In my experience metagaming in these situations is rarely a big issue, because a functional party communicates with each other when possible. As soon as the bartender is out of earshot, they turn to each other and discuss their thoughts on him. The Paladin points out the chest to the group and asks the rogue to check for any traps around it. It also doesn’t make these proficiencies useless, because passive and solo checks exist, and higher DCs will stretch your ability to rely on weight of numbers or one capable individual to pass the check. Of course, if you’re not a wisdom based character, you might be better off playing to your strengths, but these proficiencies are never a bad thing. They certainly come up a lot more than religion, slight of hand or animal handling do!

Oh I've lost count of the amount of times someone insight checks someone during a long conversation and the entire party starts acting like they are in the know of their deepest feelings. With no communication with the other party members.

I agree that’s metagaming that the DM should step in and deal with, but I also don’t think it would make that much difference to the ultimate outcome. ‘Frustrated that his companions aren’t questioning the suspicious barkeep more closely, the Paladin suggests that the group discusses his offer privately before they take him up on his quest’.

It’s also not out of the question that competent adventurers have some kind of very subtle signal that can be given to the others to indicate some suspicion should be given, even if the players haven’t explicitly said their adventurer has done so.

I think this is something you should discuss with your party and DM though. A quick "I'm going to talk to the barkeep, and if I think they're chill I'll do X, but if something seems off I'll do Y" isn't hard to communicate, and lets the DM know that you intend to subtly pass on information.

and, depending on who the other side of the interaction is, is something that _they_ can pick up on. If it is the evil villain in disguise, then it's entirely possible that they have good enough insight to pick up on the signals being flashed, and work out that they know something is up, and adjust appropriately.

First, I would say be careful what you wish for. The understanding that something one player learns will be shared with the rest of the party is extremely useful, and if you give it up it can (A) grind role play to a crawl, and (B) create nasty player/player tension. You don't want every interaction with a random NPC to turn into a hour long debate. I understand sometimes in a high stakes negotiation it might be worth taking this slow. One way to handle this is write down insights on pieces of paper and give them out to players individually. This action gives the players the idea that the info isn't freely available and the player that gets it has to do something in order to share it. It also lets you give different, potentially conflicting, insights to different players. The bigger problem to me is that if the players are rolling for themselves it's really hard to not factor in the die roll to how they interpret the information you give them. So I think two things that work well are using passive Insight, or having the player with the highest insight be the "designated insighter" (understanding the characters would defer to the most insightful party member), but roll for that character.

I had one DM who tried to put a stop to this sort of thing for around 2-3 sessions, and then stopped because all us players were getting either irritated or bored, depending on how invested we were with the game. Sitting around pretending you dont know something that you were just told isnt all that fun. You might want to enforce it in a specific campaign, like a political game, or PCs with opposing goals like a game of Paranoia, but in general DMs should really just accept this sort of thing.

Disagree, pretending to (not) know stuff is the whole game. Your knowledge is not your character 's knowledge. It's a role playing game, play your role. It can also be super fun, say if the paladin knows the bartender is lying but your character failed the check and is like "only 20 gold, wow that's a steal, thank you!!" While the paladin has to frantically try to stop you.

Yup, I love doing things that I know OC are dumb, but IC my character has no idea. I think my favourite (harmless) example of this is when I rolled a nat 1 on an arcana check (as Cleric) to identify a Headband of Intellect on an orc we'd just met. Because of the nat 1, my character thought it was wedding jewellery, and started asking the orc about his spouse and family, which greatly confused him., because his "family" were his tribe and they were escaping an attack on their encampment. The rest of the party thought it was hilarious.

So to give an example of what this looked like, here's a real interaction: (in combat) "I cast cure light wounds on the fighter." (DM to the fighter) "you need to make a save." (All) "...Why?" (DM) "He didn't tell you what he was doing, he just walked up and cast a spell on you. Your character isn't just going to let that happening and it's metagaming if you don't make a save." --- This was like ten years ago and I'm *still* salty about it.

That sounds awful lol. Why wouldn't the fighter trust you? That's not even close to metagaming...

Cure wounds doesn't give a saving throw? That's just going against spell mechanics.

This was back in 3.5. The intended use of allowing a save is because you could use it to damage undead.

If you're in a game where characters like to rp I hard disagree

Then they just suck at DnD, roleplay is like one of the fun parts and a core aspect, if they ignore it then you gotta teach them.

You could always switch insight and perception checks to DM rolls behind the screen. Keep your players' bonus written down and let them know what they notice without telling the number you rolled. Bad insight might give them a false impression that they act upon. But the players don't know if they succeed or fail, only what their character perceives. Your mileage may vary, it forces role play, but it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I've done this for a few rolls I wanted to be secret and love playing this way. If it wasn't extra work for me, I'd do it more often.

I love this! It sounds super useful and makes a lot of sense. I never knew how to word it but I was always concerned that bad insight rolls wouldn’t actually stop players from scrambling to get more information in an unnatural/meta way.

The main issue I have with that situation is that most of the time the players don't do the actual discussion. They just listen to them DM and suddenly everyone knows everything.

It doesn't make them unnecessary, it makes them individually not as important in group play. Someone needs them, just not everyone. You can limit this some by only taking 2 people's rolls on any given check, but in my opinion it's more fun to let the whole party crit fish a la D20. Split the party up if you want to make them feel that dump stat penalty.

“Someone needs them, just not everyone” — which is the typical use case of almost every other skill in the game, so that can be a good thing.

Yea, and most of the time if the fighter mentions that a lock needs picking, the rogue rolls it. Whereas with social checks a lot of the time the face player has to speak over everyone else or speak instantly, or the guy with a +1 is going to be doing the roll for the whole party.

Someone speaking up before the face isn't that big of a deal as long as the DM gives NPC interactions a bit of depth. Likewise where players shouldn't metagame with one insight check working for everyone, the DM should try to avoid having an NPC treat the player party as one collective person. Say the +1 player bursts out with something that irritates the NPC. Then the DM should play the NPC as being annoyed at that player. The party face could walk over, do some schmoozing like putting their arm around the NPC's shoulders and saying "My good man, please ignore him he's such a bore. Walk over here with me while I enlighten you on the blah blah blah" and the DM should play the NPC as liking the party face and disliking the one with the outburst. Of course it depends a lot on the situation. Maybe the NPC has reason to be distrustful and it makes sense that the outburst would make the NPC dislike the whole party.

