D&D 5E Should Intuition be a skill/ability?

[iserith]

A Passive Perception check can be something like repeatedly searching for something, but I think it can also be actually passive, thus the name.
Darkron Is in his home and walks into a room. An assassin stands behind the door hiding. Darkron isn’t actively searching, but as a DM I’ll use his passive perception score to give whoever it was that came through the door an opportunity to notice the assassin or something strange just because their senses are so acute.

The rules say passive Perception is for what I said upthread, but also if the DM just wants an ability check that is secret. Your example looks to be the latter. But make no mistake, the character is actively aware of his or her surroundings. You're just not requiring the players to say so and working off an assumption (a common approach as noted above), and assumptions can be problematic (but not always).

I think it is the DM’s role to describe what a PC experiences — sometimes that might involve telling players what they feel and thoughts that might occur to them.

It never has to involve that except in a case of magical compulsion or the like.

To me, a feeling is not something I do. Thoughts that pop into my head are not something I have conscious control over.
What I do is react to my feelings or random thoughts.
I don’t choose to feel sad, but I can try to do things to snap out of it.
I choose to eat a sandwich that has spoiled and then feel like I want to die, but I certainly don’t choose to feel that way; that is a result of my action. I can then act to relieve that feeling somehow.
My feelings are can result directly from my actions, but sometimes they result in how external stimuli affect me whether I want that to happen or not.

This, to me, just looks like post-hoc reasoning for wanting to tell players how their characters think and feel. The DM could more easily just say nothing about it and let the players establish this as is their role.

It also looks like you're straying away from the intent of the words "feel" or "feeling" as I noted upthread which makes these discussions difficult.

I recommend challenging yourself for the next month not to tell players how their characters think or feel. Maybe ask them how their characters think or feel instead, if they don't volunteer that info themselves. Give it a shot and watch what happens. You might be surprised.

 

[plisnithus8]

But make no mistake, the character is actively aware of his or her surroundings.

I'm not sure why you tell me that I am mistaken about my own example.
The PC is not actively doing anything but moving into a room of his house.
That's why I would use his Passive Perception to see if he is subconsciously aware of an intruder.

It never has to involve that except in a case of magical compulsion or the like.

I never said it had too. I said it could.

This, to me, just looks like post-hoc reasoning for wanting to tell players how their characters think and feel.

So in a discussion where you are arguing for player to control everything they think and feel, it sounds like you are telling me what I was thinking? And not just that, you decide to tell me I am wanting to do it to control my players? That's not the case at all. I don't need you to try to analyze my motives.

I recommend challenging yourself for the next month not to tell players how their characters think or feel. Maybe ask them how their characters think or feel instead, if they don't volunteer that info themselves. Give it a shot and watch what happens. You might be surprised.

It wouldn't be surprising at all, because as I already stated, I have played these situations both ways, and I find each can work well in certain situations with certain types of players when used effectively.
I used to believe the same way you did and probably came off self-righteous about it, but I have learned that there's not one right way to play the game or have fun and that using various methods at the appropriate times can dramatically enhance the game.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure why you tell me that I am mistaken about my own example.
The PC is not actively doing anything but moving into a room of his house.

...while maintaining alertness for hidden dangers. That's the task that is being adjudicated here. You're not mistaken about your own example. You appear to be mistaken about what the PC is doing which is a prerequisite for an ability check.

I never said it had too. I said it could.

The rules would disagree with you, as would I. And I think it might be worth thinking through why you would want to do it in the first place. Barring the noted exceptions, what is lost by leaving it to the players to describe what their own characters think and feel? What is gained by having the DM step into the players' role to do this?

So in a discussion where you are arguing for player to control everything they think and feel, it sounds like you are telling me what I was thinking? And not just that, you decide to tell me I am wanting to do it to control my players? That's not the case at all. I don't need you to try to analyze my motives.

No, I'm telling you what you wrote looks like to me. I'm not telling you what you are thinking. I can't possibly know that. You obviously want to tell the players how their characters think and feel because you've said as much. I did not say why you do it. I'm not even sure you know why you do it.

It wouldn't be surprising at all, because as I already stated, I have played these situations both ways, and I find each can work well in certain situations with certain types of players when used effectively.
I used to believe the same way you did and probably came off self-righteous about it, but I have learned that there's not one right way to play the game or have fun and that using various methods at the appropriate times can dramatically enhance the game.

I agree there's no one right way to play the game. But it doesn't hurt to question one's own methods and practices.

 

[Garthanos]

I have come to think Constitution needs a mental component call it instinct. (relates to health like the Id relates to the body) .

Intelligence is Predictive
Wisdom is Perceptive
Charisma is Creative
Constitution is Instinctive.

 

[plisnithus8]

You appear to be mistaken about what the PC is doing which is a prerequisite for an ability check.

