D&D 5E How do you handle this? - DM edition

[GlassJaw]

1. Based on the description of what a player is doing, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency are integral in what they describe they are doing, and both applicable. Do you pick one, have them clarify whihc is primary, add both/grant advantage to one, do something else? Especially when the bonuses are not the same like only one proficient, or cases like expertise/magic tools/etc.

I am VERY player-friendly with this kind of stuff. I'll ask the player what they want to do and how they want to do it. I'll let the player choose the proficiency if they have a reasonable justification for it. I'll even grant advantage if they come up with something cool.

My goal as a DM is to certainly to provide challenge but also to foster engagement. Players are engaged when they have an active role in discovery and playing their character.

And as others have mentioned, XGtE has some great examples of tool usage.

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

Perception and Investigation work really well as secret/DM rolls. Or you can default to Passive scores. So when the DM says "you don't find anything", it's up to the players to determine if there isn't anything to be found or this missed something.

3. A character makes truthful statements in ways that are deceiving. Like "you can have all the gold I'm carrying if you let them go" when they have little on them. They see it as persuasion because the character is truthful they will gladly give you all they have, but since the player intent is to get off cheap, it's like they are attempting to deceive to imply they have more.

Ha, this is a good one. I might let the player choose but feels more like Deception to me.

 

[Blue]

... while asking that the players be explicit about what they want. "What do I know about...?" is insufficient. I've already told you what you know when I described the environment. If you want to recall something on top of that or make a useful deduction to gain some kind of advantage, you have to tell me what you're looking for and what you're doing before I can decide how to adjudicate. If the player is performing his or her role in this regard, it's a cinch to adjudicate.

Oh, so you've already made a check (or perhaps passively) to resolve the uncertainty of what they know while describing the environment? Just like you would to notice someone hiding when you enter a room?

Otherwise that statement doesn't make sense. There is uncertainty that needs to be resolved. And a character's full knowledge is available to the character. Perhaps they might know one thing based on the history of an object, and something different in the fact that it's an alternate religious icongraphy used by a splinter cult. Again, with uncertainty what is known.

 

[iserith]

Oh, so you've already made a check (or perhaps passively) to resolve the uncertainty of what they know while describing the environment? Just like you would to notice someone hiding when you enter a room?

I don't ask for checks unless the player has declared an action (with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure). That is the only uncertainty the DM is tasked with resolving via the mechanics. The DM can just decide what the characters know in the context of the environment to the extent its relevant and necessary for the players to make reasonably informed decisions. I don't have to test that with mechanics to decide what to describe. That gets things backwards. Checks follow action declarations (given certain conditions), they do not precede them.

 

[Blue]

I don't ask for checks unless the player has declared an action (with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure). That is the only uncertainty the DM is tasked with resolving via the mechanics.

I don't want to retread the same discussion we've had before that what a character experiences gives some implicit information, and therefore may need mechanical resolution (can you read dwarven? do you smell the wet werewolf in the next room?) Let's bring this back to what were originally talking about instead of going off down that tangent. Maybe an actual example would be useful so I can see what you do and hopefully understand it better.

The party enters a courtyard. It's centerpiece is a 12' tall stone status of a hobgoblin holding some sort of elaborate scepter, standing on a plinth.

As DM, you know that the party may be able to identify the particular hobgoblin in the statue, a famous historical general who's name would be useful later in overcoming a puzzle. Also that the scepter is a religious icon for a splinter sect of Maglubiyet that has the motto "Cunning shall rule the battlefield", which is a password to get past magical guardians without fighting them in the next room.

I believe that you give out just the information that doesn't require a check. 12' statue basics get described.

Samantha (a player), says "I examine the statue visually without approaching. Do I know anything about it or see anything besides the scepter that catches my eye?"

Samantha is playing Dakota Smith, an archeologist diviner wizard, who happens to be proficient in both history and religion (as well as arcana and some others, but history and religion are likely candidates for getting those two pieces of information).