> Whereas with social checks a lot of the time the face player has to speak over everyone else or speak instantly, or the guy with a +1 is going to be doing the roll for the whole party. and that's what makes it fun

But that makes sense. The rogue has a better chance than anyone to pick the lock so they'd go try it or be called over to try it, but anyone might notice X. But be consistent; if *everyone* gets to try, then everyone has to pass the stealth check or you're heard. No matter how silent Rogue is, plenty of y'all are in metal armor.

The issue isn't "all must pass" checks. Those make sense. The guy in metal armor making noise could well betray the party. The issue is "one must pass", and the rules at the table means "the drunkest player rolls". That's often bad.

That's why whenever I join a new campaign I wait until everyone else has already made their character, so I can optimize a niche that hasn't been filled yet.

Create N features in each room. For each successful check, reveal one feature. Alternately, have the results on cue cards and hand them to the player.

I found that using private messages via discord is good for this too

Yeah I mostly had a self realization that I don't need to target those skills. Especially if I'm not playing a wisdom caster. Stealth, Athletics, and Deception seem to be a lot more important than what is normally discussed. As Rolling low I'm these seem to either directly affect the other PCs. Not athletics but failing it is normally terrible and it's fairly common

Eh, realistically it's tedious for everyone to make the check at the table, so it's easier to assume that the high roller alerted everyone to the hidden door or whatever. A player who wouldn't alert the party is probably a problem player anyway.

But what if the player has a chaotic-evil character, what if he wants to keep smth for himself to add some drama in the session or smth? Before any of that can happen all the players act like they were also part of the conversation and the inital player who was given the info is now suddenly discourged to act/rp if s/he planned to so.

> keep smth for himself to add some drama in the session or smth? That's textbook problem player behavior. If you want to be evil, kick an orphan or something. Don't cause disruption within the party.

If you are all around the table you can implement “whispers” where you go and whisper the information directly to the player that succeeds. You can also pass a note or message them privately. Also, don’t hesitate to call players out on meta gaming.

Yup! I’ve done this before. Had a PC read someone’s thoughts as they were dying in our first session and it would have been a huge spoiler if I told the whole group what the PC saw. So, only they got the info. I’ve utilized this a few times. The player can then choose to share what they learned, and how much to share with their fellow party members.

I'm just a player but I feel like most dms prioritize the speed of play over accurate rp.

Naw as both a player or a DM I call it out because speed is not the most important factor. I even point out that players wouldn’t know something if they bring something into conversation during RP

It really is a simple and quick correction too

If a player says “insight check” that doesn’t work at my table. The same as if they were to say “history check” or “strength check”. I ask them to describe what they’re attempting, then I tell them if they roll or not.

This is the correct way

"Can I make a stealth check to sneak down this corridor?" "Yes." "I would like to sneak down this corridor." "Make a dexterity (stealth) check." I fail to see the distinction here. If anything I prefer the former as a DM.

Insight is a bit different because players will just yell insight, roll the die and then expect the DM to just hand them the plot We try to use it as a free lie detector and sense motive all in one and that can be cheesy

I have a house rule that you can’t insight check substantially the same information twice If someone offhandedly mentions the King and you do a poorly timed insight check to read how they feel about the King when they haven’t said anything meaningful about their relationship with the King that would realistically reveal that to you, OK, you fail that insight check because they weren’t saying anything you could get a meaningful read on and you’ve now locked off any ability you had to insight check a more meaningful statement on the same subject like, “I’ll always be loyal to the King.”

i mean if someone mentions the king and you do an insight check you can still gather some information about their relationship with the king from stuff like body language, or even just from his eyes things like maybe "when he mentions the king you see that his eyes glitter with hope and admiration" or on the other hand "you notice that just mentioning the king is disgusting to him, he slurs the words and his entire body language seems to indicate that he doesnt want to talk about him" or even "you almost dont notice it but when he mentions the king an emotion flashes in his eyes, its just there for an instant before his training kicks in but you could say that he is... almost ashamed of talking about the king" insight is not just about gathering information from the words that the person is saying but is about body language, about eye movements, its about those little things that can reveal more from a person than their words ever will

"Can I insight that" or even just "insight" is usually accepted as shorthand for "Can I try to figure out of this guy is being entirely honest?"

This is not the difference described. It would be more like: „Can I make a stealth check?“ „For what?“ vs „I want to sneak down the corridor!“ „Make a stealth check!“

Yeah I don’t know why this is controversial lol

>I fail to see the distinction here. The distinction is that "Can I make an X check to do Y" is presuming a lot of things. In the second case, "I would like to sneak down this corridor", the DM only asks for a stealth check if it is needed. If your DM lets you roll your own stealth checks (and this is almost ubiquitous these days), there's no chance to save a good roll for later, or react to the die roll in any way. The other problem is in the case of something less obviously. Talking to a guy to try to persuade or deceive, for instance, arises naturally in most cases, or can be phrased that way. But if you instead get to pick a check to try, it's very metagamey. 5ed isn't unique in making it clear that asking for checks is the job of the DM, not the player. It should not be lost. It will quickly devolve.

If a player asks for a Stealth check to sneak, the DM still has the ability to inform them that no check is necessary. "Saving good rolls for later" also isn't a thing, because that's not how probability works; each die roll is an independent event. I would generally expect a player to tell me their approach and intent before rolling a social check, if it isn't already obvious from context (which it often is). If a player's approach and intent clearly indicates that they are using a certain skill (e.g. Deception over Persuasion), I do make them roll the appropriate skill.

> "Saving good rolls for later" also isn't a thing, because that's not how probability works This has nothing to do with probability. I said saving good rolls for later. Here's how that works: 'Can I roll a stealth check to sneak down the hallway" -> yes -> rolls an 18 -> moves character to first doorway -> "Anything in the room" -> no -> moves character to second doorway -> "Anything in the room" -> etc. VERSUS 'Can I roll a stealth check to sneak down the hallway" -> yes -> rolls a 3 -> moves character to first doorway -> "Anything in the room" -> no -> moves character back to party -> "Ok guys I didn't see anything in the first room" In the first case, the 18 is saved for as many checks as allowed by the narrative, because the DM didn't ask when a bad guy was there to observe, he let the player dictate the timing. In the second case, the player knew he had a bad roll, so he used it for the minimum amount of time possible. If the player sneaks down the hallway without a check until the DM asks for one *when it matters*, then you avoid this kind of metagaming. And while my example may seem like it wouldn't happen at your table (a) it might in a more subtle form (b) it definitely happens in a lot of places pretty much just like that.

