D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[prabe]

Ok, so we’re back to my original point that, as the person designing the challenge, I would include some kind of time constraint or other consequence that made “spend as much time as we need thoroughly searching the room” not a viable option.

And I didn't. Different GMs design things differently. The space was large enough and there was enough stuff (remember, the only thing things that weren't automatic were the secret door and the books) that it wasn't as though the entire party was searching the entire place that thoroughly; I gave them two different ways to find out or figure out there was something weird (and the clone chamber had been foreshadowed prior); the time constraint was that the clone made noise in the secret room and got the party's attention. It didn't feel unfair to me, and I don't think it felt unfair to the players (who, to be fair, are probably not so conversant with the text of the DMG as some people here, so they didn't have the "it makes a possible task automatic" text in their brains).

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem I've seen in games with that style is that it can become player vs DM. The players specify exactly what they were doing and after the game the DM tells you that because you didn't specifically look for a false bottom in that barrel you missed out on some fantastic loot.

That teaches the player that they have to be obnoxiously detailed. The players now feel like they have to measure the depth of every container to ascertain if it has a false bottom. Scenes like that slow the game down to a crawl and everyone is frustrated and bored.

I'm not saying that anyone posting to this thread does that, just that I've seen it happen and you need to be careful to not overdo it. As an example in a module, IIRC LMOP had some treasure at the bottom of a water barrel in the bandit's hideout that you had to specifically search. Except that there was nothing special at all about this barrel, there was no reason for any player to specifically call it out. I don't want my players searching every piece of furniture or fixture.

Yeah, as good as LMoP was, it had some flaws. Been a while since I’ve read it, so I didn’t remember this but with the barrel, but I would agree that requiring the players to specifically search the barrel without giving any indication in the description that there would be reason to do so is one such flaw. Good use of this technique requires good telegraphing.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I didn't. Different GMs design things differently. The space was large enough and there was enough stuff (remember, the only thing things that weren't automatic were the secret door and the books) that it wasn't as though the entire party was searching the entire place that thoroughly; I gave them two different ways to find out or figure out there was something weird (and the clone chamber had been foreshadowed prior); the time constraint was that the clone made noise in the secret room and got the party's attention. It didn't feel unfair to me, and I don't think it felt unfair to the players (who, to be fair, are probably not so conversant with the text of the DMG as some people here, so they didn't have the "it makes a possible task automatic" text in their brains).

But... you did have a time constraint then...

 

[FrozenNorth]

If the DM had already decided that one of the kobolds had the gem in the secret compartment, I can see a definite issue with style 2. - It would seem to require that the player specify that their character is searching the kobold's boots.
If they specify searching boots of the kobolds, then presumably the compartment is obvious and they will automatically see it and get the gem.
If the player does not specify searching boots on the kobolds, then the character will not find the gem, despite having access to knowledge that the player does not.

The whole point of the example is that there was no gem in the boot until Player1 rolled a 16 Int(Invest) check.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, fine, success at a cost is a useful tool. Again I think we’ve gone way off track from where we started. This particular line of discussion sprung from folks talking about keys hidden in sock drawers and whether or not “thoroughly searching the room” would be a valid path to success, and I took a step back to ask if scenarios where an object is hidden in a room and players have ample time to do a thorough search is actually a regular occurrence in anyone’s games. Cause I don’t see myself designing such a scenario basically ever.

I think we’ve lost the plot a bit here. I’m not advocating for never including missable content in the game. I’m saying, as the person designing the scenario where the key is hidden, I’m either hiding the key as part of a challenge, in which case I’m going to build some kind of time constraint or other consequence for failure into the scenario, or I’m just having it be hidden because it makes sense to be hidden, but it’s not really important. In the former case, the PCs don’t have the luxury of “taking all the time they need to search the room,” so of course I’m gonna call for a check. On a failure they search for 10 minutes, find nothing, and we get one sixth of the way closer to the next time I roll for complications. In the latter case, I’ll just narrate them eventually finding it because how long it takes is immaterial and the game isn’t served by the possibility of them failing to find it.

I’d consider that part of a challenge then.