What's the process from here?

Of particular interest to me in this scenario is (a) avoiding "split brain" where a character forgets everything they know and are experiencing except one thing they are focusing on and (b) dealing with an uncertainty that has a meaningful repercussion on success, and the only repercussion of failure is not having that success, which was the original question.

 

[iserith]

I don't want to retread the same discussion we've had before that what a character experiences gives some implicit information, and therefore may need mechanical resolution (can you read dwarven? do you smell the wet werewolf in the next room?) Let's bring this back to what were originally talking about instead of going off down that tangent. Maybe an actual example would be useful so I can see what you do and hopefully understand it better.

The party enters a courtyard. It's centerpiece is a 12' tall stone status of a hobgoblin holding some sort of elaborate scepter, standing on a plinth.

As DM, you know that the party may be able to identify the particular hobgoblin in the statue, a famous historical general who's name would be useful later in overcoming a puzzle. Also that the scepter is a religious icon for a splinter sect of Maglubiyet that has the motto "Cunning shall rule the battlefield", which is a password to get past magical guardians without fighting them in the next room.

I believe that you give out just the information that doesn't require a check. 12' statue basics get described.

I'll pause here first and say that the sentence I bolded is not a given. There is nothing that does or doesn't require a check. Setting aside for a second that it appears you're trying to set up an exploration challenge of some kind here in the example, the DM may establish any of what you said above as lore that is known to the PCs while describing the environment. I just want to see if we agree on that point because I'm not entirely sure. Sometimes it seems like you're saying it's always uncertain what a character knows.

Samantha (a player), says "I examine the statue visually without approaching. Do I know anything about it or see anything besides the scepter that catches my eye?"

Samantha is playing Dakota Smith, an archeologist diviner wizard, who happens to be proficient in both history and religion (as well as arcana and some others, but history and religion are likely candidates for getting those two pieces of information).

What's the process from here?

So, in my game, Samantha does not ask that question. Instead, she makes a case for how her character may be able to recall the information she seeks and to what end she might want that information. I can then decide whether she succeeds on her attempt to recall lore (or make a deduction), fails, or whether there's an uncertain outcome. If there's an uncertain outcome, I then examine if there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If there is, then I'll call for ability check. If she succeeds, I'll give her the information she seeks. If she fails, I'll give her some information that is interesting, but not what she seeks, and it will be on her to take additional steps to make it useful. Often those steps will require a resource expenditure, frequently time or gold.

Of particular interest to me in this scenario is (a) avoiding "split brain" where a character forgets everything they know and are experiencing except one thing they are focusing on and (b) dealing with an uncertainty that has a meaningful repercussion on success, and the only repercussion of failure is not having that success.

I'm not sure what you mean by "split brain" here. As for (b) I would say only context will tell and reasonable people can disagree on whether a consequence is "meaningful."

 

[Blue]

I'll pause here first and say that the sentence I bolded is not a given. There is nothing that does or doesn't require a check. Setting aside for a second that it appears you're trying to set up an exploration challenge of some kind here in the example, the DM may establish any of what you said above as lore that is known to the PCs while describing the environment. I just want to see if we agree on that point because I'm not entirely sure. Sometimes it seems like you're saying it's always uncertain what a character knows.

No, there are plenty of things the player knows. I didn't give many details about them beause we were exploring checks and uncertainty. I can point out that the players were able to identify the statue as a hobgoblin without the need for a check.

Here's an example from one of Morrus' adventures, The Business of Emotion, if it helps you visualize what I mean.

A cave outside town by a meandering river (D1). Bear pawprints in the mud. DC 15 Intelligence (Investigation) reveals it dragged a large animal, a horse whose corpse can be found in the bushes. DC 18 Intelligence (Investigation / Nature) finds a single large own feather.

Just swap in the hobgoblin statue and appropriate information & skills from my earlier post.

So, in my game, Samantha does not ask that question.

