So recent discussions, as well as some additional non-DDB reading, have gotten me thinking about the nature of skill checks (more correctly, if less commonly, known as ability checks) and how they influence our games. Most everyone here is (I hope) familiar with the common issue often called “rollplaying”, in which players don’t bother to describe actions or narrate their character’s decisions, but instead say “I make an Arcana check – what does a 17 get me?” Rollplaying is a severe issue and one that can wreck entire campaigns, though fortunately it’s fairly straightforward to train someone out of it.
I was contemplating this problem, as a campaign I’ve just started playing in has an issue with rollplaying and I’m determined to provide a better example...but this got me thinking about skills in general, and one stood out to me as being endemic of rollplaying in general and possibly intrinsically harmful to 5e.
And that is Investigation.
The Investigation skill, to quote the PHB on the matter, is used: “When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.”
This seems straightforward enough, a perfectly legitimate use of Intelligence...but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. Primarily because of one particular sticking point.
All of these are things the player should be doing. Not the character.
The more I pondered this issue, as well as my own Investigation-focused characters, the more I understood why Investigation is often (if erroneously) treated as “careful, hands-on Perception” rather than a knowledge check, and why its uses elsewhere seem so off-kilter.
Let’s assume we have a rogue trained in Investigation who’s searching a mayor’s desk for signs of political corruption. A pretty classic, traditionally accepted case of Investigation. A rollplayer would simply say “Investigation check on the desk, 23. What do I find?”, and would promptly be smacked down by any DM worth their salt. A more typical player might say something like “I rifle through the desk, delicately pulling the drawers open and feeling around inside, looking to see if the dimensions feel off and trying to feel around for hidden catches.”
If a player declared that action to most GMs, the GM would call for an Investigation roll to see if the player found anything. Ho-hum, who cares, typical D&D. But I found myself wondering why. A rules lawyer would say “Um actually, that’s a Perception roll, not an Investigation roll”...and they would be right. The rogue is using their sense of touch to try and discern if anything feels odd or out of place, and using one’s senses to determine if something is odd or out of place is Perception, not Investigation.
So what is Investigation for, in this case? The PHB says it’s for making logical deductions, drawing connections between disparate clues, noticing patterns, or identifying non-obvious information.
All of which are things a good GM tries to get their players to do with their own brains.
Rolling Investigation, by the PHB’s standards of Investigation, is more-or-less equivalent to telling the GM that you’re giving up and would like the GM to give you the answer, provided you shiny math rocks number is big enough. Almost everything the Investigation skill accounts for are the things a player is supposed to be doing themselves, with no more assistance from the GM than a good, solid, consistent description of the scene.
Making logical deductions? That’s for the player to do, not for the GM to do for the player. The player rolling a die and saying “my Knows-Things number is [X], what does that let me know?” is not fun, engaging, or proper roleplaying.
Drawing connections between disparate clues? Again – that’s for the player to do. Rolling a die and saying “Is this number high enough for me to solve the mystery?” is terrible gameplay and makes it almost impossible to conduct any sort of proper mystery games/sessions.
Noticing patterns? Once more – that’s something a GM wants the players to do, not the dice. If the GM is deliberately establishing patterns for their players to pick up on, a player casually throwing a d20 and saying “does this let me know the plot?” is going to incense them. And frankly, if a GM is not deliberately establishing patterns, a player can throw all the dice in the world and get nothing. But if Alice-the-cleric says “Say, have you guys ever noticed...?” and lays out a pattern the GM had no idea they were laying down? Well. That is a super cool moment, and something the GM can absolutely use to better the game.
Virtually the only use of Investigation which does not come at the expense of the players actually playing the game is the somewhat ‘meta’ use of Investigation, i.e. “do I know how to know things?” Casing a city for information on a recent crime wave, spending the day talking to people or pouring over old documents, can be summarized by an Investigation roll since very few players want to go through that tedium. The “identifying non-obvious information” aspect of Investigation, i.e. finding a structural weakness in a wall or locating the one piece of pertinent lore in an entire library, are legitimate uses of Investigation.
