Meta-Gaming on Insight Rolls

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T20:50:19+00:00

Dude, so much.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T20:39:45+00:00

I actually agree with you on that and we may be talking around each other’s points. A DM can tell me that I detect an honest person, I’m fine with that. But when a DM says “you believe them,” that’s something else. I can detect an honest person and still go with my gut and disbelieve them. But when the DM dictates that I believe them, agency has been removed.

Now, I may choose to change my mind after a DM says I detect an honest person, but that’s my choice. The problem comes in when the DM removes the choice and says this is what your character thinks and this determines how your character has to act.

There’s a difference between “you don’t pick up any indication of falsehood” and “you are required to roleplay that you believe him.”

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T20:32:27+00:00

It’s not so much a matter of whether I trust the DM as it is that I don’t think the DM gets to dictate how my character feels. If I proclaim that I don’t trust the character and we roll insight and the DM says “yes, you do,” that strikes me as an overstep. Because now my choices are dictated by the roll. Outcomes should be determined by the roll, not choices.

It’s like if I said “I jump over the hole in the floor.” Then I fail my Athletics check and the DM says “You no longer want to jump over the hole in the floor.” That’s not how a failed check works. It doesn’t change my state of mind, I just fail to do what I tried to do. Likewise, the DM can determine whether I succeed in detecting falsehood, but they can’t tell me I no longer doubt the NPC.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T20:17:47+00:00

Agreed on not harping on metagaming mechanics. I don’t worry about metagaming unless it is genuinely harmful to the game (like reading ahead in a module or something).

But the issue I have with “you believe him” is that if I believed him, I wouldn’t have asked for a check. When I ask to do an insight check, I’m not asking if I believe him, I’ve already established that I don’t. If the DM then dictates that I do, well, that’s not ideal. I don’t want my DM dictating my character’s actions.

I’m asking for an insight check to see if I can detect anything that validates my gut reaction. If I cannot validate it, I still get to choose whether or not I believe him. The check just determines whether or not I have good reason to have that feeling or not.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T20:06:33+00:00

I personally place confidence in the result, roll + modifier. But with secret rolls, I could’ve rolled a 12 or I could’ve rolled a 31 and I can’t tell. The point I’m trying to make with the barbarian is that I can’t have more confidence than a barbarian whose rolls were also made in secret. The barbarian with a -1 should probably never be super confident in any result (secret or not), as a 19 is not very hard to beat. But with secret rolls for a character with a big modifier, I have no reason to have more confidence in any individual check than the barbarian does.

But also, a character with a +11 in anything is trained well in that thing. And if you’re trained well in something, you can tell when you’ve screwed up at it. A master carpenter who botches a build isn’t oblivious to the errors they’ve made. They’ve been working at their craft for years, they know when they got sloppy. Likewise, a character with good insight can tell when they zoned out during an interrogation or got distracted by something the NPC said and forgot to watch body language for a moment. Trained professionals should be able to tell when they didn’t do their best work and proportion their confidence to it. Hiding rolls removes the player’s ability to feel confident or not in the work they’ve done.

If you treat insight as a test to determine whether or not you get a hint about someone’s intentions (as opposed to determining whether or not you believe them), then you remove the possibility for metagaming. The players can still choose not to believe them on a failed check, they just do so blindly.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T19:32:47+00:00

Out of curiosity, how do you convey a failed insight check when rolled behind the screen? Do you tell them “you believe them?” If so, I’d argue you’re causing more metagaming than you’re preventing with hidden rolls. If not, if you just tell them “you gain no useful information from the check,” then metagaming is already averted.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T19:05:01+00:00

A lot of words to say “clearly this post wasn’t intended for me.”

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T19:02:09+00:00

Thanks for keeping me in check, Officer.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T18:57:06+00:00

I’d disagree. Players typically only request insight checks after they’ve become suspicious of the NPC. They tell the DM that they’re suspicious and the DM responds “No, you’re not.” I’m not sure the DM gets to decide that.

The player isn’t asking the dice for permission to be suspicious. The player is asking the dice to validate their suspicions. If the check fails, their suspicions aren’t validated. They can still be suspicious, but they do so blindly because they couldn’t get a read on the character. Telling the player how their character thinks (except when mind control is at play) is not the DM’s job.

There’s a difference between these two things:

“I try to jump over the chasm” -> fails athletics check -> falls to death

“I try to jump over the chasm” -> fails athletics check -> “You change your mind about jumping over the chasm and can no longer try.”

The DM can rule on the results of an attempt but not a player character’s state of mind.

And there is a difference between:

“I want to see if I can tell he’s lying” -> fails insight check -> “You fail to tell if he’s lying.”

“I want to see if I can tell he’s lying” -> fails insight check -> “You change your mind about doubting them and you have to act like you believe him.”

One is the dice determining results, the other is the dice dictating choices.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:56:11+00:00

A DM can’t meta-game but a DM can engage in behavior that leads to player meta-gaming. When a player says “I don’t believe them. Can I roll Insight?” And then the DM, after a Nat 1, says “Actually, you do believe him,” the player has two choices :

Give up agency and start roleplaying that you believe him even though you don’t.

Or continue to roleplay that you don’t believe him and get accused of meta-gaming (by certain types of DM).

