D&D 5E Perception, Passive Perception, and Investigation

[Shiroiken]

If there's no chance of success, why roll at all?

The middle way assumption is that you are calling for checks only when the outcome is uncertain and when there is a consequence for failure.

The post I responded to was talking on an impossible check, not a possible check that was failed and not allowed a retry.

On that, though, I find that it's best form to make sure this is represented in the fiction and not just an unexplained game element. Usually, a check can't be retried because the situation that allowed the check no longer exists.

It looks like in some of your examples, we shouldn't even be rolling at all. One reasonably needs the clues to make the deduction and if they are several rooms away, the deduction can't be made. Lacking mental ability to do thing at all also precludes there being a check.

There's been a miscommunication here. My point is that someone isn't always mentally capable of solving a problem, even given unlimited time, not something necessarily impossible to begin with. The game rules can allow for the DM to call for a check if there's a possibility of success. If there's a secret door and you fail to locate the trigger mechanism, you shouldn't be guaranteed success simply because you take longer at it. The idea of it being in a different area (or one way door) shows how the character can't even guarantee they know what they're looking for. They could have simply overlooked the trigger, or even tried the trigger the wrong way, eliminating it from their future attempts.

As I mentioned in my original comment, this isn't something that many prefer as a playstyle, but a lot of us do. The key to allowing failure is to make sure that the adventure cannot fail due to a single die roll. The PCs might have to find a way around the secret door, figure out a way to bypass/destroy it, or simply not get whatever treasure/reward might be hidden inside. In any case, there's a consequence for their failure.

 

[iserith]

There's been a miscommunication here. My point is that someone isn't always mentally capable of solving a problem, even given unlimited time, not something necessarily impossible to begin with. The game rules can allow for the DM to call for a check if there's a possibility of success. If there's a secret door and you fail to locate the trigger mechanism, you shouldn't be guaranteed success simply because you take longer at it. The idea of it being in a different area (or one way door) shows how the character can't even guarantee they know what they're looking for. They could have simply overlooked the trigger, or even tried the trigger the wrong way, eliminating it from their future attempts.

As I mentioned in my original comment, this isn't something that many prefer as a playstyle, but a lot of us do. The key to allowing failure is to make sure that the adventure cannot fail due to a single die roll. The PCs might have to find a way around the secret door, figure out a way to bypass/destroy it, or simply not get whatever treasure/reward might be hidden inside. In any case, there's a consequence for their failure.

This really is just an error in reading the stakes in my view. The stakes aren't figure out how to open the secret door versus figure out how to open the secret door. In such a situation, no roll is necessary because the win and loss conditions are the same - success. Rather, the stakes are to figure out how to open the secret door without drawing unwanted attention versus figure out how to open it while drawing unwanted attention. It isn't "no matter what you roll, you succeed!" Far from it. Choose a setback that is a meaningful consequence in context and you're good. We're not disallowing failure as you suggest here. It's still a failure - progress combined with a setback (PHB, pg. 174).

Alternatively, if all the clues are present for the character to reasonably figure out how to open the secret door, but the outcome is still uncertain, then the meaningful consequence for failure can also be time spent on it, provided time matters. The character can keep at it in 10 minute increments, for example, and every increment or few increments the DM will make a wandering monster check. Or the clock is counting down to some kind of doom the characters don't want to occur. It's up to the player if it's worth spending time on it and how much.

If the clues are not present for the character to reasonably figure out how to open the secret door, perhaps because as you say the trigger is in some other room, then they spend the time on the task and fail, no roll. A generous DM might hint that the effort reveals that more clues need to be found and they just aren't here. They might then decide as you suggest to just crowbar the thing open or skip it altogether.

But roll the dice and nothing happens? Nah. Not in my game.

 

[robus]

This does indeed seem to be what the rules say. I too find it odd.

Yes an average cannot be a minimum by definition. Odd indeed.

 

[clearstream]

This does indeed seem to be what the rules say. I too find it odd.

Reliable Talent is more beneficial than the passive, because the guidance on using passives is when a task can be done repeatedly or for a secret determination. Say a rogue applies their proficiency with thieves' tools to disarm a trap, where failure will trigger that trap. Reliable talent will hedge against failure. Passive wouldn't apply.

 

[Raith5]

I mean, Wisdom is functionally the perception attribute in 5e. It encompasses interpersonal awareness as well as sensory awareness, but that’s what its uses cover.