But they’re also legitimate uses of other, more useful and interesting proficiencies.
Identifying the weaknesses in a stone wall could be Investigation, sure – but it’s better as an Intelligence (Mason’s Tools) check. You need to know how stone is used to build before you can spot weaknesses. Identifying what weapon might have caused a wound in a body is as much an Intelligence (Medicine) check as it is an Investigation check, or perhaps it’s even an Intelligence (Martial Weapons) check, since knowing weaponry is likely the key factor in being able to know what weapon might have caused a wound. Virtually everything Investigation does could be reclassified as a different proficiency, or a different ability score altogether.
Investigation has, historically, been one of my favorite skill proficiencies. I love being the keen-minded tactician and investigator tasked with doing the Brain Work. But that’s primarily because our table treats Investigation as ‘Slow, Careful, Hands-on Perception’ rather than doing the actual Brain Work, and that’s simply not correct. It’s valid if a table wishes to interpret Investigation that way, but it feels like a disservice in some ways as well. And using Investigation the way the PHB intended it to be used actively gets in the way of playing the game properly. It becomes a “GIMME CLUE” button players can press when they don’t want to put in the work to analyze their information themselves, and with my DM Hat on, I am increasingly unwilling to let players get away with having Lazy Buttons.
What about you guys? What are your thoughts in Investigation, rollplaying, and substituting skill checks for skill?
I got through most of it and I think the point was essentially, "Investigation is a mechanical crutch for players interacting with their world and discourages actual puzzle solving, sleuthing, et al."
To which my response would be, it entirely depends on the play style. The game world is infinitely large, and the players can only imagine what is actually happening. The player playing a rogue probably isn't actually a trained burglar, so the idea of checking for hidden catches might not even cross their mind.
If a table is playing D&D like a board game, where the characters are just a token for the player, then sure, put the onus on the players to solve all of the obstacles themselves. Build the game for the players, not the characters.
However, if the table is playing D&D like a realistic world, then the DM is likely to introduce elements that are entirely new to the players, but not the characters they play. The characters should be doing things that the players themselves can't, or won't. Conversely, the player running an INT 6 Barbarian might actually have a PhD in Advanced Mathematics, allowing them to trivialize puzzles that their character shouldn't actually have a chance at solving.
It's an interesting line to walk, and ought to be flexible to maximize enjoyment, but there isn't a wrong answer. At a certain point, controlling the flow is up to the DM. Treat Investigation checks as clues, but don't let it "solve" the encounter. Bring the player to decision points and ask for specifics.
At the end of the day, D&D is fantasy fulfilment, and forcing players to actually struggle who don't want to struggle isn't likely to be in anyone's best interest.
My take is that rolls need to be sometimes substituting the skill of a player because:
1. Many people often overestimate their own skill and intelligence, especially in regards to their own characters
2. The DM is not all knowing as well - rolling Investigation check that will tell the rogue that they correctly deduced how the mechanism of the trap is working does not require me to be an expert locksmith in order to run a game.
3. Sometimes players are just stuck because, let's be honest, they sit at the table and don't walk in shoes of their characters. The goal might be for the DM to create an eureka moment for the players but if that doesn't happen then well...
Just watch the first Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey Jr. - there is a scene at the table where Holmes makes a bunch of deductions that are, frankly, beyond a typical player's skill level. The roll needs to bridge that gap because - again - we play characters who are usually better at doing this stuff than we are.
