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

[iserith]

I'm especially excited about trying this in conjunction with the forthcoming improvements to Dynamic Lighting/Fog of War on Roll20. If you want the desaturated "where we've been" map view turned on, better designate a mapper!

When does that roll out?

Yes, initially, but I think that's probably just a function of me having less confidence and experience as a DM. Eventually I think it should become more instinctive - knowing roughly how much detail/what sort of hints to describe to characters with differing levels of perception abilities. Right now it takes me a non-trivial amount of time to dream up a secret door + hints that aren't either a) crashingly obvious or b) impossibly obscure. But I figure that will get easier with practice.

The way I handle it is that each PC establishes his or her exploration task upon entering the adventuring location. There's nothing "passive" about that activity - it's something they're doing in an ongoing basis. (Passive checks resolve tasks with uncertain outcomes performed repeatedly.) I make a note of it and the relevant passive score.

When I describe the environment, there's always some kind of clue embedded in the description. It's not "gated" behind a DC and check - this one's a freebie so the players have enough information to act with agency if they're paying attention and engaging in the scene. This means I don't have to think about DCs to get that initial clue or describe it from a particular character's perspective. This may cause the player to choose to do some other task, switching from Keeping Watch to Searching for Secret Doors or Working Together, for example, because something about the description of the environment indicated that would be of benefit.

Whether they describe a task different from the one they did upon entering the adventuring location or not, they get a result for their respective tasks in the particular area being explored. The task the player described is resolved, so the PC finds the trap or the secret door or tracks or whatever without any further hinting. (There's really not much interesting interaction to wring out of continued hinting and back and forth in my view.) What they do with that information may result in further ability checks if the result is uncertain - figuring out how to disarm the trap or open the secret door, etc. Finding the thing is only the beginning of the situation.

As for Investigation, that's a mechanic to resolve the times when the character is trying to make a deduction in my view. He or she has the clues and now it's time to put that together into a theory. It's not a "search check."

 

[Obreon]

When does that roll out?

By the end of September, they're saying: https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5...-slash-2017-fog-and-function-september-update

When I describe the environment, there's always some kind of clue embedded in the description. It's not "gated" behind a DC and check - this one's a freebie so the players have enough information to act with agency if they're paying attention and engaging in the scene. This means I don't have to think about DCs to get that initial clue or describe it from a particular character's perspective. This may cause the player to choose to do some other task, switching from Keeping Watch to Searching for Secret Doors or Working Together, for example, because something about the description of the environment indicated that would be of benefit.

So, to clarify, if the PCs enter a room, you say: "Blah blah blah - and there's water trickling in through the north wall"; then one of the PCs says: "I go and investigate to see how the water is coming in", so they switch to "Search for Secret Doors" mode. Do you now have them roll a Perception check to see if they find the door, or do you determine it based on passive perception, or do you just assume that if they examine the area it will be visible? I'm struggling to imagine an effective clue that would lead to a search that *doesn't* auto-succeed. If you start poking around in the corner for a few minutes you're definitely going to find where the water is coming in. That's good for engaged play, but does seem to devalue Perception as a skill quite a bit.

As you say, that's obviously only the start of the process - how do you open/disarm/etc is often more interesting.

As for Investigation, that's a mechanic to resolve the times when the character is trying to make a deduction in my view. He or she has the clues and now it's time to put that together into a theory. It's not a "search check."

I agree - and that's most certainly what the rules say. The problem is that it leaves the game without an INT-based check for searching, which sits poorly with a lot of people of a more simulationist mindset, for reasons I talked about in the post above.

Also, I find Investigation for "deduction" is really hard to include in a way that doesn't feel horribly clunky. Investigation to understand how something works is clear enough, but I just can't imagine how "deducing from clues" would work in a real game situation. What fictional action is the player declaring to have you call for such a roll? "I look at the room and see what I can deduce" sounds a lot like "can I make an Investigation Check?" to me - and I'm no more keen on that sort of approach to the game than you are!

 

[Ristamar]

Complex search mechanics are not particularly engaging at the table. The decision points are often at the extremes (blindingly obvious or frustratingly obtuse), and the payoff usually doesn't deliver in terms of challenge or just plain fun.

Also, I'm not a fan of disjointed DCs and results for passive checks versus active checks. It adds a lot of prep work and it's another potential point of failure while running the game.

IME, passive checks are best used as a static score versus an opposed roll and serve three basic functions:

1) Expedite gameplay
2) Facilitate secret opposed checks
3) Reduce the variance of opposed rolls

I won't say your methods are unadvisable for your table since I haven't seen them in play, and using a VTT can expedite and automate multifaceted decision points. If passive scores aren't meeting all of those needs in a particular system of your game, though, you may want to consider an alternate approach.

