D&D 5E Should Intuition be a skill/ability?

[abirdcall]

It seems like you are only allowing for your own interpretation of the rules. A passive perception check says it "can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
A PC can breathe without actively trying. A PC can make a Death Save without having the ability to make an action. I believe Passive Perception uses the word "passive" for a reason.
Is there a chance I can spot something without actively trying to? Of course there is, happens all the time. Instincts and muscle memory are examples of how I would define passive. These are not something I do actively; they are subconscious, which in game terms I would define as passive.

The 'passive' in passive checks refers to the method of doing the check. In a passive check there is no rolling, so it is passive.

It has nothing to do with what the character is doing.

 

[mrpopstar]

I call for a Wisdom check when you try to get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow.
There is no skill that pertains to intuition so I do not allow you to add your proficiency bonus.

 

[Bawylie]

It's intruding upon the rules-prescribed role of the player regardless of the player's consent. I wouldn't do it at the player's request either. The game works better in my view when everyone sticks to their roles.

Sticks to their roles and performs those roles sufficiently.

I’ve seen as many holes in DMs’ descriptions as I have in players’ declarations.

It’s perhaps a natural consequence of insufficient scenario-writing or scene-framing that players seek out “gut checks.”

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I go with passive investigation sometimes.
It helps when something seems off.
A wall that seems out of placeillusion/interior smaller than esxterior suggests).
A bookshelve that looks strangely placed (covering a secret door).
A staue that does not fit to the rest of the room or a stalagtite that does not have a stalagmite below in a quite dry cave (a monster that has false appearance trait - > volo's guide allows investigation against DC 20 for such situations).

All those situations could be called gut feeling. But actually it is your brain noticing things intuitively. That can be intelligence more than wisdom ams it is passive rather than active.
Other things are covered by passive wisdom (insight/perception).

 

[plisnithus8]

"Passive" refers to the fact that there are no dice.

I always assumed Passive modified Perception rather than Check since it is usually referred to as Passive Perception, passively perceiving instead passively checking. It’s not a massive paradigm shift, but the nuance is noted. I appreciate your explanation.

D&D 5e game defines roleplaying as "...you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." It goes on to say "Roleplaying is part of every aspect of the game..." and goes on to explain active and descriptive roleplaying. There is no support in the game for the DM doing this for the players with the exception of the magical compulsion or the like.

I’m not saying the player shouldn’t control their character. I’m saying that in some instances, rare instances (I’m not advocating doing this very often), describing stimuli within a character can be just as effective as external environmental stimuli. A DM could tell your PC that it feels its skin itch, a tear roll down its cheek, its stomach become nauseous, its head become dizzy, its heart begins pounding, it feels drunk, it feels like it might soon lose control, loneliness slaps it in the face, or that the orphan reminds it of its deceased sister. These are all the onset of feelings or brief thoughts that describe environment or random ideas. As a DM I wouldn’t push any mechanical weight on them. They are stimuli for the player to use their agency to react to how they want. Or not, ignore them. Or improvise upon. If a DM wanted to use madness in a campaign, wouldn’t they need to describe what a PC imagines? If the campaign is dream-based, the mind would be the environment. I have players make Intelligence checks if they have forgotten something, not punishing them for bad note-taking or things forgotten because of intervals between sessions. Most Intellifence checks tell players information that their character thought about. It’s not about controlling the player — it’s about helping them have an immersive experience.

I'd also like to hear how you think your game would be impacted if you just stopped doing it altogether.

It would go back to the way we used to play, without the peak dramatic moments that DM and player can create together in the instances described above. The intuition idea actually started with a player asking for the PC’s gut feeling. There was a need for control or a push to railroad. Sure, sometimes it could be used as a crutch such as if the DM’s mystery is too difficult, but I’d give the DM grace to help the players if they understand each other well enough or mutually agreed upon using such a mechanic.

I understand not wanting to be controlled (as I was mentioned above I was by a DM) and being careful, reading rules as they are most easily interpreted.
When a player starts describing the building in front of them without the DM’s input, my first reaction is to tell them to stop; it’s not your role to do that. But, you know what, most of the time, that creativity only adds to the game. It’s can be okay to not always stick to the roles within the role-playing.

 

[iserith]

I always assumed Passive modified Perception rather than Check since it is usually referred to as Passive Perception, passively perceiving instead passively checking. It’s not a massive paradigm shift, but the nuance is noted. I appreciate your explanation.

Sure thing. This has been an issue since the game's launch. Many threads on this.

I’m not saying the player shouldn’t control their character. I’m saying that in some instances, rare instances (I’m not advocating doing this very often), describing stimuli within a character can be just as effective as external environmental stimuli.

Yes, you are saying that it's okay to carve out exceptions to the player controlling his or her character beyond magical compulsion. I don't think that's a good idea for the reasons noted.