I agree with your observations here. For myself, I understand D&D to be a roll-playing game where dice are used to resolve conflict. The problem is when dice are used to generate narrative and action where there is no conflict to resolve. Perception/Insight/Investigation are all kind of a jumbled mess in the same way athletics/acrobatics sometimes step on each other. Things only get more complicated when, as you noted, tool proficiency comes into the mix. When the DM understands the players' motives then many of these issues can be resolved faster and prevent unnecessary theater/frustration (e.g. "I search the table." "What are you looking for?" "A clue that would explain..." [there is no clue in the table] "You don't find anything. And, really, there's nothing to find in there."). DMs really need to consider when it's appropriate to create mystery, doubt, suspicion, etc. otherwise they might find they're just creating environments that encourage overthinking and player paranoia.
Any dice check (skills, ability, saves) can be harmful if it's not used to resolve specific conflict. Where the player or DM create adequate narrative, there is no conflict.
There’s one fatal flaw in your reasoning Yurei. How the eff is “the player” supposed to search/investigate/find anything in the mayor’s desk?!? “The player” is here in the real world, and the mayor’s desk is in fantasyland with the player’s character. The player can’t do squat all to that mayor’s desk. That’s why they need their character to do it for them.
If some players and DMs want their game to work the way you want them huzzah for them. If others want to just roll Investigation and get the results, let them have at it. Who the heck are any of us to tell them their fun is wrong?!?
Finding a puzzle or a clue to a puzzle isn't the same as solving the puzzle. Investigation is a great skill to use for determining if and how many clues you find, especially when you have to hurry or are hindered in some way, but those are clues - they're not the evil plot that's afoot. It's the skill for research, but doesn't necessarily tell you what that research is useful for. Perception might allow you to spot a hidden book; Investigation can tell you it's a ledger of sorts and that the odd structure of the data in it is likely a code, but neither is going to just give you the encoded information in the book (though depending on the code, I might let Investigation give a clue as to how the code might work). Perception can let you notice a trap, Investigation can help you figure out how it functions, and depending on how elaborate or artful it is set up the players may still need to come up with a way to circumvent it. There are certainly ways to make both skills useful in their own way without allowing them to eliminate any and all need for player ingenuity.
That aside, through the use of Investigation you "might deduce the location of a hidden object". As such, there's certainly some overlap with Perception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My problem with the OP's suggestions are that my character will have a lot more knowledge about doing the job than I will.
If we want to take the rogue rifling through the desk example. A trained, experienced and skilled rogue will know just where to look, where hidden latches typically are hidden, how to tell if a drawer has a false bottom, etc. I've never rifled through a mayor's drawer (or anyone else's for that matter. I've had a rather sheltered life) in search of a hidden compartment, so I wouldn't begin to know how to do these things. Sure, I may have seen it in a movie, but that's a far cry from actually doing the thing. Probably there are things besides latches and false bottoms, and I don't even know what they are, but my rogue PC sure would.
Or solving a puzzle. I like to think I'm a pretty smart, intuitive person, but I'm not a 20 INT level of smart or 20 WIS intuitive. How could I possibly role play my high-INT or high-WIS character coming to a conclusion when I personally would not be capable of reaching that conclusion on my own. The character would simply be able to think of things that I would not and could not.
Making a roll lets me play a character who can do things I can't and knows things I don't.
I'm soft on Investigation/Perception boundaries. As someone who's done IRL research and investigations of academic/historic, journalistic and legal (civil and criminal) nature (yes my resume is weird) I can say you can actually see IRL people who are more INT oriented and others more WIS oriented when it comes to analytic and intuitive methods arriving at the same ends.
That said, in the actual description of Investigation in the basic rules, one usage cited is "Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check." That application is the classic "research" or "investigation" skill found throughout TTRPGs. There is no interesting way any game will ever capture an intellectual hunt for information in a library beyond making some DM fluff referencing the Library of Congress Zoom out shot in All the President's Men and then having the PC roll investigation (or investigation based skill challenge for the party). I am not going to make my party go through the cross referencing, corroborating and often translating material when a character is working their intellect any more than I would have them draw me a blue print and structural analysis if they're going to shore up the ceiling to a mine.
