One of the most common missed opportunities in social encounters is how players use the Insight skill. Many groups use Insight—or its equivalent in other systems—as a basic lie detector. This wastes a valuable roleplaying opportunity, narrative potential, and reduces the overall value of the skill itself. Instead, Insight should be giving plot hooks, building drama, and rewarding smart player thinking. It has a lot of potential that is often underused.
Before I get started, I’m going to be using the term Insight from Dungeons & Dragons a lot. This is to keep things short; however, this all applies to other systems, too. So, Psychology in Call of Cthulhu, Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in Delta Green, Savage Worlds’ Notice, Perception in Pathfinder 2e etc. They’re all doing a similar job, and all benefit from being handled the same way.
The Insight Skill As Lie Detector
The main problem with treating Insight as a lie detector is it reduces the situation into a yes/no question. This loses a lot of nuance and narrative potential. Motives and emotions become less important. Now, the interaction is a question of whether the player is right or wrong. Decided by the luck of a die, this won’t often be satisfying.
Failing the check often means the suspicion stays but remains unproven; passing the check but learning the non-player character (NPC) was being truthful means the player was wrong; success justifies not trusting the NPC and, potentially, validates distrusting the gamemaster (GM).
Consider this situation: a man approaches the party requesting money. It’s for an official charity, he says. The players feel something is strange and ask for an Insight check. The truth is, the man is lying; he wants the money to buy food for his starving child; however, he is too proud to ask directly. Using Insight as a lie detector makes getting this story more difficult than it should be.
Using Insight More Effectively
Instead, groups can have more fun and develop deeper narratives by using Insight to perceive emotions and tells. By “tells,” I mean the poker card game term for a mannerism or body language that unintentionally reveals information.
In the above example, what if the players don’t use Insight to see if the man is lying. Instead, they ask how he seems. Now, the GM can describe the man as a mix of determined and desperate. He’s making strong eye contact, but his hands are moving restlessly.
Now, there’s more story for the players than a yes/no answer can provide. It maintains player agency and lets the GM reveal narrative more naturally. Additionally, this has the extra benefit of encouraging GMs to avoid dumping loads of information before important interactions begin. Another bonus is the players can no longer be wrong asking for a check; they’re just getting more information, not forcing a yes/no question.
What The Insight Skill Shouldn’t Do
Before going deeper into what the Insight skill can do, I want to focus on what it shouldn’t do.
Insight shouldn’t read people’s minds. In the earlier example, the players can learn the man is desperate and determined. However, they will only find out about the starving child through their own questions and actions.
Additionally, I’d argue failing Insight checks shouldn’t work like other skills. For instance, failing a Strength check to force open a door might mean the door stays shut. If opening the door is important and the GM wants to keep rolls meaningful, the PC may succeed but with a penalty; for example, the character loses a lot of time or enemies are now approaching.
However, failing an Insight check feels like it should be different. Machines give zero emotional information, people do not. I’ve seen many GMs respond to a failed Insight check with “the NPC is hard to read.” I’ve done it myself as well, but this shuts down gameplay and isn’t fully accurate.
Make Insight Work Harder
People project what they want others to see. That means there’s always information available. By itself, this can be useful. For example, the man wanting food for his child may use body language to project confidence. A critically failed Insight check may make PCs think he doesn’t really need the money, or the charity is false. Completely misreading the NPC works here because of the critical fail; misunderstandings and half-truths can sometimes be more fun or help the story along better, though.
For non-critical fails, the hints get stronger. For instance, the GM says the man is projecting confidence, looks determined, but there’s something else in his actions; a quickness he can’t seem to hide.
There may be no payoff in the players not realising the man is lying. In that case, it might be worth the GM openly saying he’s not telling the whole truth. Here, the failed roll would mean answers are harder to get, or may come at a later time; however, the hook is there if the players wish to take it. It doesn’t lock them out of an action because of one dice roll.
As an aside, in Mothership by Sean McCoy, GMs tell players straight when NPCs are lying to them. The focus is on the motives and the consequences, not the lies themselves. Admittedly, this is partly because Mothership wants to get to the horror scenes quickly; however, it’s a different perspective worth considering: is there payoff in the players not knowing anything?