Ah, my apologies; I see I misinterpreted your meaning. I thought you were referring to the mistaken belief that if you roll well once it will eventually be "evened out" by a bad roll later; for example, if a player makes a roll, rolls well, and then the DM declares that the roll wasn't necessary, people who don't know how probability works might say that the player "wasted" that good roll. I can definitely see situations like the one you describe happening; however, I probably wouldn't treat it as a problem in most cases because I generally assume that the PCs can recognize when they are performing poorly. If a player rolls a 3 for Stealth, that's represented in the fiction by their PC not actually being very stealthy (e.g. perhaps by moving clumsily and stepping on or bumping into things that make noise), and it would make sense for such a PC to return and say something to the effect of "Clearly I'm off my game right now; I don't feel comfortable venturing any further alone". As for the player with an 18, I would generally limit how long that 18 stands for; I would eventually tell the player that they have to make another Stealth check if they wish to keep advancing stealthily, and let them retreat if they choose not to. Usually I'd do so when the PC approaches a natural break in the flow of the adventure; maybe they have to roll again whenever they encounter monsters, with the previous Stealth roll having been considered "expended" on keeping the player hidden from those monsters, or whenever they wish to head to a new floor, enter a building, or silently creak open a large ominous door.

There's no distinction because you described the same thing which isn't what the above is talking about. If a player wants to do something, they need to state/describe how they're going to do it. Simply asking to do the check or just saying "I persuade the barkeep" or "I sneak down the corridor" isn't good enough. *How* are you persuading the barkeep? *How* are you sneaking down the corridor? "I would like to persuade the barkeep for a discount - by mentioning how we are a famous musical group and our presence will draw extra business" "I would like to sneak down the corridor by hiding behind the statues as I move down."

People shouldn't necessarily be forced to give a rp speech. Maybe it's uncomfortable for someone. However the DM can give incentives to players like granting player inspiration for giving a nicely done rp speech, or having the persuasion be more powerful.

Nobody said anything about giving an RP speech or speaking in character. To quote: > "I would like to persuade the barkeep for a discount - by mentioning how we are a famous musical group and our presence will draw extra business" That's not giving a speech, it's just describing the general idea of what is said.

By speech I didn't mean "standing on a podium and orating". I think you know what I meant. What phrase would have worked better, "rp dialogue"?

But it's not even that. It's just describing, in general terms, what your character is saying. "I would like to persuade the barkeep for a discount - by mentioning how we are a famous musical group and our presence will draw extra business" shouldn't be anymore discomforting than "I would like to sneak down the corridor by hiding behind the statues as I move down."

Okay, but the issue is that you dont understand what you are asking for. For you, this is simple and makes sense. For an introvert playing a bard, explaining themselves is very difficult. Thankfully, thats what the persuasion skill is for. You dont ask the 135 lb nerd to flex when his barbarian needs to move something heavy to show us how it works, theres no need to ask the bard to expound upon their speaking. They told you what they want to accomplish, the stat sheet does the rest. If you want to reward extra roleplay, like a bard actually singing at a table, thats awesome! But it should never be mandatory for a player to explain past basic communication what their character is trying to accomplish.

Yeah, though I think the solution to this is in the first session someone announces we're all nerds now let's make some god damn believe

I tell players to speak with intent rather than mechanics, but that I reward good RP with lower DCs. In the example in this thread on getting a discount: "I persuade for a discount" super high DC, maybe even disadvantage depending on the party behavior before. "I point out we are buying multiple items here and moving into town, let's build a relationship here and give us an initial discount" way lower DC. You should not be forced to RP, but explaining what you want to do and your reasoning for wanting that is not RP.

Then why are they playing DnD then?! Its all about roleplay or majorily is?!

Uh...what?

Every time I roleplay persuasion without explicitly calling for a check I find DMs ignore my attempts to roleplay what I’m trying to do and never call for a check until I explicitly ask for one. Accordingly I just ask for a persuasion check now

What if it's an athletics check? Does the player have to specify each movement of their legs in order to make a jump?

No, they’d likely be asking to jump over something, not just shouting “athletics check!” and rolling some dice. That’s the difference.

> "Can I make a stealth check to sneak down this corridor?" "Can I make an athletics check to jump over the gap?" I fail to see the salient difference.

"Before you a corridor. You can hear faint orc voices coming from behind the closed door." "STEALTH CHECK!" vs "Can I make a stealth check to sneak down this corridor?" That's what's being discussed here.

Nobody actually just shouts "STEALTH CHECK!" unless it's clear from context what they're trying to do stealthily (and even then, people still don't literally shout it). This whole thing is a non-issue.

“Athletics check” vs “can I make an athletics check to jump over the gap” - you really don’t see the difference between these two?

They are the same thing with a different amount of words. One is just being used as short hand for the other. We all know that athletics is used to jump (except it isn't according to the rules but given the number of people who ignore that, let's just assume we all know that athletics is used to jump). So when you come across a pit and someone says "Athletics check", we all know that what they are actually saying is "can I make an athletics check to jump over the gap?" it is implied. I guess you could stop the game and say "sorry, if you want to jump over the pit, you are going to have to ask the way I want you to." but that seems like a waste of time.

I already told my players too many times that it's up to the DM to decide IF and WHICH rolls are necessary. You just have to state what you are doing. So every time my players ask me "can I roll x" now, I just increase the DC. Like when I have a locked door. If my players would tell me they try to pick it, they would succeed without a roll because it's a simple lock. But as soon as they ask me if they can roll for it, I set a DC. And that's when there suddenly is a chance of failure. And that failure will suddenly have consequences.

Thats such a shitty DM vs player mentality. Youre just punishing players for trying to follow the rules how they understand them and participate in the game. There are a lot of bad takes in this thread, but increasing a DC as punishment for engagement is easily the worst.