Investigation (and maybe laterally perception) are ways the DM can through the Player a bone reflective of the what the Character's mental faculties are capable of grokking. And sometimes, the DM just isn't that brilliant in their puzzle design (how many threads of "I spent so much time on this puzzle and my players didn't get it" show up on this board, blame shift much?) and needs to draw them a more sensible map through investigation checks.
Lastly, there's player vs player tension. Sometimes a player may feel, and in some instance may actually be, smarter than another player. But the stats and skills reflect differently. If I play a high INT with investigation expertise, what do I have to do to "earn" my rolls? DM adjudicates good faith play and lets rolls occur accordingly, or we land in another thread lit up around here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
IME the big problem with Investigation is that no-one can actually figure out what it's for, most of the obvious things you could use it for overlap with perception, insight, or persuasion.
There’s one fatal flaw in your reasoning Yurei. How the eff is “the player” supposed to search/investigate/find anything in the mayor’s desk?!? “The player” is here in the real world, and the mayor’s desk is in fantasyland with the player’s character. The player can’t do squat all to that mayor’s desk. That’s why they need their character to do it for them.
If some players and DMs want their game to work the way you want them huzzah for them. If others want to just roll Investigation and get the results, let them have at it. Who the heck are any of us to tell them their fun is wrong?!?
Yeah, D&D is not a video game where you can pixel hunt for the interactive object on screen. A player shouldn't be penalized for not being able to think of looking in the exact spot to find the needed McGuffin any more than they should be penalized because they can't hit a target 100 feet away with a longbow. That's what their character's skills are for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
My problem with the OP's suggestions are that my character will have a lot more knowledge about doing the job than I will.
If we want to take the rogue rifling through the desk example. A trained, experienced and skilled rogue will know just where to look, where hidden latches typically are hidden, how to tell if a drawer has a false bottom, etc. I've never rifled through a mayor's drawer (or anyone else's for that matter. I've had a rather sheltered life) in search of a hidden compartment, so I wouldn't begin to know how to do these things. Sure, I may have seen it in a movie, but that's a far cry from actually doing the thing. Probably there are things besides latches and false bottoms, and I don't even know what they are, but my rogue PC sure would.
Or solving a puzzle. I like to think I'm a pretty smart, intuitive person, but I'm not a 20 INT level of smart or 20 WIS intuitive. How could I possibly role play my high-INT or high-WIS character coming to a conclusion when I personally would not be capable of reaching that conclusion on my own. The character would simply be able to think of things that I would not and could not.
Making a roll lets me play a character who can do things I can't and knows things I don't.
That is a great point. I have watched several Chris Ramsay videos where he plays with intricate puzzle boxes and it is astounding how some mechanisms can work. It is humbling as well :)
You have to look at this another way. The Investigation skill is just as valuable as any other skill.
But the key is this: The DM should be rolling the dice, and modifying with the char's bonuses, and then telling the player "you found something" when something was to be found, and "you found nothing" if there is nothing to be found OR the DM rolled a low value. It should be treated the same as any passive check, even though it is an active check. Same for many other active checks, like Perception.
This concept adds a huge load to the DM's already full plate, but creates way more immersion, and the player/char wall issue disappears.
You have to look at this another way. The Investigation skill is just as valuable as any other skill.
But the key is this: The DM should be rolling the dice, and modifying with the char's bonuses, and then telling the player "you found something" when something was to be found, and "you found nothing" if there is nothing to be found OR the DM rolled a low value. It should be treated the same as any passive check, even though it is an active check. Same for many other active checks, like Perception.
This concept adds a huge load to the DM's already full plate, but creates way more immersion, and the player/char wall issue disappears.
I don't think that changes a whole lot in practice. I don't allow rerolls (I don't think many DMs do), so knowing you rolled low doesn't let you get around the fact that you rolled low. I'll describe why a roll is low (the light got in your eyes; the librarian took his sweet time bringing you the books you requested, so you were pressed for time; the room is so cluttered with nicnacs that looking for something that's out of order is like trying to find a needle in a haystack; etc), that feels more immersive to me than the players having no idea whether their character had an off day or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You have to look at this another way. The Investigation skill is just as valuable as any other skill.
