D&D 5E Yet Another Take on Searching, Passive Perception etc

[Tormyr]

*snip*
Yeah, this is exactly where I struggle with it. The statement of the fictional action already includes the conclusion of the deduction; the player has already made the important logical leap ("there could be a secret door here because there's water coming from somewhere there shouldn't be") - and all the character can now do is test that hypothesis against the physical information available. I think this is clear when you ask the question: 'What exactly is the character _doing_ in the fiction while they "deduce"'? I don't see what they can actually be reasoning about. Really, all that can move the situation on are things like:

• Tapping the walls
• Examining the flow of water more carefully
• Looking for seams/hinges/opening mechanisms

... and to me those all sound like "Searching" - intelligently directed examination of the environment to gather evidence - rather than "deduction"; and I don't really see how they represent a significantly different skill from any other type of searching in the game. The real "deduction" came much earlier - when the presence of water implied a space from which it might have flowed - and "rolling to see what your character thinks" is a form of play that has never worked well for me.

It might sound like semantic nitpicking, but I think the failure of these skills to map well onto our everyday model of how we mentally interact with the world goes a long way towards explaining why they generate so much debate.

And I should expand beyond my earlier explanation that the passive/explicit Perception checks I mentioned above only get the PC to the point you are describing here where something is out of place and needs to be investigated more fully. Even with a failed Perception check, a PC could feel that the wall was so suspicious that they still investigate it anyway. A successful Intelligence (Investigation) check reveals the presence of the secret door and (usually) how to open it.

 

[Obreon]

<SNIP>

Yes. I agree with basically everything you said In order to play D&D we need a set of conventions about how to translate the words of a bunch of people around a table full of junk food into the actions and experiences of heroes with superpowers in an impossible fantasy world full of monsters. The conventions will vary from group to group because codifying them completely would a) be boring for everyone b) be deeply unfun for everyone who was more comfortable with different conventions and c) make the rule books even more forbidding than they already are ;-)

Learning to master the local conventions (many of which are set by the DM) is a form of mastery that should provide its own satisfaction, if done well. Increasing system proficiency is one of the key rewards for playing most complex games. But as you point out, this is a social minefield strewn with dangerous hidden assumptions about language and culture, and it's easy to have it blow up in your face. Fortunately I know most of the people I game with quite well so it isn't usually a huge problem. Were that not the case, I'd have to spell these things out very carefully, get buy-in from the players about them, and make a special effort to be self-aware about my choice of language. Either way, I think it's important for the DM to train the players to understand his particular series of cues by starting obvious/unthreatening and working up to more elaborate/dangerous/obscure versions once the group is clued in to the mechanisms in play. Angry GM has a bunch of good stuff somewhere about doing this that I really like.

 

[clutchbone]

I have made a clear split between Perception and Investigation.

You use Perception to see living things (like monster ambushes, or the scout in the tower).

You use Investigation to see dead things (like a hidden tripwire, or a peculiar book).

To me this is a much more immediately *playable* distinction.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I use Perception for "sight, sound, smell" checks. That leaves investigation for "touch"; flipping through papers or books, fiddling with a mechanical device, rummaging through desks, etc.

"Taste" hasn't come up yet... maybe constitution saving throw?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. I agree with basically everything you said In order to play D&D we need a set of conventions about how to translate the words of a bunch of people around a table full of junk food into the actions and experiences of heroes with superpowers in an impossible fantasy world full of monsters.

Which does make the whole 'immersions' thing sound kinda crazy. But, to a degree, the game has, and still does if to a lesser degree, been pretty standardized in some ways. Though, maybe at the peak of it phenomenon - the 3.x era RAW-obsession - it was problematic. It's also always been different at each table, it's just the nature of the activity.

The conventions will vary from group to group because

Inevitably so, especially to the degree that isn't covered by straightforward mechanics, which is arguably a greater degree in 5e than in any edition going back to 1e. Each group has a different set of shared (and not) experiences and expectations &c, so their style of communication, their values, interests, and so forth will be different. The commonalities that hold across groups also serve a purpose in giving even a stable group that will be able to develop consistent table-conventions (hopefully not to the point of stultifying group think), though, in that they form a foundation upon which to establish those conventions. The firmer the foundation, the easier it is to build a new group upon them - especially for a newer DM & players.

codifying them completely would a) be boring for everyone b) be deeply unfun for everyone who was more comfortable with different conventions and c) make the rule books even more forbidding than they already are ;-)

Codifying 'unwritten' (sub-)cultural conventions certainly would be impractical, and, while unifying a group around such conventions has benefits, it also has limitations & consequences.

Learning to master the local conventions (many of which are set by the DM) is a form of mastery that should provide its own satisfaction, if done well. Increasing system proficiency is one of the key rewards for playing most complex games.

'Gaming the DM' and 'Gaming the system,' are both aspects of simply playing the game that can yield disproportionate benefits.