It seems like you are only allowing for your own interpretation of the rules. A passive perception check says it "can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
A PC can breathe without actively trying. A PC can make a Death Save without having the ability to make an action. I believe Passive Perception uses the word "passive" for a reason.
Is there a chance I can spot something without actively trying to? Of course there is, happens all the time. Instincts and muscle memory are examples of how I would define passive. These are not something I do actively; they are subconscious, which in game terms I would define as passive.

The rules would disagree with you, as would I. And I think it might be worth thinking through why you would want to do it in the first place. Barring the noted exceptions, what is lost by leaving it to the players to describe what their own characters think and feel? What is gained by having the DM step into the players' role to do this?

Again it feels like you are creating a framework for the game and dismissing other interpretations. Where in the game does it say that a player has total control of all of their thoughts and feelings? You may think that is the most fair way to play or have always played that way. The opening of the PHB says the DM describes the environment. To me that can mean the thoughts and feelings that a character has to react to. A magic fear effect has a mechanical way a player must deal with it. There is nothing to say that other emotions including non-magical ones can't be felt by PCs, ones mentioned by the DM, that the player has to decide what to do with. I'm not saying that this should happen all the time or even often. In fact, the DM making suggestions and improvising with a player works too.

As for why I would want to describe how something feels (and I hope you aren't just being rhetorical), it's because I believe it is part of the game, part of the environment that a character would experience. The DM creates story hooks for the players -- why couldn't these be in the form of memories, emotions, and errant thoughts. I know some DMs ask for player input for NPC names or shoppes around town. That's great. Some groups would never do that, and that's fine too. Some groups might allow players to create part of the world that their PC could not control, such as feelings or stray thoughts, while others have players only control their actions. I believe there are memories and sensual reactions that are beyond control. Controlling those things, like helping co-creating creatures and places, could be considered a form of meta-gaming. Some people don't want any of that. But it can definitely add drama to a situation. It can add another form of conflict to a narrative. What is lost by never doing it is the potential for challenges that the players may not bring upon themselves, either for self-preservation or because they just didn't imagine these on their own.

If you don't want to try something new, that's fine, but you don't need to ask me to keep questioning my motives for something that has been working really well.

Also, if you want to say that I am misinterpreting your definition of the word "feelings," it would be helpful if you offered definitions.

But it doesn't hurt to question one's own methods and practices.

I keep mentioning how I do use both methods, applying them where effective.
It seems like you could benefit from having more of an open mind on the subject.

edit: BTW, I am enjoying the discussion on game theory and practice. It is helpful to me to think through these ideas.

 

[Garthanos]

Intelligence is Predictive
Wisdom is Perceptive
Charisma is Creative
Constitution is Instinctive.

Oh and Dex is Reactive

 

[iserith]

It seems like you are only allowing for your own interpretation of the rules. A passive perception check says it "can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

I said this already above.

A PC can breathe without actively trying. A PC can make a Death Save without having the ability to make an action. I believe Passive Perception uses the word "passive" for a reason.

"Passive" refers to the fact that there are no dice. An ability check requires that the PC be undertaking a task that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. A passive check is a special kind of ability check. A PC can engage in the task of breathing. If that task has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, then an ability check is called for. Much like staying alert to hidden dangers, most DMs and players agree to assume the PCs are breathing without it being said until it matters (such as in a cloud of knockout gas).

A death save is a saving throw and therefore generally involuntary; it is not an ability check.

Is there a chance I can spot something without actively trying to? Of course there is, happens all the time. Instincts and muscle memory are examples of how I would define passive. These are not something I do actively; they are subconscious, which in game terms I would define as passive.

The game is not a simulation of reality, so these sorts of arguments fall flat in my view. Passive checks are a defined mechanic in the game. They are what the rules say they are. The rules don't delineate between actively or passively performing a task. You just perform tasks and those tasks may be resolved by the DM saying you succeed or fail or either of those outcomes preceded by an ability check, which may be a passive check.

Again it feels like you are creating a framework for the game and dismissing other interpretations. Where in the game does it say that a player has total control of all of their thoughts and feelings? You may think that is the most fair way to play or have always played that way. The opening of the PHB says the DM describes the environment. To me that can mean the thoughts and feelings that a character has to react to. A magic fear effect has a mechanical way a player must deal with it. There is nothing to say that other emotions including non-magical ones can't be felt by PCs, ones mentioned by the DM, that the player has to decide what to do with. I'm not saying that this should happen all the time or even often. In fact, the DM making suggestions and improvising with a player works too.

D&D 5e game defines roleplaying as "...you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." It goes on to say "Roleplaying is part of every aspect of the game..." and goes on to explain active and descriptive roleplaying. There is no support in the game for the DM doing this for the players with the exception of the magical compulsion or the like. A DM doing this is stepping outside of the prescribed role for DM. Whether that is seen as a good or bad thing or both will vary.