But the key is this: The DM should be rolling the dice, and modifying with the char's bonuses, and then telling the player "you found something" when something was to be found, and "you found nothing" if there is nothing to be found OR the DM rolled a low value. It should be treated the same as any passive check, even though it is an active check. Same for many other active checks, like Perception.
This concept adds a huge load to the DM's already full plate, but creates way more immersion, and the player/char wall issue disappears.
I don't think that changes a whole lot in practice. I don't allow rerolls (I don't think many DMs do), so knowing you rolled low doesn't let you get around the fact that you rolled low. I'll describe why a roll is low (the light got in your eyes; the librarian took his sweet time bringing you the books you requested, so you were pressed for time; the room is so cluttered with nicnacs that looking for something that's out of order is like trying to find a needle in a haystack; etc), that feels more immersive to me than the players having no idea whether their character had an off day or not.
It does cut out meta-gaming, but that is another subject, only somewhat related to this one.
I totally agree with OP, but I think Investigation is far from the only culprit here, though it might be the worst. I’ve found Persuasion in particular to have a similar issue, where a player doesn’t roleplay and just spins the dice, or roleplays really well and still gets screwed over. It’s at a point where I usually just let players roleplay their way through social encounters, and only ask for checks if they don’t.
Surely this issue applies to all skills and abilities that a character might have? The players are not the characters, the characters are a made up usually heroic representation of what the player wants to imagine themselves being for that game. I am an ex army medic and also previously a British Fencing club coach, so I have hands on experience in the military using a variety of modern weapons as well as fencing weapons, but I'm not able to wang around a great axe, or a sword and shield while wearing heavy armour. My degree was medical physics and human anatomy and physiology, which means I know a lot about the body and vulnerable spots which you could say might be akin to sneak attacks, and when you combine it with my fencing and fighting with light and primarily dex based weapons you could say I fit the rogue type character. But I personally know next to nothing about picking locks and creating or disarming poison dart traps, or huge axes swinging from the walls etc. My military fieldcraft and survival training give me some great outdoorsman type skills but I'm no druid or ranger. I love listening to music but I am tone deaf, I personally have the charisma of a damp squid, and would make a terrible lead singer, or public speaker, and my artwork is still at the level of stick figures.
That's the point of character skills and abilities, they allow us to play imaginary characters that can do things and act in ways that we as players can not and would not do in real life. If you expect the player to actually 'do' the investigation and explain it in detail do you ask your bard player to bring his guitar? Do you give the rogue player an actual padlock and tell her to pick it first? Or the ranger/druid player to get a map out and create a route card for their overland journeys? No of course you don't. It's a fantasy game, where real world people get to switch off from their 9-5 jobs and the stresses of their lives, and pretend to be a hero who wanders the land saving the world, capturing the baddies and earning fame and fortune for a couple of hours. If you want absolute realism or a simulation then go turn your computer on and play the Sims.
I totally agree with OP, but I think Investigation is far from the only culprit here, though it might be the worst. I’ve found Persuasion in particular to have a similar issue, where a player doesn’t roleplay and just spins the dice, or roleplays really well and still gets screwed over. It’s at a point where I usually just let players roleplay their way through social encounters, and only ask for checks if they don’t.
That can be incredibly unfair, and I must say unbalancing.
Some folk are outgoing, flamboyant, and have great acting abilities. If you're running your game in which this counts more than a roll, players could use Ch as a dump stat for their 6 and get no penalty. According to what you said, they would get a bonus for good roleplay instead.