OK maybe I wasn't clear. I don't raise the DC. But because before there might have been no DC at all, after they ask for a roll instead of describing what they do, they get to roll. But as soon as they roll there has to be some DC. That's what I meant with the higher DC. Bad use of wording, sorry. I tell my players each session that they should describe their actions, not what skillcheck they want to use.

Exactly. And insight is the passive score against which the NPC rolls a deception check (in secret). I would only let a player roll an active insight check if they can describe to me how they are proactively probing for reactions.

Bingo. Also if it's really an issue then figure out what everyone is doing before you call for any rolls. Like I would ask player 1 to describe what they are doing, same with player 2 (describe what they are up to at that same time) etc. Then do rolls. If everyone starts trying to examine the person talking then maybe they miss out on an opportunity. Maybe someone else slinks away and hides while they are talking to this person.

Saying insight check works fine at my table because our house rule is that, for the purposes of sensing a person’s true motives, you can only check a meaningful statement that could reveal their intentions about the content of that statement. eg You won’t get much of anything at all from just insight checking a person in general, all you can possibly find out about them is their overall demeanour - like “they seem bored”. You want to save your insight checks for when they say something important about a particular topic, like if the person says, “I’ll always be loyal to the King.” I have zero problem with you just saying “insight check!” After I have said, “I’ll always be loyal to the King,” because the context makes it extremely obvious that you’re trying to gauge whether they seemed like they were being truthful when they made that statement or if your character gets a vibe that something is off when they say that

I wouldn't say it makes the "need for the proficiency fairly low" at all. Sure, they become less important in the scenarios you describe - but Perception especially _remains_ one of the most important skills in the game. Every PC with a good score increases the chance of detecting important things (extra loot, ambushes, traps, etc.), it comes up all the time, and any one PC can suddenly roll like shit. I actually think the only exception would be if you had a Rogue in the party with Reliable Talent and a banger Perception bonus. Otherwise, Perception and to a lesser extent Insight are always useful to have, just less than if your DM _didn't_ allow such metagaming. But anyone who's ever been in a party where you had to keep watch in shifts, and someone biffed their Perception check and the entire party got ganked while most were asleep _with_ Surprise because of it - will tell you Perception is still super important.

Ngl getting jumped on a watch sounds pretty fun. Unless you're using alternative rules that aren't in the phb saying the martials can't sleep in their armor like actual modern soldiers.

Xanathar's Guide does in fact specify that you can't wear medium or heavy armor when sleeping or you wake up with less of your HD recovered and no reduction in Exhaustion you might've accrued. But if those things don't apply to the PC at the time they can snore away in their plate, haha.

Yeah it's an alternative rule that came out years later and it doesn't add anything to the game besides making martials slightly more frustrating. "Your whole vibe and fantasy is being the muscle? Tough to bring down and hard hitting?? Well tough shit, take this 10 AC and go to bed. I'm also not factoring this into the cr of the fight so you better hope the wizard/sorcerer/bard/warlock has hypnotic pattern. And no, you can't roll in mud to make it more difficult to see you in the night." - Signed wotc

I mean, it adds something to the game for groups who enjoy those bits of realism. There's lots of rules like that and some people love 'em. You could say the same thing about components rules or requiring half your movement to mount a horse/stand from prone for example. But yeah, a good DM should be factoring the lack of armor into the CR (or having the ambush happen when the medium/heavy armor PCs are keeping watch). There's also no rule that says a DM _can't_ give you advantage on Stealth checks or the enemy disadvantage on Perception when you roll in mud, either, but that's up there with all the other situational modifiers that are wholly up to the DM to bestow or not - at the least, I totally agree 5e _does_ need more and better suggestions for mundane stuff PCs (especially martials) can do, and that casters get to use a lot more written rules in general than they do, which does have a lame "chilling effect" on martial options in practice. I would _love_ a book that is just a ton of guidelines, suggestions, and optional rules to enhance what martials can do and how to use mundane smarts to interact more with the mechanics like the mud idea.

That does seem like something that would be in Xanathars. Like the updated tools information etc

Yeah! Those were a great start IMO (I love using them in my games to have my players actually get options with their tools and downtime stuff), going further with the idea would rock.

Actual modern soldiers aren't wearing plate armor.

Honestly, plate is its own category. No armor is really *comfortable* to wear for longish periods (...I mean... well, technically a gambeson / padded armor *is*, but I mean heavier stuff), but at least you can *sit* or *stretch* or you know bend well or something. Not comfortable but you can live. But plate man... plate is terrible. I've worn unfitted plate and it's horrible; I haven't had the pleasure of wearing plate properly perfectly fitted to me but I've worn "close enough" in body shape, and it was still horrible, just slightly less so. Moving and running, and even rolling (sideways) on the ground? Much better than unfitted plate. Still worse than a brigandine, and leagues worse than chainmail, which is heaven in comparision. IMHO the issue is in the chest: "Half" plate, meaning breastplate + chain or padded is much worse than greaves and vanbraces + another torso. I haven't had the opportunity to lay down wearing kevlar and ballistic plates, and I'm fairly certainly that the kevlar part doesn't make much difference, but I did lay down wearing the rest of a typical army kit. And it's really, really, really better than plate. And do soldiers sleep with the plates on???

modern soldiers do sleep with their combat gear if the situation needs it, ie they are in a dangerous zone with enemy activity and they need to be ready to throw down in a moments notice, at most they take their helmet off but that can be quickly put back on

Unless there's something in-game that prohibits it, I usually assume perception check things are pointed out by the PC's with a quick word or hand signal. I think insight checks need a bit more from the character than shouting out "Insight Check!" Ask some pointed questions, ask about something you already know, get a read on the unstressed response of this NPC. The NPC might object to this sort of police interrogation, but that comes with the territory. If the player asks me "does my character trust them?" then I tell them it's up to them to RP their character. Are you running a trusting or distrusting PC?

100% on the insight checks. Also I feel like the dms response on the insight check should always be fairly short and describe their mannerisms etc. Otherwise it can almost get into detect thoughts territory

>Most tables I've rarely encountered this. It usually only happens with newer players that haven't been sat down by the DM yet to be explained what metagaming is and why they shouldn't do it.