I run and play in multiple groups, and have run at conventions. It is a perfectly reasonable question for a player to ask. Saying that one at your table wouldn't ask it seems like you are playing with a narrow subset of player behavior that lets you avoid some common situations.

Can we move forward without dodging the question. The player has described their action: "I examine the statue visually without approaching. Do I know anything about it or see anything besides the scepter that catches my eye?"

Instead, she makes a case for how her character may be able to recall the information she seeks and to what end she might want that information.

The player has no idea what information she seeks nor how that information would be used. That's not a valid requirement to have for a knowledge skill. The information is some set up by the adventure designer to aid with overcoming challenges later in the adventure.

Look at Morrus' adventure. The player does not know the horse corpse is there, nor that there is a large owl feather nearby. They discover that through checks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "split brain" here. As for (b) I would say only context will tell and reasonable people can disagree on whether a consequence is "meaningful."

Split brain isn't something I'm particularly worried about with you, more if others jumped in. It's like a DM saying "Make and INT roll" and the player inquiring "would arcana or history proficiency help?" and the DM tells them to choose one and then only gives a response for that one roll, instead of realizing that a character knows arcana and history at the same time and they might have complementary bits of information. So since the DM only called for one INT roll, the character "forgets" everything about the skill not rolled.

 

[Umbran]

So, in my game, Samantha does not ask that question. Instead, she makes a case for how her character may be able to recall the information she seeks and to what end she might want that information.

The player has no idea what information she seeks nor how that information would be used. That's not a valid requirement to have for a knowledge skill.

Well, yes and no.

To use the techniques iserith is talking about, the framing given is woefully insufficient, as you've noted. Iserith would have had to set up the scene differently, with information for the player that telegraphs that there is a challenge here, and that failure in that challenge has a cost.

Look at Morrus' adventure. The player does not know the horse corpse is there, nor that there is a large owl feather nearby. They discover that through checks.

Well, yeah, but... why are they looking for information in that location? Because it is there, and you happened to describe it? Is there other context around it that suggests the player should be looking for information in the scene?

How broad the question you accept from the player needs to vary in proportion to the amount of information you give the player to start with. If you present a room with some dressing elements in it, but no particular reason for them to interact, as a practical matter you have to allow very broad questions that amount to, "Do I see anything interesting?" If you give them information about what is interesting, and maybe *why( it is interesting, you can narrow down to more goal-oriented approaches like iserith suggests.

 

[iserith]

No, there are plenty of things the player knows. I didn't give many details about them beause we were exploring checks and uncertainty. I can point out that the players were able to identify the statue as a hobgoblin without the need for a check.

Thanks for clarifying.

Here's an example from one of Morrus' adventures, The Business of Emotion, if it helps you visualize what I mean.

A cave outside town by a meandering river (D1). Bear pawprints in the mud. DC 15 Intelligence (Investigation) reveals it dragged a large animal, a horse whose corpse can be found in the bushes. DC 18 Intelligence (Investigation / Nature) finds a single large own feather.

Just swap in the hobgoblin statue and appropriate information & skills from my earlier post.

What this tells me is that the author believes that Intelligence (Investigation) is used to resolve tasks with a goal of finding hidden objects rather than Wisdom (Perception), and that for reasons that are not clear in what you posted above, there is an uncertain outcome to the task and there's a meaningful consequence for failure of some kind for that task. Also that Intelligence (Investigation) is used to resolve tasks with a goal of following tracks rather than Wisdom (Survival).

I think I prefer the hobgoblin example, if we have to use an example at all.

I run and play in multiple groups, and have run at conventions. It is a perfectly reasonable question for a player to ask. Saying that one at your table wouldn't ask it seems like you are playing with a narrow subset of player behavior that lets you avoid some common situations.

Can we move forward without dodging the question. The player has described their action: "I examine the statue visually without approaching. Do I know anything about it or see anything besides the scepter that catches my eye?"

It's a common sort of question in my experience with other people's games, but again, it doesn't come up in my games because it would be unnecessary. I already described what caught the characters' eyes when describing the environment. Umbran is correct in saying that the framing you offered is insufficient in my games.