How is that fair when compared to someone who is quiet and possibly socially awkward who puts an 18 in CH so they get a bonus but can't act out what they want their character to say or do?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I'm a frequent critic of the idea that throwing dice can substitute for a player's imagination and talent. Absolutely a 5e character can do things its player would never be able to, but the player still has to be able to envision the actions their character can take, describe them, and bring them to life. In part because the whole rollplaying "I throw a d20 and make the DM say what happens" means the DM is now responsible not only for narrating the entire world, but also all of the PCs, too. Commonly rollplayers are surprised and confused when a DM doesn't narrate their actions for them, and if I'm going to be entirely responsible for dictating the actions of everything on the board, I may as well write a book and not deal with people.
And in additional part because I believe firmly, however much it pains me, that a truly excellent game cannot come from players who are phoning it in, or putting on a front they can't back up. if the player is unwilling to put in the most basic effort to play (i.e. describing their actions), then the player is not generally going to have much fun, and the DM is certainly not going to since they've been given nothing to work with. It's the same reason I do not and never will play bards, no matter how much I love the class. I simply do not have the performance talent required to convince anyone else I'm a magical rock musician with literally inhuman charisma and I never will, so the class is forever closed to me. Wisdom-based classes are a similar problem - I can sortakinna fake 'Wisdom' through deep familiarity with Wise Character tropes and the fact that nobody knows what Wisdom really is anyways, but I know I'm faking it and so does everyone else. That knowledge drags down games and disincentivizes me to play Wisdom characters.
It's not entirely on topic for the thread, but it is a related phenomenon. Everybody's heard the "write what you know" saying for creative writers. It's possibly the most common trite Internet Witticism phrase out there in terms of writing advice. There's a much better revision of the phrase, which goes "know what you write" and it invites writers to write about what they want to - but to do the research first, get an education on the subject of their writing, and to know it before committing to a slapdash, cringe-inducing surface-level mockery of what they're interested in writing, instead.
The same principle applies to a (typical) game of D&D (See spoiler'd footnote). Play what you know, or better - know what you play. Some things are easier to fake than others, but the less fakery you have to do, the deeper and more awesome your game will be - and certain things simply cannot be faked and still retain any weight.
Investigation impinges on this because it's an easy escape button for players that don't know what they're playing, or who don't want to put in the effort to figure out the plot on their own. I've sat in with several games now where the procedure was "find an excuse to roll Investigation until the number's high enough that the DM progresses the plot", and they were all sheerest torture. That's more of a DM problem than a skill check problem, but the skill check's existence enables the DM problem. Investigation allows a player to opt out of thinking for themselves and get the DM to narrate their character thinking for them, and that's not a trend anyone should be encouraging in their game.
I'm explicitly exempting therapeutic or other forms of medical/developmental roleplaying here. I'm well aware that using D&D and/or other roleplaying games as a way to treat those with certain forms of mental or developmental conditions is increasingly popular, and that is legitimately fantastic. But those games operate under a different ecosystem, with entirely different goals, than a for-fun 5e game played in Alice's dining room every Friday with five typical-ass people and a large bowl of Cheez-Its. They are not a part of this discussion, and I kindly ask that they not be used as a weapon against me
Investigation impinges on this because it's an easy escape button for players that don't know what they're playing, or who don't want to put in the effort to figure out the plot on their own. I've sat in with several games now where the procedure was "find an excuse to roll Investigation until the number's high enough that the DM progresses the plot", and they were all sheerest torture. That's more of a DM problem than a skill check problem, but the skill check's existence enables the DM problem. Investigation allows a player to opt out of thinking for themselves and get the DM to narrate their character thinking for them, and that's not a trend anyone should be encouraging in their game.
The skill check's existence enables the use of the skill in the game first and foremost. If it's not used properly, that is on the DM. Investigation doesn't allow anything in and of itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You have to look at this another way. The Investigation skill is just as valuable as any other skill.
But the key is this: The DM should be rolling the dice, and modifying with the char's bonuses, and then telling the player "you found something" when something was to be found, and "you found nothing" if there is nothing to be found OR the DM rolled a low value. It should be treated the same as any passive check, even though it is an active check. Same for many other active checks, like Perception.