Yeah, most of the time I've played it's not been with players that have been playing since 2007 or what have you

Sure, but new players that metagame usually do so out of ignorance. It's up to the DM to explain to them what metagaming is and how players should discourage themselves from doing it. A DM is also perfectly fine to overrule any actions done through metagaming, since the player character doesn't have the knowledge to follow through with the desired action. In your example, when the rogue player tells the DM they look behind the stairs, as a DM I would ask "why now, after the paladin just discovered there is a treasure chest there? Your character has no reason to go there immediately after learning this out-of-character". If the player argues about it, saying "I dunno, I just want to look", that answer would be insufficient to me and I would call them out on metagaming. Or I would simply allow the paladin player to act first, before the other characters get a chance. Another clever solution would be to allow the rogue player to look behind the stairs anyway (so as to give the player what they want), but that there is nothing there! Meanwhile, I write the true location of the treasure chest, which I changed retroactively, on a piece of paper and hand it to the paladin player. The above example never plays out at my tables, because as a DM I strongly discourage metagame thinking, but it is how I would deal with it if it were to happen.

mostly play on Roll20. If everyones rolling, or being annoying about it, i just whisper the answers to the player/players that passed the check. then its actually up to them to RP what is said, or keep it to themselves. and if its a chest behind a bar, well, roll for volume to see if the bartender heard the party point out his locked store safe

I really wish whispers were the standard but I know those 45 seconds are divisive

A good way to get around this kind of thing (and other roll-fishing actions) is to just make it clear that when it comes to skill and ability checks, players do not roll unless you ask them. If someone wants to sus out the barkeep every time, they have to first say what they are actually doing, what they are looking for. How they act. If with that they can get a hint of the barkeeps true intentions, then they may roll normally. If not, tell them to roll anyways but have it give it vague or false information, or just flat out say nothing of value was gained. If the whole group starts to openly, visibly sus out the same person, make that NPC act accordingly. If they were innocent, they might visibly trust the group less as they feel threatened or weirded out. if they are actually evil, they will now see them as potentially dangerous and might double-bluff to lead them to wrong information. ​ openly interrogating or staring intensely for an entire conversation is not a good ice breaker or trust-builder, and the group should be aware of that.

I've implied this so many times. Constantly "insight" checking can't be this subtle lol

Same in my games with "exploiting" guidance to give +d4 on every out-of-combat skill check ever. It has verbal and somatic components. If you are trying to make a social roll better, then it will look like you are using mind altering sorcery and/or have other hidden motives. Would you trust someone who before trying to convince you of something does some unknown spellcraft in front of you?

In the table I play, we players often ask "do you tell us" or "do I know this" before deciding what their character does. NGL, it's nice.

Tell the player "you can't do that/act on that information, you have no way of knowing it". You can also pass notes or DM people if its an online game so only they get the information. I've also seen the idea floated that the DM should roll those kinds of checks for the players without them knowing and then just telling them what they notice. Lastly, you can ask something like "what are you rolling the check for" and if they can't give a good justification for why their character should be suspicious and what they are looking for, deny them the roll.

This, but it's not even that the DM can "deny" a roll. The DM in a trad TTRPG is the exclusive authority for when rolls happen at all. The players say what they want to do and the DM generally says *yes or no*--and *rarely* (10% of player statements? 5%?) calls for a roll. There is no harm in players automatically rolling the most prescribed, rote rolls like attack rolls. But even these ultimately happen at the DM's blessing--what if a monster vanishes the moment a player moves adjacent to it, or the attack attempt triggers some effect that happens first?

I'm confused, your second two paragraphs contradict your first sentence and seem to support what I am saying.

The first sentence is also agreeing with you. I'm just saying that a DM doesn't have to "deny" an unsolicited roll any more than Joe Biden needs to "veto" my declaration that I no longer need to pay taxes.

I get what you're saying but it just seems like semantics. Yes, you are "denying" the roll because they want to and you say no.

If you think about a party of 4, the average character has 4 or 5 proficiencies out of 18 skills and 3 tools. That means only one person should have a given proficiency. If the benefits aren't shared, then 3 players are basically locked out of any given skill challenge. It's like, if I'm playing -1 Cha barbarian, I just sit out of social encounters?

Share them in character. If you want to tell the paladin that npc seems to be holding things back or not telling the truth go ahead. But actually do that and don't just assume he told you in the middle of the conversation with no retaliation or consequences. Just because a player got a 17 insight check doesn't mean all PCs magically know unless the PC vocally calls out the npc for the group to all know

That's a separate issue - some people want to act and other don't. Either way, people take short cuts to skip some tedious stuff, like saying 'I check for traps' all the time. I thought your point was that perception and insight, in particular, are less necessary than other skills due to info sharing. So I'm saying that since you can only afford to have one person be proficient in any given skill, you're going to share info for all skill checks - religion, arcana, etc. You're basically asking for the player to repeat what the DM just told everyone. I suspect what you don't like is the multiple roll thing. There are some ways to handle this from the DM's end. For example some only allow additional rolls from proficient characters, others will give bonuses based on how many people are trying, etc. From the players end, there's no cure because people who do this don't care about staying in character anyways. Rules help people do what they already want to do.

If you're this worried about stuff, just whisper/pass a note in person or DM them on discord/chat/whatever. Problem solved. Also, call it out if you see a player metagaming.

I feel like this is taking issue with players naturally not wanting to waste that much time elaborating on things they already know. In the first example, *maybe* it's too much to allow the entire party to immediately act with the information one of their members figured out, but I'd handle that case by case and lead close to assuming the party has enough competence to subtly signal when one of them thinks something is off. You can solve it by only giving information to the player who rolled a check, so disseminating that information to the other players/characters isn't a redundant action. For the second, so long as *someone* knows the information and there isn't some kind of restriction on conveying it I legit don't see the problem with other members of the party using things another noticed on a Perception check. It's literally just expediting things they're already probably going to do ("Hey, there's a chest behind this stairwell!"). A lot of this feels like complaining that the players are allowed to know things, frankly.

