By asking for the occasional die roll when there is nothing out of the ordinary the player won't know if there is extra significance to the request to make a die roll.
I do it where you only get an insight roll if the Npc is acting reasonably suspicious. Otherwise if they do try to lie or trick you or whatever it is a secret deception check tested against your passive insight.