Those weren’t “narrative flourishes,” they were essential components to evaluating the action and resolving its outcome. Without a description of exactly how the character is “searching for secret doors,” the only answer I can give is, “not enough information,” so I filled in the missing information with a couple of examples to try and give you a more satisfying answer. I think there is a fundamental disconnect in the way you and I approach the game if you can substitute specific details about the character’s approach and what they learn from it with “narrative, narrative”. For my DMing style, narrative is as important to the core resolution mechanic as the results of dice rolls, if not more so.
Almost like the character exists in an internally consistent world and have to interact with it as such. Imagine that.
No, because that action has an uncertain outcome and therefore must be resolved with dice. For the action you described, the goal is “I want to kill the orc,” and the approach is “by swinging my axe at him.” This approach has a reasonable chance of achieving the desired outcome (you could hit him in the face and kill him) a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the desired outcome (you could miss or fail to land a hit with enough impact to kill), and consequences for failure (the orc is still alive and probably none too happy about your axe having been swung at him). So, I rely on the standard means of resolving this uncertain outcome, which in 5th edition means an attack roll to see if the attack hits and a damage roll to see if it does enough damage to kill. Whether or not you succeeded in achieving your goal, and how well you did should be plainly obvious, so there’s no reason to conceal the results of the dice rolls. And in fact, I would be hard pressed to come up with a situation where the outcome was uncertain and the results wouldn’t be obvious enough for it to be appropriate for the players to see the roll results.
You mean as to whether the lack of seam in the mortar indicates the lack of a secret door? Yes. What they know is that no seam can be found. They must form their own conclusions based on that information.
Ok, but this is a world made by me, a person who is invested in the players’ enjoyment. I don’t really care what’s historically accurate, I care what gives the players the opportunity to interact in meaningful ways with the world I’ve created, which means giving them the appropriate cues to form meaningful conclusions and make meaningful decisions. If there is a secret door, I’m going to give them some kind of information to tip them off about it, even if it’s not true to how they “realistically” would have been constructed or whatever. Heck, if there’s a secret door, I’m going to frame the scene in a way that tips the players off that there’s something to be found here before anyone even starts looking.
“I’m no expert of masonry either, we’re just playing make-believe here. Try something and if there’s something to be found I’ll do my best to make sure you have enough information to draw your own conclusions. Worst comes to worst, if you’re not sure how to interpret the information available to you, I’ll give you a likely interpretation with a successful Intelligence Investigation check.” That is, by the way, why I run the Perception/Investigation split the way I do. Passive Perception will let you notice there’s something to be found (as you walk into the room, you feel an odd draft.) Active Perception will let you find hidden sensory information you might have missed with the passive check (It seems to be coming from a spot on the wall where the natural stone appears slightly recessed.) Investigation to interpret that information. (The draft is most likely coming from a seam in a hidden door.”
look, i get it you use narrative and like a lot of it for your interaction. fine. i get that. What i meant by narrative flourish was that for this post we really don't benefit from a full paragraph of wording every time we need to discuss resolution.
But here is the disconnect i see from the outlined approaches listed above...
for fighting, because the outcome is uncertain, the narrative requirement is (it seems) lowered based on the difference in your example quotes" and the results given are actual outcomes, not data that they then have to interpret on their own maybe requiring another INT check to figure out "did i actually score HP?".
for checking for secret doors in a room without them (where the true outcome was never in doubt, , the narrative requirement is higher (at least in that it may lead to not a good way to find traps) and the results are given in data they then have to interpret, possibly requiring a second roll to get to even an assessment of confidence.
I can imagine a whole lot of cases in a standard DnD game where, as a player, i cannot give reasonable answers to "how are you..." or then interpret the results to reach a separate conclusion. I am no blacksmith, no herbalist, no healer, no medic, etc etc etc.
i am certainly no weaver of arcane energies either BTW.
If my doctor IRL handed me a page of my test results and said "you interpret them yourself", i would seek a different doctor. If my inspector showed me his report and told me to figure it out, i would not pay them.
If my GM made it so that if *i* did not have the expertise *my character* would be worse off at certain roles... you get the picture.
But also...
"I’m no expert of masonry either, we’re just playing make-believe here. Try something and if there’s something to be found I’ll do my best to make sure you have enough information to draw your own conclusions. "
"Those weren’t “narrative flourishes,” they were essential components to evaluating the action and resolving its outcome."
those two statements of method and assessment seem to be at odds.
One emphasizes the specific of how the player describes the attempt being done as essential evaluating the action and its outcome. the other is saying "just try something" and the result will work out we hope.
Do you not think there is a bit of difference in those two levels of importance?
Do you not see the issue some may have with having to interpret results in a "certain outcome" case but being given better info on results in a "chance of failure" case?