A successful Insight of course gives more clues. The man wanting money is shifting his feet nervously, or he doesn’t realise he’s fidgeting with a wedding ring. A critical success may reveal a look in the man’s eyes the PC has seen before; it’s the look of a panicked parent.
The Insight Skill Should Open Up Options
Instead of a yes/no question, Insight works much better hinting why a person is acting the way they are. The focus here is on emotions and body language. For example, a successful Insight check on a guard may reveal they’re afraid, not aggressive. They’re standing their ground because they’re terrified of stepping into any shadows. Even a failed roll tells the party the guard isn’t hostile; they seem awkwardly tense and raising their voice sharply.
Insight checks can also work to tell the players what may happen next. A successful Insight check might alert a PC a NPC is about to become hostile. They have one chance to diffuse the situation; alternatively, the PC has the option to attack first, stealing Surprise.
Both of these—perceiving emotions and anticipating what’s next—can work on groups of NPCs. For instance, the party encounter a mob of angry villagers. Anyone can see they’re angry, but Insight can reveal there’s fear there, too, as well as greed. Without PC action, they will attack. The party can fight, flee, soothe the fear, exploit it with intimidation, or appeal to the greed. Insight shouldn’t just keep the story going, it should increase the number of interesting options for the players.
Showing Another Way To Play
It took one of my players a long time to come to this way of thinking. Brought up on video games and live streamed shows, in his mind Insight’s job was to counter Deception. If ever he didn’t trust a NPC, he would shout “Insight check!” And if a NPC ended up betraying the party, he would complain that he didn’t use an Insight check to figure it out.
One way I encouraged him to see Insight’s usefulness was by giving encounters where NPCs’ lies did no harm. The deceptions never hurt the party, they only protected the individual, or—better—someone they cared about. Sometimes, I also asked if anyone wanted to make an Insight check to remind the players it was an option. In the end, the message got through. Not all deceptions are a trap; Insight is the key to discovering what is going on inside a NPC’s heart.
Learning How To Reward The Insight Skill
Choose an emotion and then think of ways people display that feeling through body language. The eyes, mouth, and hands are often the most telling. If the eyes do not match the emotion suggested by the mouth, it’s a hint the NPC is feeling conflicted. Conflicted NPCs are more interesting and give the narrative more depth.
How the NPC is on their feet, sitting, or lying down are important. Their current activity is another good resource for detail and variety. Do they pause their activity to speak? Do they stop when the PCs speak? Does the NPC interrupt, politely wait, or stammer out responses? Do they make listeners wait for their answers? Insight is ready to give hints to the motivations behind these mannerisms.
Important NPCs should have their mannerism or tell prepared ahead of the session. Some GMs find it useful to have a cheat sheet of these along with their lists of random names and descriptors. Whatever works. Given time and practice, it will become faster and easier to generate these details on the fly.
Groups will start to feel more like detectives and social interactions feel more exciting. Using Insight purely as a lie detector is such a wasted opportunity. It can add so much more to the story and make taking it as a skill much more worthwhile.
A Possible Problem
While on the skill’s value, there is one potential issue here. This is specific to GMs who love to act out every aspect of NPCs, the Matt Mercers of the hobby. They have such brilliant attention to detail, and such skill showing the NPC in action, it actually lowers Insight’s usefulness. Players will often feel they have all the information they need from these vivid portrayals. They’ll stop asking questions.
Ultimately, people should GM the way they want. If a GM is that good at acting, it’s likely the players will be having fun anyway. The Critical Role crew definitely seem to be having a great time. In which case, this isn’t a problem at all. Nothing is stopping the players calling for an Insight check if they want; it can always give extra layers to those portrayals. GMs, too, can always ask for Insight checks to bring more depth into a scene. However, I’d be willing to bet for Insight to really work well, less [information] is more [opportunity].
Fulfill The Potential Of The Insight Skill
I believe reducing Insight to a basic lie detector is a huge waste. It can do so much more. Insight has the potential to deepen the story, increase player agency, and boost the fun at the table. It moves players away from yes/no questions, encouraging them to ask why and how. This is far more interesting, and far more compelling.
Give it a go!
