D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[Charlaquin]

But if you're performing the same action, with the same die roll, why would the result be different if time isn't a factor? That sounds like narrative stuff to me.

I’m not sure I understand the question.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m not sure I understand the question.

It was said that "nothing happens" is a meaningful result if, for example, time is a factor, but wouldn't be if it isn't. But if the action and die result are the same regardless, why would "nothing happens" be ok in one case and not in the other?

 

[Charlaquin]

It was said that "nothing happens" is a meaningful result if, for example, time is a factor, but wouldn't be if it isn't. But if the action and die result are the same regardless, why would "nothing happens" be ok in one case and not in the other?

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. There wouldn’t be a die result if time isn’t a factor, because there wouldn’t be a meaningful consequence for failure, therefore no roll is required.

 

[Oofta]

This is a lot closer call than the window where they were actively focused on listening to the conversation and not actively checking out the pie at all. Here they are focused on the pie specifically, and "anything strange about them."

You're only quoting part of what I said. The player state that they "look at the pies closely" - explicitly specifying only looking. But okay ... back to the original scenario.

They're at the window. The pie is cooling on the windowsill where they are listening to the conversation. They can clearly smell the pie, it's a foot away. But they've only stated listening to the conversation. If the DC to smell the cyanide is 15 and the PC's passive perception is 14 do they get a chance to notice the almond smell when they roll a 18 on perception?

 

[Oofta]

I suspect the thing you’re missing is that most of these details (the change in air pressure or temperature, the smell of troglodyte stench, etc) would, under this paradigm, just be included in the description of the environment, without the player needing to make a perception check to detect them. In some cases, if the detail is particularly difficult to notice, it might or might not be described depending on passive perception. But these sorts of general “I look (and listen and smell) around because I want more detail” checks aren’t really necessary in my style of play. When perception checks are made in my game, it’s usually because the player is actively trying to find something specific. Ambient detail should, in my view, be rolled into the description of the environment in the first place.

Maybe they would be included, maybe they wouldn't. I ask for checks when I think the odds of noticing something are uncertain. You hardly ever ask for checks (right?) so of course it doesn't apply to you.

However, if you did decide that something was uncertain, the scent of the troglodytes is old or they breeze is blowing most of the scent away, would you ever ask for a perception check? If they say they're looking around, would they have a chance to smell?

If you never, ever, call for a perception check then it doesn't matter for you.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. There wouldn’t be a die result if time isn’t a factor, because there wouldn’t be a meaningful consequence for failure, therefore no roll is required.

Personally I don't expect players to always separate what they know as a player and what their PC should know. So sometimes I ask for a roll even if there is no change because it's more fun for the players. A mystery is less fun if you have an absolute guarantee that the person you're questioning is telling the truth.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe they would be included, maybe they wouldn't. I ask for checks when I think the odds of noticing something are uncertain. You hardly ever ask for checks (right?)

I ask for checks all the time, actually.

However, if you did decide that something was uncertain, the scent of the troglodytes is old or they breeze is blowing most of the scent away, would you ever ask for a perception check?

In the absence of an action being declared by the player? No. I call for checks only when necessary to resolve the outcome of a player-initiated action. Sometimes I’ll call for saving throws in response to something dangerous in the environment, but I don’t think that would be appropriate here. What I might do in the case that there’s troglodyte stench that players might or might not be able to detect due to a breeze or whatever, I’d probably describe “a strange scent” or something, so the players have something to interact with. Some reason to initiate an action.

If they say they're looking around, would they have a chance to smell?

If I described a strange scent, and they said they look around for its source? No, they wouldn’t have a chance to smell anything beyond the vague “strange scent” I already described. They might have a chance to see the source of the smell though, depending on how it’s hidden. Hard to make a call without full context.

If you never, ever, call for a perception check then it doesn't matter for you.

I call for lots of perception checks, when players declare actions to try to (to quote the PHB) “spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.” What I don’t do is ask for checks (perception or otherwise) when no action has been declared.

 

[Oofta]

I ask for checks all the time, actually.

In the absence of an action being declared by the player? No. I call for checks only when necessary to resolve the outcome of a player-initiated action. Sometimes I’ll call for saving throws in response to something dangerous in the environment, but I don’t think that would be appropriate here. What I might do in the case that there’s troglodyte stench that players might or might not be able to detect due to a breeze or whatever, I’d probably describe “a strange scent” or something, so the players have something to interact with. Some reason to initiate an action.

