D&D 5E Balancing Investigation checks and player descriptions

[robus]

I agree, part of the DM’s job is to give the PCs enough detail to make accurate decisions within the game, as far as their characters are aware. That being said, it’s a tricky balance – too much detail and you’re practically making the check for them (“Gee, why is the DM going into so much detail about the curtains in the room?”), too little and they’re going to never think to check.

The players are basically fumbling around in a sensory deprivation tank without the DM telling them what they see, hear and feel. Playing a game of 20 questions isn't much fun and making the players investigate every little thing is tedious for everyone.

The question is - is there anything unusual about the lid that would be apparent without investigation? If there isn't then you're really hoping your players investigate every inch of every object they encounter, even after they found somethiing in that object - so basically search everything twice (but what about the secret compartment in the bottom - OK three times... - you see where this leads ) - that seems too much to ask IMHO.

 

[robus]

I mostly agree, however, at some point when giving clues like that as DM you are essentially just telling them what is there.

If this is the chest that has a particularly heavy lid, then the response 100% of the time will be, "I check the lid".

In that case the secret compartment is window dressing rather than something interesting.

I also don't think you need a specific clue about the chest for the PCs to have reason to search further. They could, for example, figure out that the people they are robbing should have more valuables than just a few coins.

The thing is if the secret compartment is no challenge to open beyond discovering it then that seems no fun for you or the players. This secret compartment is crying out to be trapped. You find the gold but hmm - something is odd about the lid. If the players, in their greed, just tear at the lid then they'll trip the trap. But careful investigation would reveal it and lead to a plan to open it without damage to themselves or the contents.

So it's not given away - it's given them a new challenge.

 

[ad_hoc]

The players are basically fumbling around in a sensory deprivation tank without the DM telling them what they see, hear and feel. Playing a game of 20 questions isn't much fun and making the players investigate every little thing is tedious for everyone.

The question is - is there anything unusual about the lid that would be apparent without investigation? If there isn't then you're really hoping your players investigate every inch of every object they encounter, even after they found somethiing in that object - so basically search everything twice (but what about the secret compartment in the bottom - OK three times... - you see where this leads ) - that seems too much to ask IMHO.

I think we're in agreement that it is tedious to require the players to specify the specific things they are searching.

In this example I wouldn't need them to say they are searching the lid. I think I want something though.

In the actual session they didn't feel very comfortable going through their stuff. The chest itself was out in the open, they picked the lock and when they found the coins inside they put everything back as they figured it wasn't worth the risk. Then they got out of there.

What would you have done? Would you have described the lid as being out of place? Is that any different than not having a secret compartment at all?

I think in retrospect I would have preferred to have a separate clue elsewhere (like a note in a desk) about more treasure so they would have more of an idea that there was certainly treasure to be found. Maybe the simplest way to do it is to describe the chest as simply being large.

 

[ad_hoc]

The thing is if the secret compartment is no challenge to open beyond discovering it then that seems no fun for you or the players. This secret compartment is crying out to be trapped. You find the gold but hmm - something is odd about the lid. If the players, in their greed, just tear at the lid then they'll trip the trap. But careful investigation would reveal it and lead to a plan to open it without damage to themselves or the contents.

So it's not given away - it's given them a new challenge.

So are you saying that you would rather not have secret compartments at all then?

Because your solution to the idea of having something to find is to put it in plain sight but have a trap instead. You are replacing one type of challenge with a different one.

 

[robus]

So are you saying that you would rather not have secret compartments at all then?

Because your solution to the idea of having something to find is to put it in plain sight but have a trap instead. You are replacing one type of challenge with a different one.

Well I don't think something that is only revealed by manipulating the object containing it is putting it in plain sight?

But if manipulating the containing object (the lid) reveals something unusual (it's too heavy for its size, or makes an odd noise) that is just part of the environment that the player would experience from manipulating the object. To not tell them seems unhelpful?

Secret compartments are tricky because of the fact that they are small and hidden. It's not like a secret door that can be detected via Passive Perception. it needs active searching in just the right spot. And that seems a hard trick to pull off when the players are effectively in a sensory deprivation tank without you telling them what they feel (sensorily) and hear...

 

[shoak1]

At our table we find describing searches to be about as dull as narrating the conversation w/the inkeeper. That's what skill checks are for. My players tell me how long they are taking to search, then i secretly roll it. On a 1 (fumble) they think they find something that really isn't useful, on a success i tell them "you find a +1 sword under a false bottom of the chest," and on a failure i tell them they find nothing. Now on to the next cool encounter, let's fight

Back in the day we used to narrate searches, until some wise player just wrote down in detail what they do in a standard search, then started saying " we do THIS" and hand me the list.....rinse repeat
example:
1) If there is a chest we poke and prod for false bottoms, fell around inside using gauntlets, while everyone else stands 6' away
2) one PC taps around for sece\ret doors, tapping and pulling objects on wall, etc
3) if bookcase, we pull each book out
etc etc

 

[Prakriti]

I feel like all games tend to devolve into "I Investigate the room" eventually. After you've played with the same people for months on end, you kind of know their habits and tics, so spelling everything out is almost unnecessary. It's not always a good thing, but it's natural. If you want to stop it from happening, then you have to work at it. It's almost like keeping the spark in a marriage.

 

[ad_hoc]

At our table we find describing searches to be about as dull as narrating the conversation w/the inkeeper. That's what skill checks are for. My players tell me how long they are taking to search, then i secretly roll it. On a 1 (fumble) they think they find something that really isn't useful, on a success i tell them "you find a +1 sword under a false bottom of the chest," and on a failure i tell them they find nothing. Now on to the next cool encounter, let's fight

Back in the day we used to narrate searches, until some wise player just wrote down in detail what they do in a standard search, then started saying " we do THIS" and hand me the list.....rinse repeat
example:
1) If there is a chest we poke and prod for false bottoms, fell around inside using gauntlets, while everyone else stands 6' away
2) one PC taps around for sece\ret doors, tapping and pulling objects on wall, etc
3) if bookcase, we pull each book out
etc etc

Have you read the thread?

I feel like all games tend to devolve into "I Investigate the room" eventually. After you've played with the same people for months on end, you kind of know their habits and tics, so spelling everything out is almost unnecessary. It's not always a good thing, but it's natural. If you want to stop it from happening, then you have to work at it. It's almost like keeping the spark in a marriage.

Yeah, there is a balance somewhere. That is what I am working toward. I think it is possible to have dynamic games.

If you wanted to you could boil the game down to just rolling dice. This applies to all pillars of the game.

 

[Miladoon]

I have no problem with having the characters indulge in the Exploration Pillar of the game. When the players actively explore a room, chest, etc., I offer them the narration reigns and a roll to beat a DC. Sometimes with advantage due to an entertaining narration.

When I make a drop bag, I don't pin it to any object or room. I pin a drop bag to a successful roll. If the search roll fails then there is nothing to find. They might find the drop bag later in another search. If they don't search, the items have the possibility to show up in another search. That way, all my plot items and treasure remain in game and eventually in the player's hands. You can carry over drop bags from one session to the next. I guess I am not a fan of stocking a dungeon and then not handing out the stock. It freaks me out a little knowing what they missed.

 

[shoak1]

Have you read the thread?

yup, what's ur point?