 

[Tormyr]

At the moment, I have stopped asking for Perception checks from my players and use Passive Perception almost exclusively. It notices clues (a lighter patch of flooring, a hidden creature, a draft, etc.) which then might need to be investigated (a rug was moved over, the draft indicates a secret door, etc.). I then incorporate the noticed clues into the description of the environment. Players can still request a regular Perception check when they feel like it.

 

[Obreon]

Players can still request a regular Perception check when they feel like it.

So how do those explicit checks work? What DCs are you comparing against (and how do they connect with the DCs against which you compare the passive perception?) What level of information do you give on success?

What fictional action does it represent? A search? Or a quick scan of the room?

 

[Tormyr]

So how do those explicit checks work? What DCs are you comparing against (and how do they connect with the DCs against which you compare the passive perception?) What level of information do you give on success?

What fictional action does it represent? A search? Or a quick scan of the room?

The explicit checks work against the same DCs the passive checks use, and give the same information that a successful passive check would have revealed. The PC usually uses it with checking the room a second time, scanning a wall or hallway they feel is suspicious, etc. When they ask about that kind of action, I ask them for the explicit Perception check.

To give an example from our Tomb of Horrors game.

Spoiler

[sblock]
There are lots of pit traps that require a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice. Because almost everyone has a passive Perception of 15-19, I described the oddities in the floor. After they investigated the first one and figured out how it worked, I just pointed out the others. Since I am on Roll20, I drew boxes where the pit traps were as they came across them.

There are other things, especially some secret doors, that require a DC 20 Wisdom (Perception) check. In this case, no one has a sufficient passive Perception score. When they hit a dead end, they start asking to check various walls. If they roll high enough on the explicit check, they find clues that point to a secret door.
[/sblock]

 

[iserith]

By the end of September, they're saying: https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5...-slash-2017-fog-and-function-september-update

Thanks, that will be shortly after I start my next campaign, so I'll see if it's something I will use.

So, to clarify, if the PCs enter a room, you say: "Blah blah blah - and there's water trickling in through the north wall"; then one of the PCs says: "I go and investigate to see how the water is coming in", so they switch to "Search for Secret Doors" mode. Do you now have them roll a Perception check to see if they find the door, or do you determine it based on passive perception, or do you just assume that if they examine the area it will be visible? I'm struggling to imagine an effective clue that would lead to a search that *doesn't* auto-succeed. If you start poking around in the corner for a few minutes you're definitely going to find where the water is coming in. That's good for engaged play, but does seem to devalue Perception as a skill quite a bit.

As you say, that's obviously only the start of the process - how do you open/disarm/etc is often more interesting.

Auto-success in exploration challenges typically require a trade-off in time and therefore a wandering monster check. If the task they set out to do is something on an ongoing basis, then it's a passive check, if the result is uncertain. If the task is a one-off after which they go back to, say, Keeping Watch, then it will be a straight ability check, if the result is uncertain. My default call is that a secret door search is always uncertain because it's purposefully obscured. But there might be exceptions depending on the circumstances.

Pace also plays into this and you can only perform some tasks at certain paces. Pace determines the frequency of wandering monster checks as I outlined in that link I put in my first post in this thread. The slower you go, the greater the chance of a wandering monster (because time). The faster you go, the lesser the chance. So you have to weigh the risks versus the rewards.

I agree - and that's most certainly what the rules say. The problem is that it leaves the game without an INT-based check for searching, which sits poorly with a lot of people of a more simulationist mindset, for reasons I talked about in the post above.

I'm not sure I "get" why someone with a "simulationist" mindset would need an Intelligence-based search check. But I'm also not very much into those kinds of labels anymore.

Also, I find Investigation for "deduction" is really hard to include in a way that doesn't feel horribly clunky. Investigation to understand how something works is clear enough, but I just can't imagine how "deducing from clues" would work in a real game situation. What fictional action is the player declaring to have you call for such a roll? "I look at the room and see what I can deduce" sounds a lot like "can I make an Investigation Check?" to me - and I'm no more keen on that sort of approach to the game than you are!

It plays out the same as any other action declaration: The player describes an approach to a goal, explicitly. "I examine the north wall and try to deduce whether the trickle of water indicates a secret chamber might lay on the other side..." for example. If I'm not sure whether that's automatically successful, I call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. If it's a success, then they deduce the answer. If it's not, then the evidence they have is insufficient to say for sure and they are free to think whatever they want about the existence of that supposed secret chamber.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, initially, but I think that's probably just a function of me having less confidence and experience as a DM. Right now it takes me a non-trivial amount of time to dream up a secret door + hints that aren't either a) crashingly obvious or b) impossibly obscure. But I figure that will get easier with practice.