I work in a university and I can say with a high degree of confidence that any relationship between Wisdom (or Intelligence for that matter) and perception is really low!

 

[Dragonsbane]

We use Perception is like Spot and Listen, Investigation is like Search.

Additionally, I use passive Perception, Investigation, Insight (like Sense Motive), and Survival (Tracking) as needed to prevent PCs from metagaming. It works really well, I have a little chart players keep updated with passive scores.

 

[clearstream]

This leads me to the claim I made in 4E as a joke. Let me play a dwarf, and I can make very roll in every skill challenge ever using Stamina

This is another fail forward technique, a very simple one. When you really want the players to succeed, but you want them to feel they earned that success, this is a technique you can use. It has its flaws, but used in moderation it can work. I like to call this "roll until success".

• There is a secret door here, roll Investigation to see if you understand how it works. [fail]
• You work the door roughly, and risk making excessive noise. Roll Stealth. [fail]
• The doors is now overbalanced and might crash to the floor, making a huge noise! Roll Strength to catch it! [fail]
• And so on, and on, and on...

It's not so much that the technique is inobvious, but I have other motives, and am concerned for relevance.

So far as motives go, I am not aiming to fail-forward. I'm happy to fail-think-of-another-approach, or fail-the-BBEG-wins-and-this-is-your-world-now. Fail-forward seems to imply that the characters must progress down the planned path. I'm not aiming for that.

Relevance is trickier. Our game system contains declarations of relevance, for example Strength (Athletics) is relevant to perpendicular climbs. What if I characterise a perpendicular obstacle as an ascent? I think we still say Strength (Athletics) is relevant because in language ascent might be a synonym of climb. We recently had a lengthy debate on what a Strength (Athletics) check would be relevant to, so evidently views can differ around the edges. But this is the set up - skill X is declared to be relevant to descriptions Y.

What about the consequence of the check? Is Strength (Athletics) relevant to "take 8d6 bludgeoning damage"? Relevance here is threaded through the falling mechanics. Is Strength (Athletics) relevant to "creatures notice you"? Again, around the edges, views are going to differ. One way of assessing relevance could be simply, the count of players who, once in possession of a rule and a description, believe that rule should give them leverage over that description. Leverage here means something like, ability to modify the narrative - to decide stochastically how it turns out. On that grounds, my premise is that many players (myself included) expect Strength (Athletics) to give them leverage in connection with a described perpendicular obstacle, and expect bludgeoning damage as a relevant consequence of failure in a describe ascent.

In fact your chain of skill checks might meet relevance quite well, without being justified on grounds of needing to fail forward for groups who aren't concerned to fail forward.

 

[clearstream]

One of the things I do not like about the game using Investigation to "deduce" how things work is that it runs completely counter to the idea of the DM putting things in place for the players to figure out.

I thought of a wording -

Perception is to notice creatures while Investigation is to deduce the implications of designs.

What I like about this is that "designs" is sufficiently vague that a DM might just offer clues, and it could cover plots and plans ("cunning designs" etc) as well as secret doors and traps ("architectural designs" etc).

What do you think?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I thought of a wording -

Perception is to notice creatures while Investigation is to deduce the implications of designs.

What I like about this is that "designs" is sufficiently vague that a DM might just offer clues, and it could cover plots and plans ("cunning designs" etc) as well as secret doors and traps ("architectural designs" etc).

What do you think?

Yeah, the wording works fine.

 

[iserith]

It's not so much that the technique is inobvious, but I have other motives, and am concerned for relevance.

So far as motives go, I am not aiming to fail-forward. I'm happy to fail-think-of-another-approach, or fail-the-BBEG-wins-and-this-is-your-world-now. Fail-forward seems to imply that the characters must progress down the planned path. I'm not aiming for that.

It's really not about a planned path. It's just a tool for adjudicating failure in ways that don't create other problems. It's particularly useful in some situations, but not all situations. Take for instance the DM's call for a check revealing something about a situation simply because there's a check. The player fails the roll, but knows that by virtue of there having been a roll, something is hidden in the scene or the like. Some DMs will look at this situation and either insist that the player "stop metagaming!" or use a secret roll or phantom rolls to throw players off. If the DM narrates progress combined with a setback instead, none of this is necessary because the character finds the thing, but some kind of setback occurs as well. No need for browbeating players about "metagaming" or making secret or phantom rolls at all.