Further, "do I know anything?" isn't an action I can adjudicate. If a player asked such a question, I'd ask for him or her to do as I described in my last post - tell me what sort of lore he or she is seeking to recall (and for what purpose) and why he or she might know something about the matter. Then I can decide if there's an ability check. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

I run and play with a lot of different groups, too, sometimes people I don't know. I have to sometimes teach players to get into the habit of describing what they want to do rather than ask questions. Questions can not only make it more difficult or impossible to properly adjudicate, they are also a way for a player to step outside the game to avoid consequences. Actions can have consequences. Having a Q&A with the DM outside the context of the setting does not. It's a clever little trick.

The player has no idea what information she seeks nor how that information would be used. That's not a valid requirement to have for a knowledge skill.

"I try to recall if this hobgoblin is a significant figure from history, perhaps a builder of this place, given that I possess great historical knowledge as an archaeologist."

The information is some set up by the adventure designer to aid with overcoming challenges later in the adventure.

Look at Morrus' adventure. The player does not know the horse corpse is there, nor that there is a large owl feather nearby. They discover that through checks.

They discover that through actions which have uncertain outcomes and meaningful consequences for failure that are not well-established in what you posted. We know they must exist because there are apparently checks. We just don't know why.

Split brain isn't something I'm particularly worried about with you, more if others jumped in. It's like a DM saying "Make and INT roll" and the player inquiring "would arcana or history proficiency help?" and the DM tells them to choose one and then only gives a response for that one roll, instead of realizing that a character knows arcana and history at the same time and they might have complementary bits of information. So since the DM only called for one INT roll, the character "forgets" everything about the skill not rolled.

I think I split my brain trying to figure out what this means.

 

[GMMichael]

1. Based on the description of what a player is doing, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency are integral in what they describe they are doing, and both applicable. Do you pick one, have them clarify whihc is primary, add both/grant advantage to one, do something else? Especially when the bonuses are not the same like only one proficient, or cases like expertise/magic tools/etc.

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

3. A character makes truthful statements in ways that are deceiving. Like "you can have all the gold I'm carrying if you let them go" when they have little on them. They see it as persuasion because the character is truthful they will gladly give you all they have, but since the player intent is to get off cheap, it's like they are attempting to deceive to imply they have more.

1. No stacking, because Bounded Accuracy. Use the better proficiency/total, mostly because the Proficiency Bonus represents the best effort that a character of a given level can give. There's not much point for a proficiency bonus if other skills can just stack up and exceed it.

2. This depends on what they're trying to discover. And how the discovery is made. A "roll" is pretty vague. A "perception roll" is slightly less vague. But wouldn't you get a penta-advantage if you got a scribbled note in the office, and called over four colleagues to try and decipher it?

3. So, persuasion or deception? See point 1. There's also a rule, somewhere, that says "just let the player do what she wants because it's fun." Not my favorite rule, though

4. I know, several smarter and faster posters already posted some/all of this brilliant advice.

*Title note: just noticed that if I cover my eyes, Blue will think I've disappeared!

 

[Umbran]

"I try to recall if this hobgoblin is a significant figure from history, perhaps a builder of this place, given that I possess great historical knowledge as an archaeologist."

Except, the player has no reason to guess even that.

They discover that through actions which have uncertain outcomes and meaningful consequences for failure that are not well-established in what you posted.

I suspect it would help a great deal if you offered up a potential framing of this that would fit in with how you tend to run your game, so the reader can understand.

Questions can not only make it more difficult or impossible to properly adjudicate...

Well, hidden in there is the definition of proper adjudication.

...they are also a way for a player to step outside the game to avoid consequences. Actions can have consequences. Having a Q&A with the DM outside the context of the setting does not. It's a clever little trick.

Do not attribute to malice what is as easily described as a different habit. They aren't playing clever tricks - they are just playing as they have learned to play.