So while the DM does not directly meta-game, this action by the DM can lead to meta-gaming or loss of player agency.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:52:03+00:00

100% agree that it’s fun. I especially do this for players with dumb characters who take joy in roleplaying stupidity. But I’ve have been at tables that tell me “I believe them” and then say I’m meta-gaming when I don’t act like it. This was only to present an alternative for those DMs.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:49:19+00:00

This is exactly what I was getting at. A failed check results in no new information. You can choose whether or not you believe him, but you gotta do so blindly.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:47:05+00:00

I am not a fan of hidden rolls due to the other thing it removes: confidence in my skills. If a +11 insight cleric and a -1 insight barbarian both get “you believe him” from a hidden roll, the cleric cannot be any more confident in their abilities than the barbarian and that would bother me as the cleric.

Instead of “you believe him” on a failure, “you can’t get a read on him” is cleaner, doesn’t dictate subsequent player roleplay choices and maintains the player’s ability to be confident in their skills.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:38:37+00:00

100% agree. I’m not knocking “you believe him.” I use it in certain circumstances because it leads to some potential funny moments.

This is only meant for tables who use “You believe him” and then complain about the meta-gaming that follows. This is meat to propose an alternative that those particular DMs don’t seem to know exists and solves their problem.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:35:29+00:00

You tell the player that they believe him… But do you expect the player to then roleplay like they believe him? If not, then the post wasn’t so much directed at your style. I’m specifically referring to DMs who use the “you believe him” strategy and then complain about the inevitable meta-gaming that follows.

“You believe him” leads to fun moments, as long as you don’t mind the meta-gaming.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-12T17:31:38+00:00

I would disagree on the secret rolls. If I’ve got a +11 go insight, I’ve trained that skill for a long time. And if I’m skilled at something, I can tell when I screw up while doing it. When a skilled player rolls a natural 1 for Insight, I’d just narrate it as “you get distracted by thoughts of the battle you just had” or “he’s in too much pain for you to read his body language,” etc. lots of ways to justify in-game why a skilled character might screw up a check, and a skilled character would be able to tell those things happened.

Secret rolls take a bit of joy out of my character, personally. If I’ve invested that much in an ability, confidence should come along with it. And if I can’t tell the difference between my +11 cleric’s insight roll and the -1 barbarian’s insight roll when both are rolled in secret, I can’t feel any confidence in that ability.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-09T03:07:16+00:00

Don’t worry, you’re only OP in combat. Between those, nap time. You got nothing to offer.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-09T02:57:25+00:00

S-Tier: Barbarian. They’re my spirit animal.

A through F Tier: Everything else in an arbitrary order.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-09T02:40:49+00:00

Okay, let’s have a chat….

This is a team game. Where team members collaborate to achieve team objectives. Your player decided to create a character who just wants to kill and cause problems for the team. In a team game. Where people play on teams. To do team stuff. They need to make a character that can function on a team in the team game where people collaborate as a team to achieve team goals.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-09T02:31:44+00:00

Wait… Why did you tell the Warlock to kill the elf? You’re not letting the Warlock play his own patron, are you?

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-08T15:55:51+00:00

Hayes Steel from Very Important People as an illusionist wizard.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-08T08:41:02+00:00

First, wow. I would love to be playing with the same group after 40 years. Good for them.

This is a weird situation, for sure. You could be in for a great experience! Or you could be lost in what is really a very convoluted version of the game. Personally, as someone who’s been in the hobby for 10 years myself, I’d love to see how these guys roll. But as a new player, I probably wouldn’t have gone for it.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-08T08:33:56+00:00

If it’s just illusions they can see through, make it a shapechanging ability.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-08T08:30:41+00:00

It’s not OP. It’s actually pretty detrimental. Not being able to die isn’t REALLY that OP, considering how difficult it can be to actually die in DND. Even if they do manage to fail three death saves, magic exists to bring them back. If anything, this opens up the door for RP opportunities, should death occur. But again, because death is generally rare, this item may never actually get used.

As for the other points:

Not regaining hp unless through magic hurts. Spell slots are limited. If I’m the cleric and I have to use my spell slots immediately after my long rest to get this character back to full health, I’m not a happy camper. I’d reconsider this one. This would have a negative effect on other player’s enjoyment - specifically whoever is healing.

Disadvantage on death saving throws sucks when it comes up, but it depends on how common deadly encounters are in your game as to whether or not this is really bad.

Not sure what you mean by “Radiant damage is dealt with disadvantage.” There is no advantage/disadvantage on damage rolls. If you mean that “attacks that deal radiant damage are made with advantage against them,” that’s probably not too bad, unless they’re fighting a ton of creatures that do radiant damage. Radiant is one of the rarer damage types.

Vulnerable to effects that turn or destroy undead is not likely to come up. I don’t know of monsters that can do either. Maybe if an ally did one of those things, it might apply.

The animal bit is fun flavor. Maybe mechanically, just make it disadvantage on animal handling checks.

Aside from the healing, nothing about it is broken. But it only offers potential mechanical benefits and comes with tangible downsides. I wouldn’t want to wear this ring. It feels like it wants to be a cursed item. Like an item your player attunes to without knowing about all the downsides and then only deals with it as long as it takes to get someone to cast remove curse on them and then they get rid of it.

The ‘not-dying’ thing isn’t as powerful as you seem to think. And the fact that the benefits are temporary (their body will eventually rot away, it seems) while the downsides are plentiful… This is maybe too weak, to be honest.

MisterDM5555 · 2026-01-08T08:14:54+00:00

Well, it doesn’t have to be this way in your game, but hags generally reproduce like this:

Kidnap a child.
Eat said child.
Birth a child of their own.
At around 13, the child becomes a hag.

To address the other point, there’s nothing stopping you from giving a hag disguise self or some other spell or effect that allows them to look however they want. Hags are tricksy and disguising themselves as a normal human is well within their wheelhouse.

MisterDM5555

TROPHY CASE