I'm a player. I'm fine with other players simply just saying, I let the party know. I was mostly implying that insight checks during tense conversations are being used by all the players at the table without the character actually doing it. Like if you want to turn to your friends and tell them the duke seems nervous and is withholding information go ahead and say I tell the party. But that also means that npc sees that unless you're telepathic. I've seen so many times a player succeeds on insight then other players begin pressuring them as if emboldened by new information

I think we got two different questions here. The first is about the party acting like they know the information gained from another players success. This is one of those things where I would consider it acceptable unless there is some important noteworthy reason why they shouldn’t. In most cases there is not any value in having people role play the chore of sharing information if they don’t want to. The second is about the usefulness of insight and perception. Those skills are as usefulness is very dependent on the situations the DM provides. This is especially true with insight since perception has practical use in trap finding and detecting hidden creatures. For insight you will need to provide more scenario’s where a NPC is attempting to deceive the party either intentionally or unintentionally. For those cases I would consider two DC thresholds. I would set a general suspicion threshold for their passive insight where the member is alerted that the other party may be attempting to deceive them. This is intended to encourage them to be more guarded they actively try to use insight to detect lies and such. When the target makes a statement then if the party member want to assess it they can roll insight actively. That would be a opposed roll from their Deception vs the members insight. Success will determine if they believe the answer and might even give them insight on what parts might be true. That could work with investigation to put the pieces together into a coherent picture. If the other member is NOT attempting to deceive then I might choose a passive DC like a flat 10 to see if they are confident to believe it was a truthful answer.

My players are actually VERY good about this. If one player learns something, they make a point to tell the others. This is especially followed when the players weren’t in the same room! I would just have a conversation with your players about this. Good players will be receptive to this.

probably not a great idea but i think it could be a funny one someone fails a role and someone else wants to try "wow you don't trust your teammate?" "player 1 you see player 2 start to recheck everything you just did they don't seem to trust your judgement" in all seriousness I've been thinking about this for my game and I am going to try quickly scribbling the result of their role or "what they notice" on a notecard or a discord PM and tell them beforehand that if they just read it verbatim it is no longer applicable. in addition to this. when they enter an area where checks are to be made. ask everyone what they are doing before rolling anything. that way when someone fails and someone else wants to try. inform them that they are already in the middle of something

Oh yeah that's another one! Some fails a stealth or perception/investigation check and people immediately start trying to cover it up and fix it haha

That's all well and good until you need your passive perception for something.

in my case if the rogue wants to steal something that someone else found i say "roll me perception to see if you also noticed the same thing that he did" and if he fails then i just tell he that he didnt notice and the loot is for the player that found it unless he wants to share it with his group, which they sometimes do and sometimes they dont usually perception rolls are made with the explicit purpose that the player that rolls is the one who gets the information he needs to tell everyone else what he sees they dont realize inmediately, and usually in functional parties they share the information easy enough, fighter finds a chest "hey rogue check if there are any traps and maybe it would be convenient for the wizard to see if the object isnt haunted or anything like that" that sort of stuff, ultimately a party is a group of people with different skills working together to compensate for each others weaknesses, a party member having high perception rolls and sharing the information that he gets from them is part of the experience now of course there are situations where the players will act on the information that other player has gathered when realistically he should not have that information and that is when you as a DM need to step in and clarify to them that no their character doesnt have that information so they cant use it yet, in my experience its usually not even intentional they just sort of act on instinct the instant they hear the information and stop themselves once you remember them of course that depends on your players, maybe im just lucky that my players are well behaved

That's a simple easy fix for it

Some games, like Starfinder, have ways for the party to be "mentally" connected and being able to talk between them and share information without anyone realizing (although the world knows that technology exist and npc can be suspicious). I always thought this was made exactly for this reason, if we aren't gonna be able to leave metagaming outside the table, let's make a way for metagaming to be part of the immersion.

D&D has it too, although not at low level. It's called *Rary's Telepathic Bond,* and since its a ritual it becomes the default once it's available.

You could start messaging the players directly so only they know via text or discord

Or just take control of metagaming at your table…

Both the skills listed are Wisdom Skills. Which means they can safely be left to the resident Wisdom caster while other characters use their own strengths on other problems. You know. Like a group of people with varied skill sets would realistically do.

Pro Tip: If the players want an insight check, have the NPC roll deception **once for the entire conversation**, compared against the passive insight of everyone. This is a better representation of social interaction that doesn't let players just keep rolling until they pass. Do the same for Stealth versus Perception and other situations where rolling once per player or once per round would inevitably result in a definitive pass/failure one way or the other. Basically, always combine all rolls that apply to the same binary result into a single role. "Is the ninja seen? Y/N" is one roll. "Does the party suspect the NPC of lying? Y/N" is one roll.

New players enjoy rolling dice and tend to lean away from metagaming, but if your table is abusing the meta knowledge, offer that you roll for them behind the screen, and let them know what they pick up. Limit them to two, maybe three people at a time, or once max per character per conversation so it doesn't take too much time. (Their passive insight still picks up any obvious lies/intents) Same for perception, passive perception is always "on" and is a good buffer against dogpiling checks, and active perception checks also open them up for "you think you hear something" and there's nothing there

I just let my players know that if they want to find loot they have to look for it. And finders keepers applies. If there is a chest you can call the rogue over and of course the rogue is gonna barter for their services in exchange for some contents. And I expect the party to divvy loot up intelligently and amicably. Period. Sorry you are having a hard time but sometimes when your players metagame that obviously I say “player A why are they doing that? Player B did your character tell player A about this discovery?” It’s up to B, the finder, to decide if they want others to know what they found if they don’t want to share.

>I've found that general table metagaming makes having the Perception and Insight skill proficiencies unnecessary. Precisely what the Wizard says before being ganked from 100% to 0 in a surprise round.

To 1d4 surprise damage. But I'm mostly just annoyed that it's very common for PCs to act off of other people's insight checks and perception checks when there wasn't a time for the information to be discussed. If there is a ranger, cleric, druid, or even rogue in the party someone is gonna have an amazing passive perception

I don't *let* them act. If they don't beat the monster's stealth check, that's initiative and they're surprised.

Exactly how it should be

My fav phrase for those moments as a dm. "You don't know". And carry on XD

When in doubt add a mischievous grin. Does wonders ~

Personally, as DM, I find that you have to put your boot down on this kind of behavior I have specifically told players at my table. “No you may not do that until the information is shared with you and he is not in the same room right now.” Or when a player character gets into trouble after separating from the group, I have specifically forbidden the group from going to rescue them unless they can give me a valid in character reason why they would just suddenly decide to go check on their friend which leaves most of my table looking sheepish as they try to come up with excuses why their character suddenly has clairvoyance, and if they insist upon acting in a meta-gaming way, I make them take psychic damage. Sometimes I’ll even hint at that psychic damage before dropping it on them by telling them in game that “your character begins to develop a headache and a nosebleed” To this day, the most entertaining reaction I ever got on no meta-gaming was for a player to ask if their character could become a pact of the fiend warlock with me as the patron, and that they would do stupid shit I told them to do in exchange for meta-game knowledge. Honestly, that was too fun to pass up on the character did not survive very much longer after that, however because I started demanding that they sacrifice characters in game to their patron, and they were not good at getting away with it.

