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

[Charlaquin]

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.

If there’s no consequence for failure, then nothing is lost by just allowing them to succeed.

 

[Voadam]

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.

That's a judgment call and a matter of taste.

In an investigation scenario as a DM I would be more comfortable just providing more narratively appropriate information clues so the almond smell would probably just be part of my description of the "fresh-baked pies, smelling of apples, buttery pastry, and a touch of almonds and cloves."

The decision to gamify it as a d20 craps dice game with additional spotlight information at stake instead of a puzzle for the players to work out is a choice and matter of taste.

So would the decision to make it a straight mechanical passive test that never varies. The +4 perception character notes easy to perceive things but not moderately difficult ones.

 

[Voadam]

If there’s no consequence for failure, then nothing is lost by just allowing them to succeed.

Here I disagree.

Sometimes as a DM you want a determination that is not certain even if there is no significant consequence to failure.

Two characters playing chess, for example.

The 5e skill check contest is fine for determining something like that.

 

[iserith]

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.

I think I recall you saying you give XP for "roleplaying". Is that right?

 

[Voadam]

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

Absolutely, but I thought the reason for that would be obvious from my stated explanation.

To rephrase it with the full quote: "I look at the pie, is there anything strange about them?"

This is a closer question for me because they are looking at the pie but also specifically asking "if there is there anything strange about them." They are not focusing on the smell, but they are focusing on the pies specifically and asking if there is anything strange about them. That checking specifically for anything strange while focused on the pie seems narratively reasonable to make a check to pick up non-visual strangeness.

It would not be a big deal to me conceptually if a DM went with either passive smell perception or active perception smell roll in this situation though.

Another dimension is that sometimes passive perception is superior mechanically and sometimes it is the reverse. The passive perception 14 PC will succeed on all DC 10 easy passive perception checks. They will fail 25% of the time on active easy checks. This flips when the DC is 15 and they fail all passive checks but succeed 50% of the time on active checks.

 

[FrogReaver]

If there’s no consequence for failure, then nothing is lost by just allowing them to succeed.

Since almost anything can be defined as a consequence of failure then I'm not sure this statement is actually as helpful as it initially seems...

The most basic consequence of failure for a skill check is that you aren't able to do the things you were trying to do. Be that open the chest, get an audience with the king, gain favor at the towns brothel, obtain some trivial item you've decided your character desires.

In some sense if the player is interested enough to try something in the system, even seemingly trivial things, then rolling a skill check and having a failure can add some nice flavor and color to the experience.

A basic example: players did a drinking game at the tavern. Dwarf/Gnome tried to carry the larger drunk PC up to the room. Check was made and failure. Another PC decided to help as well. Failure again! By the time they made it up the stairs almost every part of the drunk PC's body had been hit on something in the bar. No important consequences but quite memorable and fun and still consequences of a kind.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here I disagree.

Sometimes as a DM you want a determination that is not certain even if there is no significant consequence to failure.

Two characters playing chess, for example.

The 5e skill check contest is fine for determining something like that.

A contest is a case where failure does have a consequence. Specifically, the consequence for failure is that your opponent succeeds.

 

[Pedantic]

So this all feels like a fine argument that maybe perception ought to be a defense, instead of a skill. Much like AC, we could avoid this whole very specific resolution rabbit hole (which I would argue could never apply to something like Athletics) if perception was only ever rolled against.

 

[Charlaquin]

Since almost anything can be defined as a consequence of failure then I'm not sure this statement is actually as helpful as it initially seems...

The most basic consequence of failure for a skill check is that you aren't able to do the things you were trying to do. Be that open the chest, get an audience with the king, gain favor at the towns brothel, obtain some trivial item you've decided your character desires.

In the case of opening a chest, if you fail you can just try again (unless, as I said before, time is a valuable resource, in which case the consequence for failure is wasted time). In the case of trying to get an audience with the king, failure probably prevents subsequent attempts, so the consequence for failure is one of opportunity. Depending on the particulars, it might also have consequences on the PCs’ reputations. Likewise with the brothel thing. Obtaining a trivial item is too vague for me to assess what consequences, if any, it might have.

In some sense if the player is interested enough to try something in the system, even seemingly trivial things, then rolling a skill check and having a failure can add some nice flavor and color to the experience.

Such flavor and color can be included in the narrative resolution. If there’s no meaningful consequence, the roll doesn’t contribute anything to the resolution process.

A basic example: players did a drinking game at the tavern. Dwarf/Gnome tried to carry the larger drunk PC up to the room. Check was made and failure. Another PC decided to help as well. Failure again!

So what was the result of those failures? There’s not enough here for me to understand the state of the fiction.

By the time they made it up the stairs almost every part of the drunk PC's body had been hit on something in the bar.

I don’t understand this sentence.

No important consequences but quite memorable and fun and still consequences of a kind.

What kind? From your description have no idea what actually happened, other than that the larger PC didn’t get carried up to their room. Or… didn’t do so right away? I guess even that is unclear.

 

[Charlaquin]

So this all feels like a fine argument that maybe perception ought to be a defense, instead of a skill. Much like AC, we could avoid this whole very specific resolution rabbit hole (which I would argue could never apply to something like Athletics) if perception was only ever rolled against.

Well, that’s why passive perception exists. But you still need a skill for resolving active attempts to search for things, and it makes sense for that and passive perception to key off the same stats. Unless we want to go back to the days of separate skills for search and spot? That seems like a poor choice to me personally.