If I described a strange scent, and they said they look around for its source? No, they wouldn’t have a chance to smell anything beyond the vague “strange scent” I already described. They might have a chance to see the source of the smell though, depending on how it’s hidden. Hard to make a call without full context.

I call for lots of perception checks, when players declare actions to try to (to quote the PHB) “spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.” What I don’t do is ask for checks (perception or otherwise) when no action has been declared.

So what kind of action do they have to declare? Let's say my PC is in the woods. For whatever reason, they get an odd feeling*. They state they look around. You ask for a perception check - do they only see things? Could they also hear things? Smell things?

For that matter, what could trigger a perception check?

*This has happened to me when hiking. For example, I ... umm ... PC noticed fresh bear scat that's still steaming in the cool morning air. So they want to be sure there's no bear nearby.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally I don't expect players to always separate what they know as a player and what their PC should know.

Me either

So sometimes I ask for a roll even if there is no change because it's more fun for the players.

This probably ties in with your view of making checks as a desirable thing. If successful checks always result in positive outcomes but failed checks don’t always result in negative outcomes, the net result will be that it’s generally going to be better to make checks than not make them. In my games, if you’re making a check, failing is always going to cost you. Therefore it is always better to avoid checks if possible.

A mystery is less fun if you have an absolute guarantee that the person you're questioning is telling the truth.

I don’t understand how this is applicable. Why would you know the person you’re questioning is telling the truth?

 

[Oofta]

This is getting to be a pretty nuanced discussion about how to resolve actions. I find it fascinating! I am a "tell me your intent and method" person, but I want to do this in as natural a way as possible, where you just have a conversation with the GM. With that said, I think I have a couple of comments that I hope can be helpful:

The most common reason for problems with the GM not resolving an action in a way that makes sense for the player comes from a misunderstanding about what the circumstances and the exact situation looked like. As the GM you have a picture of what the world looks like in your head. It is very difficult to link that up with what the players think the situation looks like without a lot of practice and group familiarity.

The way I resolve that is (and I'm going to use a PbtA term here, please forgive me...) by being a fan of the characters. When a player tells me what they want their character to do, I want to translate it so that it looks as close to what they want to do in what I consider to be the actual picture of the situation. If I can't do that because it's way off, I tell them.

I don't know that this has anything to do with PbtA games or just convergent techniques. But I definitely want to stress character abilities and the fact that the characters have competencies we, as players, do not. There are occasions when people state something impossible and in those cases it can be either that my description of the scene wasn't communicated well or perhaps they're trying to do something I don't believe the PC can accomplish. If it's the former I clarify, if it's the latter I'll give them suggestions of options.

I have played in many games (thankfully not for a long time) where you had "gotcha" moments where the GM interpreted everything literally to the point where you'd fall in a pit if you didn't mention you were looking down. That's not interesting to me in any way, and it results in characters making torturously exact statements about what they want to do that slow the game to a crawl. That was not fun.

The second and related point is to assume the things the characters are good at the things they have created characters to be good at. How do you search for traps? How do you convince the prince to help you out? How do you attack the ogre? I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to any of those questions. Yes, I have some skill in all three of those areas, but I'm also not an expert in them and also not in a potentially life threatening situation.

The real answer to each of those questions is "the best way my character thinks they can do it." But at the same time, we play rpgs to be more interactive than just saying that every time we need a decision (followed by a die roll). If a player proceeds tell me they are taking an odd approach to something their character is good at, I'll tend to roll with it and see what kind of a check they give. Maybe being rude to the prince can work out. I know someone who's amazingly persuasive and I've seen stranger things work in real life. And also, maybe precisely measuring out the weight of a statue and swapping it with a bag of the same weight won't work (just ask Indy about that).

Those are some ideas I've brought to running games like D&D or Pathfinder from the world of more narrative games.

It's pretty common in D&D games I've played as well, I know I didn't pick it up from PbtA games although I can't speak for other DMs. As far as the intimidation vs persuasion, I try to have enough of an idea of who the NPC is and view things from their perspective. I'll also give people insight checks to potentially get an idea of what's going to work.

In any case, there's no one true way to play the game. We all have different approaches.