A DM could tell your PC that it feels its skin itch, a tear roll down its cheek, its stomach become nauseous, its head become dizzy, its heart begins pounding, it feels drunk, it feels like it might soon lose control, loneliness slaps it in the face, or that the orphan reminds it of its deceased sister. These are all the onset of feelings or brief thoughts that describe environment or random ideas. As a DM I wouldn’t push any mechanical weight on them. They are stimuli for the player to use their agency to react to how they want. Or not, ignore them. Or improvise upon. If a DM wanted to use madness in a campaign, wouldn’t they need to describe what a PC imagines? If the campaign is dream-based, the mind would be the environment. I have players make Intelligence checks if they have forgotten something, not punishing them for bad note-taking or things forgotten because of intervals between sessions. Most Intellifence checks tell players information that their character thought about. It’s not about controlling the player — it’s about helping them have an immersive experience.

In some cases, you're straying from the definition you asked me for upthread.

It would go back to the way we used to play, without the peak dramatic moments that DM and player can create together in the instances described above. The intuition idea actually started with a player asking for the PC’s gut feeling. There was a need for control or a push to railroad. Sure, sometimes it could be used as a crutch such as if the DM’s mystery is too difficult, but I’d give the DM grace to help the players if they understand each other well enough or mutually agreed upon using such a mechanic.

Inherent in your assertion is that the DM not establishing the feelings of the character means the game would not have "peak dramatic moments that DM and player can create together." Is that what you mean to say?

But you also mention "it could be used as a crutch," and as @Bawylie says above, this method of the DM declaring the feelings of the character instead of the player is often a symptom of the DM inadequately describing the situation. A player might ask for a "gut check" because he or she lacks sufficient information to make informed, meaningful decisions. The examples of the Green Knight upthread perfectly highlight how the DM falls short on the front end with description then has to correct it later after the player asks for a "gut check" (and via a secret DM roll no less). This is a solution to a problem the DM has created, as I suggested way upthread. DMs are famous for coming up with solutions to problems they themselves create without correcting the underlying issue.

I understand not wanting to be controlled (as I was mentioned above I was by a DM) and being careful, reading rules as they are most easily interpreted.
When a player starts describing the building in front of them without the DM’s input, my first reaction is to tell them to stop; it’s not your role to do that. But, you know what, most of the time, that creativity only adds to the game. It’s can be okay to not always stick to the roles within the role-playing.

D&D 4e indirectly supported this approach by openly advocating for "Yes, and..." improvisation techniques, but so far as I can tell, D&D 5e does not. Different games, different approaches.

 

[Guest 6801328]

DMs can describe how the smell of a rotten corpse makes the rogue inspecting it feel: "Your stomach begins to knot up, and you feel as if you will soon vomit." The DM can rely the feelings of nostalgia that the barbarian feels upon seeing his grandfather's grave: "You miss Hornburs hand on your shoulder when you used to go out fishing, and you can't help but think about he would watch you out of the corner of his eye when you caught your first quipper,"

I'm with @iserith on this one. What you describe is, of course, quite common, but I don't like the DM telling me what my character thinks and feels.

In the first case, the awfulness of the corpse can be conveyed with telling the player their reaction.

In the second case, leave it to the player to roleplay the nostalgia.

 

[plisnithus8]

Inherent in your assertion is that the DM not establishing the feelings of the character means the game would not have "peak dramatic moments that DM and player can create together." Is that what you mean to say?

Yes. The game would miss the moments that that would create, not that there wouldn't be other peak moments.

But you also mention "it could be used as a crutch,"

Almost anything can be a crutch or harmful if executed poorly.

DM declaring the feelings of the character instead of the player is often a symptom of the DM inadequately describing the situation.

I have not seen the research on this to see if it is done often or not, but I still think describing the environment can involve setting a mood and describing how something initially makes someone feel.

Low level PCs walk into a chamber unsuspectingly, and Orcus (or some high-level monster that doesn't have Frightening Presence) appears. The DM could describe the heck out of the monster to hope to establish the feeling without telling the PCs how they feel, but telling the PCs they feel frightened by this situation could work better. Telling them the hairs on the back of their neck rise, their heartbeat quickens, their pupils dilate are possibilities. I wouldn't apply any mechanics to the situation. The players have full agency of what they do: give in to the fear by running away or curl up in a ball, fight back the fear and attack or spout an insult, whatever. A DM might even roll an Intimidation check for the monster -- I don't expect a DM to be able to speak as intimidatingly as a demon lord. But again, I let the roll be a random factor for that instance so the players are informed so that can decide how their character might act in such a situation.

It seems a lot of talk holds a DM to an unreasonably high standard of description and plot layout while players should have unlimited agency and be able to decide on anything about their character, even things that people don't get to decide like stray thoughts and initial feelings. I don't feel these should be absolutes.

D&D 4e indirectly supported this approach by openly advocating for "Yes, and..." improvisation techniques, but so far as I can tell, D&D 5e does not. Different games, different approaches.

