So I run a game and my players use insight like crazy. Should I regulate this, or continue to allow them to use insight after every single sentence an NPC uses? To me, it kind of bugs me that they'll talk to a guard captain and roll insight after he says anything, or even more often during the talk to an enemy of some sort such as a bandit or gith. Is it allowed to roll insight this much?
As DM it is your option to set a limit. Usually it should be, one check per subject of discussion.
You could ask them why their character has reason to doubt it and only allow rolls when their answer satisfies you. And "because I just met this person," should be allowed at least once.
One option if its bugging you is to reassure your players that they are receiving the benefit of their passive Insight: if there's something for Insight to detect, you're on top of keeping an eye on their passive scores, and will pass that player a note or a whisper or whatever if there's a crumb. That might make them feel less like they have to constantly remind you that they're suspicious of everyone.
Another would be to tell them, actively rolling insight in a conversation is sometimes noticeable, it's often quite apparent when the person you're talking to is frowning and skeptical and narrowing their eyes after every word. It may be rude, or offput NPCs, or have some impact on the roleplaying if a player is constantly second guessing and doubting everything that every NPC tells them.
But at the end of the day... players can ask to use their skills whenever they want to, but it's up to you to decide whether or not something is happening which calls for a skill check. Insight is not a magical truth detection device, it's just the skill of picking up on subtle clues or vibes. Not every lie is Insight-able, Insight can't let you read surface thoughts, etc etc... you're within your right to say "the NPC said it just like I said it, don't bother rolling, make up your own mind."
The key thing I remind my players is that it should almost always be the DM who tells a player that they should roll on a skill, based upon what they say they are doing.
From what I see of the game, we as DMs shouldn't be getting, "I'm gonna make a <insert skill> roll," from our players.
Instead, just play out the conversation - the insight skill isn't a magic truth detection skill. 🙂
If the player says something like, "I think he's lying," then they're making an assertion and that's something that the npc can pick up on as well (insight cuts both ways).
Too many insight rolls will certainly clog up your game. There were some great strategies posted here. I am sure you will be okay. Just remember the DM has the responsibility of keeping things moving forward so don't let the players decide to roll. The reason being, a roll is to determine between two or more outcomes. And if the situation doesn't have two or more outcomes.... you are wasting time.
So two things I throw out there, I never tell my players if they passed or not unless its very specific circumstances. With that I will let my players roll if they thing they should roll. Now if the check make sense in the moment sure I may accept it, but I never tell them that it succeeded. I tend to say ok so you think the guard is telling the truth, or the hallway looks normal and nothing catches your eye. You as a DM can set the pace for things like that like said above. If you want to cull checks back limit them to how many they can do per encounter. So say one Insight check for the guard they are talking to. So you shouldn't get an insight check per sentence, after the first check the character will believe what they found out threw the check.
I also would handle insight checks as the DM for another reason. Yes, you want the check to be made out of sight. But you also want to make sure only one roll is made. If each player rolls insight and adds their bonus then someone is going to roll a success and everyone at the table knows who rolled well.
If you cut down on the rolls then the game speeds up.
I like the idea of writing a result down and giving it to a player. If it didn't take time, I might roll and write a result for each player. Then if they talk about it in front of the NPC, he gets to hear their discussion and reacts as he would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I'd say... once the character makes an insight check on the conversation, that's what they get for the entire conversation. If they roll low then that's just what they roll for the conversation.
I'd say... once the character makes an insight check on the conversation, that's what they get for the entire conversation. If they roll low then that's just what they roll for the conversation.
This is what I'd suggest too, in addition to telling them that you'll automatically assume passive insight is being applied. They get a single roll if they want - but a roll lower than their passive sticks. And only allow one person to roll for the whole party, otherwise if one player fails they'll insist the next player should get a chance as well.
Oh hey, this again brings up what is becoming my most common bit of advice for DMs, my most common pet peeve, whatever you want to call it!
A roll is needed only if the character is doing something that has a chance of success AND a chance of failure, and the success/failure depends on how good the character does the thing.
First point - the players should be narrating what their characters do, not what rolls they take. Then, it's up to the DM if any roll is necessary and if it is, what skills apply. Players can have input here if appropriate.
So the players should not be saying things like "can I roll insight on this?" Insight's just a roll. They should be saying what their characters are actually trying to do. Something "I'm gonna watch carefully for any signs that the guy's lying." DM decides if, and when, a roll is needed. Maybe ask for a group check at the start or of the conversation if everyone's on guard. Maybe not, if it's not needed.
So the players should not be saying things like "can I roll insight on this?" Insight's just a roll. They should be saying what their characters are actually trying to do. Something "I'm gonna watch carefully for any signs that the guy's lying." DM decides if, and when, a roll is needed. Maybe ask for a group check at the start or of the conversation if everyone's on guard. Maybe not, if it's not needed.
Man, I can't tell you the number of times I hear 'can I roll persuasion?'. Arg! I'm an old-school DM and I just so much want to have the player tell me what they're doing and if I feel it's necessary, I'll give him a x-in-6 chance on a d6. <sigh>. Instead I have to deal PCs that have a +6 in persuasion and want to roll that advantage through every encounter; and the player with only a +2 never gets to try to persuade anyone. Gah.