This concept adds a huge load to the DM's already full plate, but creates way more immersion, and the player/char wall issue disappears.
I don't think that changes a whole lot in practice. I don't allow rerolls (I don't think many DMs do), so knowing you rolled low doesn't let you get around the fact that you rolled low. I'll describe why a roll is low (the light got in your eyes; the librarian took his sweet time bringing you the books you requested, so you were pressed for time; the room is so cluttered with nicnacs that looking for something that's out of order is like trying to find a needle in a haystack; etc), that feels more immersive to me than the players having no idea whether their character had an off day or not.
It does cut out meta-gaming, but that is another subject, only somewhat related to this one.
What metagaming? I rolled low so the check failed, but the character doesn't know it did a shitty job? Ok, so what are you having the character do it wouldn't do without your metagame knowledge then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So recent discussions, as well as some additional non-DDB reading, have gotten me thinking about the nature of skill checks (more correctly, if less commonly, known as ability checks) and how they influence our games. Most everyone here is (I hope) familiar with the common issue often called “rollplaying”, in which players don’t bother to describe actions or narrate their character’s decisions, but instead say “I make an Arcana check – what does a 17 get me?” Rollplaying is a severe issue and one that can wreck entire campaigns, though fortunately it’s fairly straightforward to train someone out of it.
I was contemplating this problem, as a campaign I’ve just started playing in has an issue with rollplaying and I’m determined to provide a better example...but this got me thinking about skills in general, and one stood out to me as being endemic of rollplaying in general and possibly intrinsically harmful to 5e.
And that is Investigation.
The Investigation skill, to quote the PHB on the matter, is used:
“When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.”
This seems straightforward enough, a perfectly legitimate use of Intelligence...but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. Primarily because of one particular sticking point.
All of these are things the player should be doing. Not the character.
The more I pondered this issue, as well as my own Investigation-focused characters, the more I understood why Investigation is often (if erroneously) treated as “careful, hands-on Perception” rather than a knowledge check, and why its uses elsewhere seem so off-kilter.
Let’s assume we have a rogue trained in Investigation who’s searching a mayor’s desk for signs of political corruption. A pretty classic, traditionally accepted case of Investigation. A rollplayer would simply say “Investigation check on the desk, 23. What do I find?”, and would promptly be smacked down by any DM worth their salt. A more typical player might say something like “I rifle through the desk, delicately pulling the drawers open and feeling around inside, looking to see if the dimensions feel off and trying to feel around for hidden catches.”
If a player declared that action to most GMs, the GM would call for an Investigation roll to see if the player found anything. Ho-hum, who cares, typical D&D. But I found myself wondering why. A rules lawyer would say “Um actually, that’s a Perception roll, not an Investigation roll”...and they would be right. The rogue is using their sense of touch to try and discern if anything feels odd or out of place, and using one’s senses to determine if something is odd or out of place is Perception, not Investigation.
So what is Investigation for, in this case? The PHB says it’s for making logical deductions, drawing connections between disparate clues, noticing patterns, or identifying non-obvious information.
All of which are things a good GM tries to get their players to do with their own brains.
Rolling Investigation, by the PHB’s standards of Investigation, is more-or-less equivalent to telling the GM that you’re giving up and would like the GM to give you the answer, provided you shiny math rocks number is big enough. Almost everything the Investigation skill accounts for are the things a player is supposed to be doing themselves, with no more assistance from the GM than a good, solid, consistent description of the scene.
Making logical deductions? That’s for the player to do, not for the GM to do for the player. The player rolling a die and saying “my Knows-Things number is [X], what does that let me know?” is not fun, engaging, or proper roleplaying.
Drawing connections between disparate clues? Again – that’s for the player to do. Rolling a die and saying “Is this number high enough for me to solve the mystery?” is terrible gameplay and makes it almost impossible to conduct any sort of proper mystery games/sessions.
