Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7586150">Ok, fair enough. It can be hard to infer tone in forum posts.  Caustic/snarky response retracted.Back on topic, let's compare/contrast with Investigation for a moment.Let's say that the PCs are trying to solve a mystery, and in one of the locations the DM has set up there is a document stuck on the bottom side of a drawer. @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar</a>'s approach, taken to an extreme, wouldn't even require the PCs to leave the tavern.  It might go something like this:DM: "Ok, what do you do?"Player: "I make an Investigation check...24!"DM: "Ok, you go across town and search an office, and under a drawer you find a document..."I suspect that's not how Hussar or you would play it.  You would require the PCs to actually go to the office first, and then maybe roll Investigation.  But if you do I might use Hussar's argument: you are "keeping players in their place" by relying on "DM interpretation" and "not allowing them to use the skill as it's written."  (Not because I believe in the argument, but to illustrate the fallacy.)  It's the same thing Hussar is arguing, right?  If they use the Investigation skill and are successful, it should mean they successfully investigated.Here's the thing: it's perfectly valid to play that way.  Especially if you think the investigation is the boring bit that you have to get through before combat and looting.  (And, honestly, some adventures are so poorly written that I might be tempted to skip over the entire thing with a single Investigation roll.)But even though it's valid, I think most of us believe this is abstracting the fiction too far.  That the PCs have to at least have the initiative to go to the office.  And also (this is important) the PCs know there's an office.  Right?  You don't just plop them in a city and wait for them to say, "I search every office in the city."  The DM has, at some point, introduced the office.Now let's look at the document taped under the drawer: @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a>'s argument, taken to the extreme, would require a player to state: "I take out all the drawers and look at the bottoms."  And I think Hussar is making some assumptions that iserith would play it that way.  I suspect, though, that iserith would not require the players to state that action...unless he had provided some sort of clue or signal that this is what they should do.  Just like the existence of the office.So What Good is Investigation?Q: So if players are required to state, "I look under the drawer", what's Investigation used for?A: To resolve uncertainty.Here is an example of how I might use it: The players have to solve a "needle in a haystack" search with time pressure.  I don't want to actually roleplay out searching the haystack, so I'll require a certain number of successes, and count the attempts.  Bad (or unfortunate) stuff happens at certain increments.  (Note that if there's no time pressure, I won't require a roll.)I'll confess, I'll also use it when I just haven't prepared enough to plant good clues. What about Insight?I knew we'd have to get back to this eventually!Well, it's just like Investigation.  If you plant clues, and the players know what to ask, they shouldn't have to roll Insight.  Why use some quasi-magic "detect lie" skill if the players have some piece of information which allows them to ask a question that will determine whether the NPC is truthful?Otherwise, I might use it the way it's written, especially if I haven't prepared well: "He seems to be worried about what his boss is going to say about this."  "There's some other reason he wants you to go to the ruins."  "He just wants to get you out of his office."  "He's having a bad day and taking it out on you."  "He seems fixated on money."Using Skills versus Declaring ActionsThe reason I think the distinction is important is that if you start allowing players to just state, "I make an X check" you are essentially training them to stop thinking. Why put the clues together and realize you should look under the drawer when you know you can just make a skill check? And if the DM knows the players are just going to make a skill check, why put the work into creating the clues? SummaryWhile Hussar's play style is legal & valid, I think it's leaving a lot of fun & interesting gaming on the table.  It's qualitatively if not quantitatively the same as rolling Investigation from the tavern instead of first going to the office.  Yes, it does take more DM prep to do it iserith's way, and if that work isn't done then, yeah, all this stuff is "just the boring part before you get to fight something."</blockquote>

Verification