As for why I would want to describe how something feels (and I hope you aren't just being rhetorical), it's because I believe it is part of the game, part of the environment that a character would experience. The DM creates story hooks for the players -- why couldn't these be in the form of memories, emotions, and errant thoughts. I know some DMs ask for player input for NPC names or shoppes around town. That's great. Some groups would never do that, and that's fine too. Some groups might allow players to create part of the world that their PC could not control, such as feelings or stray thoughts, while others have players only control their actions. I believe there are memories and sensual reactions that are beyond control. Controlling those things, like helping co-creating creatures and places, could be considered a form of meta-gaming. Some people don't want any of that. But it can definitely add drama to a situation. It can add another form of conflict to a narrative. What is lost by never doing it is the potential for challenges that the players may not bring upon themselves, either for self-preservation or because they just didn't imagine these on their own.

I think you'd have a lot of work to do to prove that a character's thoughts and feelings are part of the DM's duty to describe the environment in the way the game intends. Whether you think it's okay for a DM to step outside of his or her role and into the players' role or vice versa is up to you and your players. I would suggest it's not necessary and can be problematic. Something that adds nothing and could cause problems is not a good tool in my opinion.

If you don't want to try something new, that's fine, but you don't need to ask me to keep questioning my motives for something that has been working really well.

There is nothing in this discussion, nor most D&D discussions, that I have not already tried. Not surprisingly, the things that are supported by the game itself seem to work better in my experience than things that are not.

Also, if you want to say that I am misinterpreting your definition of the word "feelings," it would be helpful if you offered definitions.

Feelings: an emotional state or reaction.

I keep mentioning how I do use both methods, applying them where effective.
It seems like you could benefit from having more of an open mind on the subject.

My mind is open to the fact that people play the game in different ways. It would be for you to tell me, if you want, why you think the method in which the DM steps out of his or her role and into the player role is desirable. So far as I can tell, you just think that's part of describing the environment, when that's not supported by the game at all. I'd also like to hear how you think your game would be impacted if you just stopped doing it altogether.

edit: BTW, I am enjoying the discussion on game theory and practice. It is helpful to me to think through these ideas.

Agreed.

 

[the Jester]

What would be the pros/cons of implementing Intuition in the game?
I’d like PCs to have a 6th sense to guide them, a way as a DM to give them gut instincts, flashes of warnings?

On a mechanical level, there's nothing wrong with this, per se; but on a personal level, yuck. I hate the notion of the DM telling me what I feel like I should do. If I don't have a feature or ability that gives me spider sense, I don't want a freebie, and "DM guidance" feels too railroady for my tastes.

Basically, it's not for me or my playstyle at all. Pcs should be able to make bad decisions, and their choices- including bad decisions- should matter. Even if the consequences are dire, that's what the pcs chose to do. To me, adding in some kind of spidey sense really detracts from the meaningfulness of pc choices.

Is there some kind of problem or issue you're trying to correct? Or would this just be a change for the sake of change?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think that's best avoided. I prefer the player describe that the rotten corpse makes the character queasy. I prefer the player describe how his or her character feels about seeing grandpa's grave. The DM doesn't need to get involved in this and in my opinion should not. As a player, I would not tolerate this from a DM. Sticking to describing the environment and narrating the results of the adventurers actions leaves space for the player to decide these things. In my experience, they will if the DM just gets the heck out of their way and stops intruding upon the player's role.

Well, I have pointed out twice that this is at the player's request, so this really isn't intruding on the player's role.

Bard flubs his check to identify freaking Oberon, the Green Knight, whom the party came upon in the middle of the woods. Oberon isn't hostile, but wants to challenge one of the knights to a joust, for funsies.

Paladin: "What's my gut feeling on this guy?"

DM (rolls): "His body language is relaxed, even though he is alone faced with a company of unknown soldiers. He seems pretty powerful. Your gut is telling you handle with care."

****
Party defeated the BBEG's second-in-command, who was sent to deal with them accompanied by a pair of stone golems. The party was forced to take a short rest after the battle though, and is about to step through a portal.

Paladin: "Hold up, guys. Is my gut telling me anything?"
DM (rolls): "It's been about an hour since you fought XXXX. If you were in the BBEG's shoes, you probably would have expected XXXX to have reported back by now, so you figure that the BBEG knows you're coming."

 

[iserith]

Well, I have pointed out twice that this is at the player's request, so this really isn't intruding on the player's role.

It's intruding upon the rules-prescribed role of the player regardless of the player's consent. I wouldn't do it at the player's request either. The game works better in my view when everyone sticks to their roles.