So the players should not be saying things like "can I roll insight on this?" Insight's just a roll. They should be saying what their characters are actually trying to do. Something "I'm gonna watch carefully for any signs that the guy's lying." DM decides if, and when, a roll is needed. Maybe ask for a group check at the start or of the conversation if everyone's on guard. Maybe not, if it's not needed.
Man, I can't tell you the number of times I hear 'can I roll persuasion?'. Arg! I'm an old-school DM and I just so much want to have the player tell me what they're doing and if I feel it's necessary, I'll give him a x-in-6 chance on a d6. <sigh>. Instead I have to deal PCs that have a +6 in persuasion and want to roll that advantage through every encounter; and the player with only a +2 never gets to try to persuade anyone. Gah.
I have the opposite problem. I tend to just roleplay things, but my particular DM does it the opposite... we pretty much have to say, "I'm going to attempt to persuade X", otherwise she doesn't really ask for it on her own. Although it does lead to interesting things where, if we're trying to persuade someone of something, if we actually do make a persuasive argument it doesn't necessarily need a roll.
What do you all think about insight vs persuasion/deception on other players? I know a lot of games where that's not allowed but that's mainly the DM's ruling and idk if it's supposed to be allowed or not.
to tell a player he has been persuaded destroys his agency
AND
both players lose an opportunity to roleplay.
my personal rule is that
No contested rolls amongst party members, success is assumed and result is narrated i.e. I steal the ring from A (sleight of hand success), A you watch B steal the ring from you(perception success)
when success is assumed it becomes futile and silly, this tends to push players to focus on the reasoning and story rather than the pointless reward of rolling higher than another player.
social interaction and roleplaying is supposed to be a non zero sum game, i.e. not merely one winner and one loser but, much, much more than that.
This one's easy .... create consequences for failed rolls. Roll Insight in secret (Dice Tower) and, if the failure is significant enough, tell them that their target is lying even when they are not. Problem solved.
What is the player doing when the character says "Can I make an Insight roll?". They are closely studying someone, watching their body language, listening to their breathing and voice. What is their target's reaction to this?
"Hey, what do you think you're doing? Eyes elsewhere, boyo, or I'll smack you one!"
"I'm uncomfortable with you staring at me. It's uncouth. I think I'll take my business elsewhere."
What I mean was that player rolling these checks on each other, like a PvP check with one character trying to lie or intimidate another player.
You can allow it but the dice shouldn't overrule the players' agency. Just because the Rogue has expertise in Deception and the dimwitted Barbarian has low Insight doesn't mean that the Barbarian have to trust Rogue. Especially if the Rogue has been seen doing some shady shit. Just because someone sounds trustworthy doesn't mean that you personally trust them if you know they've done some bad shit. "Yeah, you *say* you didn't steal my magic cloak but I've seen you steal from pretty much everyone we've been around and I found you searching through my backpack the other day. Now give it back and if you ever try anything like that again I will use you for chum."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I run a game and my players use insight like crazy. Should I regulate this, or continue to allow them to use insight after every single sentence an NPC uses? To me, it kind of bugs me that they'll talk to a guard captain and roll insight after he says anything, or even more often during the talk to an enemy of some sort such as a bandit or gith. Is it allowed to roll insight this much?
As DM it is your option to set a limit. Usually it should be, one check per subject of discussion.
You could ask them why their character has reason to doubt it and only allow rolls when their answer satisfies you. And "because I just met this person," should be allowed at least once.
One option if its bugging you is to reassure your players that they are receiving the benefit of their passive Insight: if there's something for Insight to detect, you're on top of keeping an eye on their passive scores, and will pass that player a note or a whisper or whatever if there's a crumb. That might make them feel less like they have to constantly remind you that they're suspicious of everyone.
Another would be to tell them, actively rolling insight in a conversation is sometimes noticeable, it's often quite apparent when the person you're talking to is frowning and skeptical and narrowing their eyes after every word. It may be rude, or offput NPCs, or have some impact on the roleplaying if a player is constantly second guessing and doubting everything that every NPC tells them.
But at the end of the day... players can ask to use their skills whenever they want to, but it's up to you to decide whether or not something is happening which calls for a skill check. Insight is not a magical truth detection device, it's just the skill of picking up on subtle clues or vibes. Not every lie is Insight-able, Insight can't let you read surface thoughts, etc etc... you're within your right to say "the NPC said it just like I said it, don't bother rolling, make up your own mind."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe key thing I remind my players is that it should almost always be the DM who tells a player that they should roll on a skill, based upon what they say they are doing.
From what I see of the game, we as DMs shouldn't be getting, "I'm gonna make a <insert skill> roll," from our players.
Instead, just play out the conversation - the insight skill isn't a magic truth detection skill. 🙂
If the player says something like, "I think he's lying," then they're making an assertion and that's something that the npc can pick up on as well (insight cuts both ways).