The books may not advocate for it directly (but certainly don't prohibit it), but it seems the pendulum is swinging back in that direction, especially with the popularity of streamed games (many from officially or semi-officially sanctioned by WotC) that use this technique and new players wanting to play in that style.

 

[plisnithus8]

In the first case, the awfulness of the corpse can be conveyed with telling the player their reaction.

I don't understand. You are saying a DM should never tell you how to think or feel, but they should tell you how to react?
The DM mandating a PC's reaction seems a lot more controlling than offering stray thoughts and initial feelings.

 

[iserith]

Yes. The game would miss the moments that that would create, not that there wouldn't be other peak moments.

So in other words, if DMs and players are looking to have "peak dramatic moments" in their games, nobody actually needs to do what you're advocating.

I have not seen the research on this to see if it is done often or not, but I still think describing the environment can involve setting a mood and describing how something initially makes someone feel.

I DM, play in, and observe a lot of games. A great many DMs from what I can tell use the method you ascribe to. "You think..." and "You feel..." is peppered throughout their games, pushing the PCs into particular directions or reactions. Almost always it's in response to a question by the player because the DM's description was inadequate. It's a fairly common approach in my experience, but one that demands a critical look in my view.

I challenge everyone reading this to count the number of times the DM does this in a game they're in or watching on Twitch or whatever. It's interesting. You can judge for yourself if it's being done to create "peak dramatic moments" or if it's really just a solution to correct for a problem the DM is creating or a way for the DM to push play in particular directions, such as to keep people on the plot or to create the DM's desired outcome to the story.

Low level PCs walk into a chamber unsuspectingly, and Orcus (or some high-level monster that doesn't have Frightening Presence) appears. The DM could describe the heck out of the monster to hope to establish the feeling without telling the PCs how they feel, but telling the PCs they feel frightened by this situation could work better. Telling them the hairs on the back of their neck rise, their heartbeat quickens, their pupils dilate are possibilities. I wouldn't apply any mechanics to the situation. The players have full agency of what they do: give in to the fear by running away or curl up in a ball, fight back the fear and attack or spout an insult, whatever. A DM might even roll an Intimidation check for the monster -- I don't expect a DM to be able to speak as intimidatingly as a demon lord. But again, I let the roll be a random factor for that instance so the players are informed so that can decide how their character might act in such a situation.

As DM I don't care even a little bit about how a player chooses to respond to a situation. That's none of my concern, provided that what they're doing is fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story (which are the goals of play outlined in the rules). In part, I'm playing to find out what they do in the face of what I present. Putting my thumb on the scale by telling them what their own characters feel does a disservice to my players and to my goals as DM. I certainly would not "roll an Intimidation check for the monster" because there is no uncertainty as to the outcome since the player always decides how the character reacts which means the prerequisite for the ability check was not met in the first place.

What the DM is doing in your example above, when you boil it down, is putting social pressure on the player to respond in a way that is in line with the description. The DM may not even realize this is what is occurring. You may say the player can do as he or she likes, but if the player doesn't react within a range of options that the DM's description suggests is appropriate, then it just looks weird and out of place in front of everyone at the table. Players who don't want to seem like they are doing something weird or out of place in front of other people will therefore modify their reaction to be in line with what the DM said their characters are feeling. It's a bit of DM manipulation.

Further, if I'm playing my fighter who has a personality trait of "I can stare down a hell hound without flinching" (from the Soldier background) and you tell me my character feels queasy about a rotten corpse (to build on your example upthread), you have done me a disservice in my view. It's up to me to decide how my fighter responds to the rotten corpse. It is not up to the DM and I would remind you of that right then and there. And that response from me would not be out of line with what I have seen in other games: The DM tells a player how their character reacts and the player objects because it's not in line with how the player imagines his or her character and now the game has to pause so this can be resolved. This can be avoided by simply not doing what you advocate.

And so, given this, not only do we not need this approach to create "peak dramatic moments," but we should also be wary of it because it can create a conflict between the DM and player.

It seems a lot of talk holds a DM to an unreasonably high standard of description and plot layout while players should have unlimited agency and be able to decide on anything about their character, even things that people don't get to decide like stray thoughts and initial feelings. I don't feel these should be absolutes.

The game lays out what each person in the game is responsible for. It does not set forth an "unreasonably high standard of description and plot layout." In fact, it says very simply "The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves." That's all the DM is asked to do and it's so the players can make reasonably informed decisions. Among those decisions might be to express fear or the like in the face of what is presented to them. But that's for the player decide when he or she performs his or her role in the game which is "The players describe what they want to do" via active or descriptive roleplaying.

The books may not advocate for it directly (but certainly don't prohibit it), but it seems the pendulum is swinging back in that direction, especially with the popularity of streamed games (many from officially or semi-officially sanctioned by WotC) that use this technique and new players wanting to play in that style.

I would suggest they need to take a harder look at DMs telling players what their characters think and feel and how they act. Especially since, as has been shown, it's totally unnecessary and can lead to problems at the table.