Those are all related quotes, so I'll respond to them together real quick. For one thing, I think you are using a different definition of challenge than I and some others here are using. Can you maybe describe the parameters of what a challenge is and isn't, in your usage of the term? You've given clues to the answer, but I at least am still kinda left wondering what exactly the word means to you.

In case it helps, my definition is; Anything the players encounter that is difficult, and has a potential cost even for success (ie may cost resources to get through). More on that at the end, where I'll try to explain the thing from earlier.

I see it as a square/rectangle thing, but I’ll be interested to read your thoughts on it.

So, basically, to me stakes and challenge are separate considerations. What I was trying to get across with my reply on your confusion about my statement that "[there] Doesn't need to be a challenge for the stakes to matter." is that the two are separate, and I hoped that showing it from the other angle would help.

So, to try again with a different approach, and make a new roll...

If I present a choice between two paths, and the course of the game will be very different depending on which path is chosen, that isn't a challenge. It's just a choice with consequences, and thus stakes. But there isn't any effort, cost, or challenge in the choice. It's just left or right. It matters, but it isn't a challenging scenario. It needn't be overcome with effort, it isn't even something overcome by any reasonable definition of the term.

Again, to me, what defines challenge is effort, difficulty, and/or cost to overcome. It it isn't natural to say that you overcame it, it probably isn't a challenge. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have stakes. Flipping a coin between two equal choices has stakes, but it isn't something you've overcome in any way.

 

[Umbran]

That's adorable.

Mod Note:

Please dial back the condescension about 5 notches. The blantant disrespect isn't appropriate. Thanks.

 

[prabe]

But... you did have a time constraint then...

Arguably, but I'm not sure it was clear to the players or the characters. They had time to take a short rest while they were searching, so maybe they thought they'd taken "as much time as necessary." Maybe that's bad-DMing, but it seemed to work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, as good as LMoP was, it had some flaws. Been a while since I’ve read it, so I didn’t remember this but with the barrel, but I would agree that requiring the players to specifically search the barrel without giving any indication in the description that there would be reason to do so is one such flaw. Good use of this technique requires good telegraphing.

See, and I really don't like that. It feels very meta and weird to go out of my way to point out a barrel so that the players will know they should search it, when I wouldn't describe the barrel other to say "there are some barrels in the eastern corner of the room, and XYZ other things in the room" if there wasn't anything of interest in the barrel.

If I make the mistake of putting something important in the barrel, and they don't search the barrels, the important thing moves to somewhere they do search, or there is a way around having the important thing. I mean, I don't tend to design adventures in a way where any given item or clue is necessary to move the game forward, but say if the thing is something I just really want them to have.


I also wonder, how many of us in this thread use dungeon delving as a model of adventure, and how many of us for whom the "dungeons" part of the name is just alliteration. I think it might have something to do with preferred approach to resolution, especially in terms of exploration.

 

[prabe]

Yeah, as good as LMoP was, it had some flaws. Been a while since I’ve read it, so I didn’t remember this but with the barrel, but I would agree that requiring the players to specifically search the barrel without giving any indication in the description that there would be reason to do so is one such flaw. Good use of this technique requires good telegraphing.

When there's a gap between the GM wanting specificity and the player expecting their character to see the scene and know the setting better than they do and behave appropriately, there can be ... frustration. Certainly on the player's end, and I presume on the GM's. I've ended up playing a rogue in a campaign where the GM wants this sort of specificity and it can get tiresome--especially gaming over text-chat.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's adorable.



I don't dispute that, depending on the situation, and even alluded to this by referencing the rules in DMG, p. 237. My position, backed up by the rules that I originally paraphrased and you later quoted, is that reasonable specificity allows a player to avoid making ability checks by removing uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. And that engaging with the game in this manner is smart play because it means a higher chance of success, if the DM is adjudicating according to the rules.

Now find the rule that says players ask to make ability checks in D&D 5e.

You know what, between the moving goalposts here, and the condescension throughout this entire thread from you, I'm just gonna avoid further interaction with you for a while.

You didn't just paraphrase the rules, you were wrong about what an advice sidebar said in a way that completely undermines the "I'm right because the rules say so" attitude you've been waving around this whole time.

Nothing in the rules suggests that the DM should be going from "you find XYZ" to "you rolled low so you find nothing" because the player wanted to make a roll. That's just 100% a you thing.