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Too many insight rolls will certainly clog up your game. There were some great strategies posted here. I am sure you will be okay. Just remember the DM has the responsibility of keeping things moving forward so don't let the players decide to roll. The reason being, a roll is to determine between two or more outcomes. And if the situation doesn't have two or more outcomes.... you are wasting time.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
I would say that most insight checks should be passive, because the players shouldn't know if their insight checks succeed.
So two things I throw out there, I never tell my players if they passed or not unless its very specific circumstances. With that I will let my players roll if they thing they should roll. Now if the check make sense in the moment sure I may accept it, but I never tell them that it succeeded. I tend to say ok so you think the guard is telling the truth, or the hallway looks normal and nothing catches your eye. You as a DM can set the pace for things like that like said above. If you want to cull checks back limit them to how many they can do per encounter. So say one Insight check for the guard they are talking to. So you shouldn't get an insight check per sentence, after the first check the character will believe what they found out threw the check.
I also would handle insight checks as the DM for another reason. Yes, you want the check to be made out of sight. But you also want to make sure only one roll is made. If each player rolls insight and adds their bonus then someone is going to roll a success and everyone at the table knows who rolled well.
If you cut down on the rolls then the game speeds up.
I like the idea of writing a result down and giving it to a player. If it didn't take time, I might roll and write a result for each player. Then if they talk about it in front of the NPC, he gets to hear their discussion and reacts as he would.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I'd say... once the character makes an insight check on the conversation, that's what they get for the entire conversation. If they roll low then that's just what they roll for the conversation.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
This is what I'd suggest too, in addition to telling them that you'll automatically assume passive insight is being applied. They get a single roll if they want - but a roll lower than their passive sticks. And only allow one person to roll for the whole party, otherwise if one player fails they'll insist the next player should get a chance as well.
Oh hey, this again brings up what is becoming my most common bit of advice for DMs, my most common pet peeve, whatever you want to call it!
A roll is needed only if the character is doing something that has a chance of success AND a chance of failure, and the success/failure depends on how good the character does the thing.
First point - the players should be narrating what their characters do, not what rolls they take. Then, it's up to the DM if any roll is necessary and if it is, what skills apply. Players can have input here if appropriate.
So the players should not be saying things like "can I roll insight on this?" Insight's just a roll. They should be saying what their characters are actually trying to do. Something "I'm gonna watch carefully for any signs that the guy's lying." DM decides if, and when, a roll is needed. Maybe ask for a group check at the start or of the conversation if everyone's on guard. Maybe not, if it's not needed.
Man, I can't tell you the number of times I hear 'can I roll persuasion?'. Arg! I'm an old-school DM and I just so much want to have the player tell me what they're doing and if I feel it's necessary, I'll give him a x-in-6 chance on a d6. <sigh>. Instead I have to deal PCs that have a +6 in persuasion and want to roll that advantage through every encounter; and the player with only a +2 never gets to try to persuade anyone. Gah.
I have the opposite problem. I tend to just roleplay things, but my particular DM does it the opposite... we pretty much have to say, "I'm going to attempt to persuade X", otherwise she doesn't really ask for it on her own. Although it does lead to interesting things where, if we're trying to persuade someone of something, if we actually do make a persuasive argument it doesn't necessarily need a roll.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
What do you all think about insight vs persuasion/deception on other players? I know a lot of games where that's not allowed but that's mainly the DM's ruling and idk if it's supposed to be allowed or not.
absolutely not,
to tell a player he has been persuaded destroys his agency
AND
both players lose an opportunity to roleplay.
my personal rule is that
No contested rolls amongst party members, success is assumed and result is narrated i.e. I steal the ring from A (sleight of hand success), A you watch B steal the ring from you(perception success)
when success is assumed it becomes futile and silly, this tends to push players to focus on the reasoning and story rather than the pointless reward of rolling higher than another player.
social interaction and roleplaying is supposed to be a non zero sum game, i.e. not merely one winner and one loser but, much, much more than that.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
What I mean was that player rolling these checks on each other, like a PvP check with one character trying to lie or intimidate another player.
Depends on the group. Some people like it, some don't.
It has to be an out-of-character discussion on whether it's ok in a particular group, though.
This one's easy .... create consequences for failed rolls. Roll Insight in secret (Dice Tower) and, if the failure is significant enough, tell them that their target is lying even when they are not. Problem solved.
Begin and end with the fiction.
What is the player doing when the character says "Can I make an Insight roll?". They are closely studying someone, watching their body language, listening to their breathing and voice. What is their target's reaction to this?
"Hey, what do you think you're doing? Eyes elsewhere, boyo, or I'll smack you one!"
"I'm uncomfortable with you staring at me. It's uncouth. I think I'll take my business elsewhere."
You can allow it but the dice shouldn't overrule the players' agency. Just because the Rogue has expertise in Deception and the dimwitted Barbarian has low Insight doesn't mean that the Barbarian have to trust Rogue. Especially if the Rogue has been seen doing some shady shit. Just because someone sounds trustworthy doesn't mean that you personally trust them if you know they've done some bad shit. "Yeah, you *say* you didn't steal my magic cloak but I've seen you steal from pretty much everyone we've been around and I found you searching through my backpack the other day. Now give it back and if you ever try anything like that again I will use you for chum."