Its a creative exercise - here I go with DMing ART > science, again - you can get better at it with long experience, you can also get jaded or burned out on it, as can your players.
It's also a matter of communication and shared models. The more you & your players have in common (age, culture, experiences, reading & viewing lists) the more the 'clues' will be properly interpreted by them rather
than seem obvious or obscure or frustrating. It's really social signaling & bonding, at that point, like hazing pledges, letting them in on the inner mysteries and making frat brothers of them...

Yeah, I'm aware that it's never going to be perfect. I just want to try and make an incremental improvement against the default "Roll Perception... you see a secret door" without utterly devaluing all the mechanical options surrounding Perception.

The other factor to consider is taking away the option of playing that character you want. If a player wants that keen-senses elf or deductive Holmsian type, he's going to be bitterly disappointed with both you and the system if other characters with no such investment in the concept spot/solve everything because they're clued into your fraternity's handshake.

I think my players will appreciate the whole "Seer Sharpeyes notices a strange puddle of water in the corner of the room" thing just as much as if they'd had to roll a die for it.

That's part of the issue with emphasizing player skill in resolution, yes.

. I have no issue with the whole "PP gives deterministic predictable results" thing

The point isn't so much that they're deterministic like there's something abhorrent about certainty, as it is that determinations like that are the realm of DM judgement, PP vs DC is just a wasted step.

True, but that's kind of the point - depending on where you draw the line on "pixel bitching". Avoiding search mechanics that aren't in their favour by intelligent engagement with the environment as described? Great. What I was looking for.

Great for the player that catches on to how you describe the imporimportant bits, and what you consider 'intelligent,' and fine if he's playing Seer Sharpeyes McHolmes ...

Explicitly searching every described item in every room in the hope that one of them hides something? I'm going to be charging you some 10 minute searches with accompanying WM checks for that. In the end this will come down to a judgement call on my part, but I'm hoping it shouldn't be too hard to do it in a way that feels fair and consistent.

The game didn't add perception checks because resolution-by-explicit-searching was quick, fun, fair, & consistent.

 

[Obreon]

I'm not sure I "get" why someone with a "simulationist" mindset would need an Intelligence-based search check. But I'm also not very much into those kinds of labels anymore.

Well, to me it seems like simply perceiving something by looking around a room is a function of your skills of attention, observation and visual recall/association. But in the end you can't see what isn't visible. So searching a room involves interacting with it - moving objects to make visible what is hidden, moving around to see parts you previously couldn't (or could only see in insufficient detail); while it too involves visual acuity, it also involves a lot of abstract spatial reasoning and double-guessing of whoever might have been hiding something in the space. The first is Wisdom (Perception) (by the twisted logic of D&D "Wisdom"); while the second is Intelligence (Search) - except that it isn't in DnD5e! I think this goes some way to accounting for why many people end up twisting the definition of Investigation to be more like the old Search skill. In the end it's not a huge deal.

It plays out the same as any other action declaration: The player describes an approach to a goal, explicitly. "I examine the north wall and try to deduce whether the trickle of water indicates a secret chamber might lay on the other side..." for example. If I'm not sure whether that's automatically successful, I call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. If it's a success, then they deduce the answer. If it's not, then the evidence they have is insufficient to say for sure and they are free to think whatever they want about the existence of that supposed secret chamber.

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.

 

[iserith]

Well, to me it seems like simply perceiving something by looking around a room is a function of your skills of attention, observation and visual recall/association. But in the end you can't see what isn't visible. So searching a room involves interacting with it - moving objects to make visible what is hidden, moving around to see parts you previously couldn't (or could only see in insufficient detail); while it too involves visual acuity, it also involves a lot of abstract spatial reasoning and double-guessing of whoever might have been hiding something in the space. The first is Wisdom (Perception) (by the twisted logic of D&D "Wisdom"); while the second is Intelligence (Search) - except that it isn't in DnD5e! I think this goes some way to accounting for why many people end up twisting the definition of Investigation to be more like the old Search skill. In the end it's not a huge deal.

Truthfully, I don't give it a great deal of thought. Wisdom is the ability score to perceive things, so that's what I go with. A character can, given clues, notice a hidden thing via deduction in which case an Intelligence check might be better. It really depends on what the player describes.

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'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.