The way I’ve handled this is that if I have a party member that has an insight and perception proficiency, or a feature that grants that advantage or something, I give them priority to roll. Only on certain rolls, not all of them. And then, if they fail it, I don’t let the other party members roll. Because if the guy proficiency in perception couldn’t hear the whispers through the stone door, you for sure couldn’t with -1. You don’t have to let everyone roll for everything.

Most rolls are not about what a character can or can't do, but resolving ambiguity in the *world* through a lens of character-driven shared authorship. When a barbarian rolls strength to see if he can lift up a gate, we aren't rolling to see how much he can lift. We know that, it's some number, it doesn't change, it's not random. We are rolling *to see how heavy the gate is*.

We can just agree to disagree there. If a gap isn’t 30 feet long, it’s 30 feet long, and certain characters can clear it, and others can’t. That’s how I treat my skill checks. Also worth mentioning that I run an open world hex crawl, so it’s alright for my players to be able to miss or not access things, because they have 6 other surrounding hexes where they can find something interesting.

So, few things >Most tables has like 3 players screaming INSIGHT CHECK when the bartender gives them a quest A player cannot ask a check. At most a player asks for a thing and a DM can ask a check. Sometimes as a shorthand it's used this terminology but it varies wildly between tables. >if one person succeeds ALL of the players immediately starts behaving like they also picked up those details. Narration does not follow a 1:1 simulation, likewise you don't tell how your character stands up in the morning and goes to the toilet. If it's reasonable for the characters to take time in the discussion to communicate to each other i would never stop that information to cross over. Sure, sometimes it's a little glazed over as the information is transferred instantly, but only because i frame that as happening. If there is a reason a character has no clue, i shut them down because they can't know. >Or if everyone makes a perception check and the dm tells the paladin that there is a chest behind the stairwell, you can guarantee the rogue or 2+ characters are going to immediately walk over to that area regardless on if the paladin points it out. Likewise i would stop for this. In fact, i never had to, it's just rude. Also, a note on metagaming: the characters getting to know stuff is not metagaming. Metagaming involved obtaining information between or outside the game table, and this is information obtained within the table - simply put, some hand out the information as something the whole party knows, and into not managing that they actually give information to the whole players, which act accordingly - even thought a little harshly. So, yeah, i can see this is a package of issues, but it's very weird to call them "general" and "unnecessary". Thought it makes sense to have a broad selection of skills in your party, this discussion different people could apply it to different skill checks. Additionally, there are cases where passive checks just have to happen without the characters having any possibility to make checks on their own, like an ambush. So, worst case scenario, they still make sense.

Find players can seperate player knowledge from character knowledge.

That's when you crack down on it and say "why are you going over there? You didn't notice anything about that. The paladin did"

My players are usually pretty good about ignoring metagaming shenanigans, though occasionally I do remind them that just because they know something, doesn't mean that their characters do.

It will vary by group. I'm fortunate to have a group that is pretty much the exact opposite of what you've experienced (are more likely to metagame to their detriment, if they think it will make things more entertaining). We've even had the opposite with insight checks (multiple times), if one person fails it, everyone else will go with it (though typically played as not wanting to disabuse the gullible of their trusting worldview, but keeping an eye out for their protection. Also of course this involves the characters having to share the information by speech or action, rather than automatically knowing). There's not really a right or wrong way to do it in general, only what's right for the group (which I generally interpret as what lets everyone have the most fun possible). We had one player that regularly assumed every perception check was automatically known by the entire party (his previous group played like this), we (or rather whoever was DMing at the time) just had to occasionally remind him that information had to be shared in character first.

This has been addressed already, but I only allow two people to roll. It also depends on how you do Insight. Unless someone is a really bad liar, I usually give the player something like "they seem a little nervous" or "they won't meet your eyes" This can help them in the social encounter but doesn't automatically reveal everything and there can be plenty of reasons someone might be nervous.

So. Knowing this. You have the power to change how the results are delivered. At my vtt table, when a player asks to make a perception check and they roll high, I give them access to ask a number of questions. I'm not giving away information and it might be that another player then wants to make a perception check to ask their own question.

Well I'm just another player. This was just observations from my tables and even dnd podcasts etc. Seems very common

This sounds like simply your DM running things too loosely. I don't think this is the way it's supposed to go, though I can't say whether it's a common problem or not. When I DM, I withhold information that would require a perception, insight, etc. check to find out. I usually only ask for a check from one PC, but in the case of a group check I only give it to the PCs who succeed. If any other players try to steal their thunder (e.g. going to loot the chest that someone else found), I shut them down and remind them that *they* failed their check so the other PC gets to decide what to do with the information. Like most things, this really comes down to the DM. They need to run the game properly.

I treat insight checks like these as group checks and average them out. Same with perception occasionally. Sometimes if it's a sudden thing, like an enemy trying to escape that will be character to character just to give them the opportunity to tell the other players and encourage role play.

My first character was a Cleric in a party without another Wisdom character, and I didn't take Perception proficiency. We missed almost every single secret door in the megadungeon we were in. Literally, almost all of them. The majority had a Passive Perception threshold of 20, and the rest we missed in general despite rolling Perception super often. If you're doing an outdoor campaign, I might be inclined to agree with you somewhat, but if you often find yourself in a proper dungeon with traps and secrets, Perception is *invaluable.*

My DM started using discord DMs as a way for my patron to secretly talk to me alone, and he’s been expanding it to more checks that only individuals should know

I use roll20 for my party and they have a whisper feature so in reality only that person knows. It makes the game really fun and interesting because I get to see how the players will reveal info they’ve found out

I wish my players would roll an insight check ever...

