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

[Oofta]

Me either

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.

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

If someone asks for an insight check on whether an NPC is telling the truth, whether that NPC is telling the truth or they just didn't roll higher than the NPC's deception check the answer will be "As far as you can tell they're telling the truth." If they asked for an insight check and I told them "Don't bother, they're telling the truth" it would be a guarantee that the NPC was being truthful.

Some people would say (and have said) that I shouldn't have called for the roll because the answer didn't change based on the result.

Of course I'd also potentially give some other information. They may be telling the truth but be scared and nervous when they talk about another NPC for example.

 

[jgsugden]

It also works the other way though. People are lazy. You let them get away with, "Perception check" on a regular basis, that's all you're going to get from them, and they'll complain if you later ask for more.

Note that I speak about the use of a variety of pacing tools. There are a lot of ways to interact with people. What I'm suggesting is that a singular approach limits your tools.

How did people do it before ability checks or skill checks? They said what they wanted to do. And note that D&D 5e doesn't support the player asking for checks. That's the DM's role. Players asking for checks comes from previous versions of the game (or people learning from people who played previous versions of the game who brought that into D&D 5e).

You've never been at a table where the DM tells someone it is their turn and they just roll the dice to attack - without saying a word? Or where an AD&D rogue rolled their percentage chance before saying what they were doing? I have seen skills get activated a thousands different ways in 3E/4E/5E eras.

Given that a failed roll results in a meaningful consequence for failure, why would I as a player even want to roll? You won't catch me asking to, and players at my table quickly learn that trusting your life to a d20 is not a great strategy if it can be avoided. Also that it's great to have Inspiration in your back pocket for when it can't be avoided (which is a very nice feedback loop that encourages consistent character portrayal).

So your claim to fame is that your players dread having to roll the dice at your table. OK .... interesting take.

I'd bet real money that my game runs faster than just about anyone's. I know because a lot of people tell me that, both regulars, pickup groups, and observers. I also play in and watch other games that are standing still by comparison. So, no it has no appreciable impact on pacing. If anything, you end up saving time on hashing out misunderstandings or playing 20 Questions. (But the real time savings mostly come from digital dice and "Yes, and..." collaboration which is unrelated.)

You're missing the point. It isn't a race. It is a story. Pacing in storytelling is an incredibly useful tool - and stopping people to force them to describe things that are obvious is going to ruin the pacing, even if you talk fast. Go back and look at the paragraph I wrote and called out above. The pacing in the paragraph changes as we go from a simple statement of a few words, similar to "I roll perception" to longer and more detailed statements. If you analyze the writing of authors that are known for exciting combat in their stories, the vast majority will use techniques like I describe to accelerate and slow down the story to make moments seem more exciting - or more tense.

It's also not repetitive, or at least needn't be. The context of a given situation while often similar is not really the same, so descriptions vary accordingly according to a player's approach to a goal.

I was not speaking of repetition in answers - those obviously change. My point was that asking in the same way is what gets repetitive and limits your toolbox.

There's also no limit to versatility. It's as varied as the words the players and DM know and use. Some will be succinct. Some flowery. Some will use active roleplaying, others descriptive. But all convey what they want to do and how, which is at the heart of the approach - clear communication so that everyone's on the same page with what's going on in the fictional world.

And, again, a flowery and verbose response is sometimes ideal ... and sometimes it kills your momentum. You can't win an argument against diversity in approach by suggesting one approach can work.

I know it is near a sin with some people, but I will point you toward Matt Mercer as an example of a DM you can watch that is very good at using pacing - and this includes matching and building upon the pace his players are setting. If they're excitied, he is far more terse. This technique often is used as the PCs and enemies are both dwindling down in hp until the PCs land a killing blow ... at which point Matt stops - falls silent - and creates a huge disparity in the pacing - before asking, "How do you want to do this?" It is like shaking a soda, rolling it down the steps ... and waiting for it to explode on each bounce it takes...

Variety and variation are tools that should not be underestimated.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

This is extremely difficult for me to answer, since I didn’t create the scenario, and it sounds like you yourself don’t have all the specifics either. I’ll try to engage with the question as best I can, but it’s… very strange.

So, if the PC noticed fresh bear scat, that must mean I described said fresh bear scat in my description of the environment. That would presumably be because I was telegraphing the presence of bears? I suppose it could have just been set-dressing, but that doesn’t seem like the kind of thing I would just throw in for no reason. So, I’ll assume there are in fact bears somewhere nearby and the scat was meant to telegraph that fact. So, the player says they look around. Am I correct in assuming that their goal is to find out that there are bears nearby? If so, ok, we’ve got a goal (to find out if there are bears nearby) and an approach (to look around). I would then have to determine if that approach could accomplish that goal, if it could fail to do so, and if both are possible, how difficult it would be.

So, if there are bears, I imagine one could certainly find them by looking around. It’s not like they would be hiding, they aren’t ambush predators or anything. Could looking around fail to find them? Sure, the woods are a pretty big place with lots of places you might conceivably overlook. Is there a meaningful consequence to failing to find them? I suppose so; if you don’t know they’re there you might be surprised if you run into them and they attack. So, I’d say this would require an ability check, using wisdom since attunement to the world around you, perceptiveness, and intuition are the most relevant factors in success here. I could see perception, investigation, nature, or survival being applicable. And as established, it would probably be an easy check since the bears aren’t likely taking any special effort to hide themselves. So I’d call for a DC 10 Wisdom check, and the player could add their proficiency bonus if they have any of the aforementioned proficiencies.

 

[Charlaquin]

If someone asks for an insight check on whether an NPC is telling the truth, whether that NPC is telling the truth or they just didn't roll higher than the NPC's deception check the answer will be "As far as you can tell they're telling the truth." If they asked for an insight check and I told them "Don't bother, they're telling the truth" it would be a guarantee that the NPC was being truthful.