Fortunately I know most of the people I game with quite well so it isn't usually a huge problem. Were that not the case, I'd have to spell these things out very carefully, get buy-in from the players about them, and make a special effort to be self-aware about my choice of language.

Or let them learn the way the core group does those things, a process of aculturation, in miniature, I suppose.

 

[Obreon]

It's not so much rolling to see what the character thinks as it is verifying an assumption or theory the player is considering, which to my mind is smart play.

Sure, that was my point. If you'd spoon-fed the player the theory in the first place based on a roll, that would have been awkward (to me) - but as you say, the roll is to confirm/verify the theory within the game. I have some quibbles about the terminology of "deduction" and I think that the same skill should probably apply to other sorts of searching, but hey, whatever.

At the risk of flogging a dead secret door, however, I'm curious about the situation where the player fails the investigation roll and you say "they don't have enough evidence". That sounds like a bit of a roadblock - the player has reached a conclusion that is correct, and has declared an action to investigate, but it has failed. I can see this getting into the "everyone else come and roll investigate" situation - which is another reason to be clear about the fictional action involved. If this is a careful physical examination of the area (as opposed to a snap deduction based on the existing clues), then it takes time - and the players just have to decide how much time they're willing to spend - perhaps with some sort of more or less formal "take 20" mechanic to obviate the need for repeated rolling if they're willing to spend as much time as it takes (and face the consequent risks).

 

[iserith]

Sure, that was my point. If you'd spoon-fed the player the theory in the first place based on a roll, that would have been awkward (to me) - but as you say, the roll is to confirm/verify the theory within the game. I have some quibbles about the terminology of "deduction" and I think that the same skill should probably apply to other sorts of searching, but hey, whatever.

It's also an answer to the common assertion that "My character is smarter than I am."

At the risk of flogging a dead secret door, however, I'm curious about the situation where the player fails the investigation roll and you say "they don't have enough evidence". That sounds like a bit of a roadblock - the player has reached a conclusion that is correct, and has declared an action to investigate, but it has failed. I can see this getting into the "everyone else come and roll investigate" situation - which is another reason to be clear about the fictional action involved. If this is a careful physical examination of the area (as opposed to a snap deduction based on the existing clues), then it takes time - and the players just have to decide how much time they're willing to spend - perhaps with some sort of more or less formal "take 20" mechanic to obviate the need for repeated rolling if they're willing to spend as much time as it takes (and face the consequent risks).

I don't say "you don't have enough evidence." I just say that they are unable to confirm the theory. (Kind of like a failed Insight check. They may suspect, but can't confirm with certainty that the NPC is lying.) If someone else wants to give it a go, but nothing has changed about the situation other than who's doing the deducing, then any subsequent attempts just fail.

 

[Tony Vargas]

perhaps with some sort of more or less formal "take 20" mechanic to obviate the need for repeated rolling if they're willing to spend as much time as it takes (and face the consequent risks).

When you call for a check, and find the circumstances & nature of the action are such that everyone else can pile on (knowledge & perception checks often shake out that way), or the same character can just repeat the check ad vicesima, it's nice to have an alternate mechanic. 'Take 20' like in 3e works for the latter, but it can be a little unprepossessing. IMHO, it's better to jump to that in the initial resolution. "You think you can get it open, but it'll take a while..." or "How long are you willing to spend before you give up?" or just base the time it takes on the degree of success/failure of the check.

What I started doing a while ago with pile-on checks is calling for a group check, instead. If everyone tries to remember a fact (knowledge) or solve a puzzle or whatever, I call for a group check, at least half need to succeed or that can't reach a consensus opinion. If just the expert is going to make the check, everyone has to abide by it.

 

[Tormyr]

It's also an answer to the common assertion that "My character is smarter than I am."



I don't say "you don't have enough evidence." I just say that they are unable to confirm the theory. (Kind of like a failed Insight check. They may suspect, but can't confirm with certainty that the NPC is lying.) If someone else wants to give it a go, but nothing has changed about the situation other than who's doing the deducing, then any subsequent attempts just fail.

Another possible result from a failed investigation roll is that the PC is all but certain there is a door there, but they cannot figure out how to open it.

 

[iserith]

Another possible result from a failed investigation roll is that the PC is all but certain there is a door there, but they cannot figure out how to open it.

Per the DMG, I separate the finding of a secret door and the figuring out of its workings. This can mean two checks, typically, Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation), when finding it or figuring out how it works based on clues has an uncertain outcome.

 

[Harzel]

I would normally set the DC to perceive something in this way 5 higher than the DC to perceive it during an active search. A well-constructed secret door might have a detection DC of 20, requiring a passive perception of 25 to see just by walking into the room - and quite possibly 30 in a low-light environment.

Did you consider just lowering everyone's PP by 5? Or did you see sufficient value in having the possibility of a variable differential between the PP DC and the active DC to justify establishing two different DCs for everything?