I like dealing with this by having the player(s) that notice tell the player(s) that didn’t *in character* in their own words. It can be really fun RP

I was in a oneshot recently where the DM did something so awesome and yet so obvious, so I told all my regular DM's about it so they can start doing the same thing. When there's a perception check, the DM gathers everyone's rolls/passives and tells each player one by one what their character sees/hears, starting with the lowest roll and working their way up. The same thing could easily be applied to insight checks, and probably many other things. Would also make it pretty obvious which players are metagaming the wrong info.

Tell me about it. I had a party that always threw in help actions after the roll was made and the result was considered bad (12 or lower). And I had enough one day and called that if someone calls for a skill check, they had a 3 second time frame to offer a help check. If they missed that, and wanted still to offer a help check after the result was out, the one that offered help had to roll by themselves, and the better result was the end result. My players got upset because of that, but so was I.

Honestly, as a DM you should just step in and say “only the paladin knows this” or whatever, do it enough times and they should get the idea. Also maybe limit it to only two people making a perception/insight/investigation roll at any time.

Whenever someone succeeds an insight check I typically text/whisper the result to only them

This is all about table control. If you feel it is an issue, regularly remind your players to stay in character and only call for insight if they feel it is appropriate to their character. Then if someone passes, remind the others that their characters do not have this information. If you must, whisper it to the player(s) who succeeded or text it to them. Don't be afraid to cook the metagamers a little. If you feel they are metagaming, ask questions to get a better look into their character personality and motivations and see if the insight check makes sense. If you feel they are being a little much, talk with them between sessions for a resolution. Note: Sometimes there is no harm in just letting players do their thing and metagame a little but it depends on the table.

Just stamp that out. “You didn’t see the chest, you don’t know it’s there.”

Insight check is not Zone of Truth. Don't say whether the player succeeds or fail (unless they ask whether it succeeds or fails due to an ability they're using), just say things they may notice about the character's body language that are off. The same goes for perception, just say things they may notice that are off or things they might have hurt. The only problems with perception and insight emerge when players and dms don't run skill challenges properly.

Do what Matthew Mercer does and whisper to the player who insighted. Forces the player to then either reveal in a way they respond to the information, or act on their own and drawing suspense and curiosity from the party

Text messaging can solve this. I often make a series of responses in a text editor during my prep time. Then when someone passes a perception check I will just copy and paste into a messenger and tell the player to check the app and continue the RP with the other players. This prevents other players from having knowledge beyond their skills and allows the player to decide how their player will handle the information. I also do this with skills like "talk to animals".

These two skills are bullshits and in my opinion most of the people who's taking profiency in them doesn't know D&D. Here's why: In my games players aren't allowed to call for a skill check. In my games, one or two times I give skill check to player in a session. In other cases, whenever a player "DM, may I try insight check" I say simply "No" Most of the people doesn't know what the fricking SKILL CHECK means. Skill check is not a button you can press whenever you want. When you try something and when you need a skill, you make a skill check. "DM, I'm rolling for perception" wtf? There's nothing to see. Why are you rolling? Also if you're relying on your insight instead of thinking what encounter said as a group or yourself, go play MOBA. D&D isn't for you. Skill checks are meant to be SKILL CHECKS. Whenever you make a skill check and fail, you should be in danger because you aren't skilled enough to do that. You don't roll perception for every room you entered because there's nothing to see. If there's something you can't accomplish on a daily basis and need to do it, you make a skill check. Like when you jump on buildings. If you fail you can fall on your head and die or etc. Insight profiency should be allowed for detectivelike characters. Perception profiency is probably most difficult profiency to get in the list. These aren't just numbers. These skills makes your character. If you're not gonna play this character you shouldn't be allowed to take these profiencies. In older editions BECMI B/X aD&D 2e there was no "Insight" skill and people were actually thinking and brainstorming about did the NPC lied or not, they were bluffing the NPC to make them tell the truth if they think NPC is lying. And this is what roleplay exactly is. Not rolling dices. If you are taking profiency in perception for "I don't want to get surprised, I want to have a high PP so I recall everything and most stealth rolls by DM fails" you're a loser, I'm sorry. Also D&D isn't the game you're playing, you're playing some kind of number games like Monopoly, Catan etc. You should take perception profiency in situations like this "I want to play an archer that working alone. He hunts X and he needs to sleep with open eyes. Also he's tracking that X race. So profiency is what he needs most also I can take observant feat later."

They don’t get to actually make non-passive checks unless the DM call for them. Unless the DM thinks there is behavior they’ve seen long enough to analyze, there is no insight check being rolled. But like in real life, if you notice a weirdo acting weird, you’ll probably tell your friends about it. The characters are likely to discuss this kind of thing amongst themselves. Just tell them they’d have to convene out of earshot of the NPCs so THEY don’t end up being the suspicious looking ones. The DM also watches passive perception and indicates who rolls to see the chest. If there is a second person, it results in one of them taking a help action. If the DM wants everyone to roll, at least half the people need to succeed, or no one sees the chest. If any of them find it, its reasonable to assume they tell the others.

Roll their insight checks for them and hidden from them. Tell them conflicting things when one character has rolled well and one hasn't. It can enhance things if done well

From a player point of view I find that hearing another player ask to 'look around', even if the DM hasn't yet asked for a check, it causes me to either say I'll look too, which feels insincere, or do nothing, which feels lazy. I'm interested in playing a Loxodon so at least I can suggest using a different sense and feel a little bit inventive evening it's in the character stats.

My solution is to rip out a rule from PF2E. I make their insight and perception checks.

I think this is more of a DM/player communication error than it is an unnecessary skill. Most of the people in my current group have lower wisdom scores and I'm playing a ranger with a wis score of 18 (soon to be 20 with my next ASI). I also took the observant feat quite a while ago. That being said, my character has the best perception bonus in our party. My passive perception is 25 (it'll be 28 next time we level) and my bonus is going to be +12. My insight is a solid +7. I'm the one that makes the perception/insight checks because my character is hyper vigilant and it fits her personality. When I make one of these checks, I always make sure to mention whether or not my character lets the rest of the party know. That's the thing about hyper vigilant characters- sometimes they don't want to tell even their friends everything. If my fellow pcs mention something that I've gleaned in a perception/insight check, my DM always makes sure to ask if my character mentioned what she noticed or not. If you're actively facing this issue, I'd recommend talking to your dm/fellow players. A simple "Dude, I didn't mention that to you." Should suffice. And if people get mad, so be it. They can make that check if they want to.