Some people would say (and have said) that I shouldn't have called for the roll because the answer didn't change based on the result.

Of course I'd also potentially give some other information. They may be telling the truth but be scared and nervous when they talk about another NPC for example.

Well, as we’ve been discussing, players in my games can’t declare checks, they have to declare actions, and I call for checks if those actions have uncertain outcomes. I also don’t allow players to tell if a character is lying just by watching their body language or whatever; they can potentially determine emotional state that way, which might give some indication of if someone is lying, but is far from foolproof. Lastly, even if the person was telling the truth, that doesn’t necessarily mean that an attempt to determine if they’re lying is without consequence for failure. For instance, on a failure they might realize that you’re suspicious of them and be offended.

 

[iserith]

You've never been at a table where the DM tells someone it is their turn and they just roll the dice to attack - without saying a word? Or where an AD&D rogue rolled their percentage chance before saying what they were doing?

Not that I can recall, no.

So your claim to fame is that your players dread having to roll the dice at your table. OK .... interesting take.

I am not famous, and that would be a strange thing to be famous for in my view. But why would I want to leave it to a d20 to decide my fate if I can avoid that?

You're missing the point. It isn't a race. It is a story. Pacing in storytelling is an incredibly useful tool - and stopping people to force them to describe things that are obvious is going to ruin the pacing, even if you talk fast. Go back and look at the paragraph I wrote and called out above. The pacing in the paragraph changes as we go from a simple statement of a few words, similar to "I roll perception" to longer and more detailed statements. If you analyze the writing of authors that are known for exciting combat in their stories, the vast majority will use techniques like I describe to accelerate and slow down the story to make moments seem more exciting - or more tense.

@Charlaquin already admirably pointed out that we're talking about a difference of 2 words in some cases. I think you're really reaching here.

I was not speaking of repetition in answers - those obviously change. My point was that asking in the same way is what gets repetitive and limits your toolbox.

Asking for what?

And, again, a flowery and verbose response is sometimes ideal ... and sometimes it kills your momentum. You can't win an argument against diversity in approach by suggesting one approach can work.

It's up to the player how they say what they want to do and how. I trust their judgment here. My approach is Clear Communication. What would make that diverse? Adding Unclear Communication to the mix? Pass.

I know it is near a sin with some people, but I will point you toward Matt Mercer as an example of a DM you can watch that is very good at using pacing - and this includes matching and building upon the pace his players are setting. If they're excitied, he is far more terse. This technique often is used as the PCs and enemies are both dwindling down in hp until the PCs land a killing blow ... at which point Matt stops - falls silent - and creates a huge disparity in the pacing - before asking, "How do you want to do this?" It is like shaking a soda, rolling it down the steps ... and waiting for it to explode on each bounce it takes...

Variety and variation are tools that should not be underestimated.

I don't think much of his DMing skills.

 

[iserith]

As written this is a very 5e-based perspective, in that it incorporates what to me are two of 5e's worst rules, bolded above.

IMO "Nothing Happens" should always be a possible consequence when it makes sense in the fiction, and meta-mechanics such as Inspiration can go die in a fire whenever they like.

Yeah, I mean, why would someone who wants people to portray their characters well use tools like Inspiration to incentivize it?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Then how else do you determine whether the attempt (whatever it is) succeeds or fails?

A straight yes or no isn't an option due to other random variables, including how well the character might be performing that day. Or put another way, some days ya got it, some days ya don't, and that needs to be reflected in the resolution.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

In this particular case I'd probably have the player roll twice: once for successfully hearing the conversation (the stated goal) and a second time for incidental or accidental observations e.g. the smell of the pie or that the window is trapped or whatever.

Failure on the second roll tells me that even if there is something else to notice the character missed it, and-or that the breeze is blowing into the window and carrying the smells further into the cottage (and maybe out a different window).

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.

Oh, I do. In effect they'd be rolling against their own passive perception but I ain't gonna tell them that. Just roll the die, please.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I mean, why would someone who wants people to portray their characters well use tools like Inspiration to incentivize it?

They wouldn't, if it meant using such a metagame mechanic. To me it's just the same as the way 1e enforced alignment play via cost and time when it came time to train up, rules which are/were also awful; and that one is a reward where the other is a punishment makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Voadam]

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?

If they are actively focusing on listening to the conversation and not specifically parsing out an element of the scents given off by the pie around them that sounds like 5e RAW suggests a possible check roll for the active perception and possible passive check for adjudicating the smell.

So to be clear, not an easy smell to identify, which would be DC 10 or a very easy DC 5 per the DMG page 238 chart, but moderately hard to identify DC 15. So a decent chance many D&D PCs would not identify it. If the almond smell from the pie right next to them was easy to smell, a character with a 10 wisdom and untrained in perception would notice passively.

Even with a roll the PC with a passive perception of 14 and so a +4 wisdom perception bonus will not smell the moderately difficult to detect almond smell from the warm pie right next to them 50% of the time.

I am copacetic with passive perception and intuition being quick at the table resolution and a decent baseline for things the PC is not actively doing while if they make a specific action to focus on an event they can be better than that baseline with PCs rolling dice to determine the action they have actively engaged with.

However since noticing the pie smell is automatic, the DM mentions the warm pie and it is up to the player to think of trying to determine whether there is an almond smell from the pie they now know about with a melange of minor flavor smells that did not draw their attention by itself. If they are thinking about cyanide and not easy to smell scent of almonds they might think to focus on the smell of the pie to see if there is a faint odor of almonds. Otherwise, they did not notice the moderately difficult to smell almond scent and the game goes on.