Noticing patterns? Once more – that’s something a GM wants the players to do, not the dice. If the GM is deliberately establishing patterns for their players to pick up on, a player casually throwing a d20 and saying “does this let me know the plot?” is going to incense them. And frankly, if a GM is not deliberately establishing patterns, a player can throw all the dice in the world and get nothing. But if Alice-the-cleric says “Say, have you guys ever noticed...?” and lays out a pattern the GM had no idea they were laying down? Well. That is a super cool moment, and something the GM can absolutely use to better the game.
Virtually the only use of Investigation which does not come at the expense of the players actually playing the game is the somewhat ‘meta’ use of Investigation, i.e. “do I know how to know things?” Casing a city for information on a recent crime wave, spending the day talking to people or pouring over old documents, can be summarized by an Investigation roll since very few players want to go through that tedium. The “identifying non-obvious information” aspect of Investigation, i.e. finding a structural weakness in a wall or locating the one piece of pertinent lore in an entire library, are legitimate uses of Investigation.
But they’re also legitimate uses of other, more useful and interesting proficiencies.
Identifying the weaknesses in a stone wall could be Investigation, sure – but it’s better as an Intelligence (Mason’s Tools) check. You need to know how stone is used to build before you can spot weaknesses. Identifying what weapon might have caused a wound in a body is as much an Intelligence (Medicine) check as it is an Investigation check, or perhaps it’s even an Intelligence (Martial Weapons) check, since knowing weaponry is likely the key factor in being able to know what weapon might have caused a wound. Virtually everything Investigation does could be reclassified as a different proficiency, or a different ability score altogether.
Investigation has, historically, been one of my favorite skill proficiencies. I love being the keen-minded tactician and investigator tasked with doing the Brain Work. But that’s primarily because our table treats Investigation as ‘Slow, Careful, Hands-on Perception’ rather than doing the actual Brain Work, and that’s simply not correct. It’s valid if a table wishes to interpret Investigation that way, but it feels like a disservice in some ways as well. And using Investigation the way the PHB intended it to be used actively gets in the way of playing the game properly. It becomes a “GIMME CLUE” button players can press when they don’t want to put in the work to analyze their information themselves, and with my DM Hat on, I am increasingly unwilling to let players get away with having Lazy Buttons.
What about you guys? What are your thoughts in Investigation, rollplaying, and substituting skill checks for skill?
Please do not contact or message me.
Yikes, big ol' wall of text. TL;DR?
I got through most of it and I think the point was essentially, "Investigation is a mechanical crutch for players interacting with their world and discourages actual puzzle solving, sleuthing, et al."
To which my response would be, it entirely depends on the play style. The game world is infinitely large, and the players can only imagine what is actually happening. The player playing a rogue probably isn't actually a trained burglar, so the idea of checking for hidden catches might not even cross their mind.
If a table is playing D&D like a board game, where the characters are just a token for the player, then sure, put the onus on the players to solve all of the obstacles themselves. Build the game for the players, not the characters.
However, if the table is playing D&D like a realistic world, then the DM is likely to introduce elements that are entirely new to the players, but not the characters they play. The characters should be doing things that the players themselves can't, or won't. Conversely, the player running an INT 6 Barbarian might actually have a PhD in Advanced Mathematics, allowing them to trivialize puzzles that their character shouldn't actually have a chance at solving.
It's an interesting line to walk, and ought to be flexible to maximize enjoyment, but there isn't a wrong answer. At a certain point, controlling the flow is up to the DM. Treat Investigation checks as clues, but don't let it "solve" the encounter. Bring the player to decision points and ask for specifics.
At the end of the day, D&D is fantasy fulfilment, and forcing players to actually struggle who don't want to struggle isn't likely to be in anyone's best interest.
My take is that rolls need to be sometimes substituting the skill of a player because:
1. Many people often overestimate their own skill and intelligence, especially in regards to their own characters
2. The DM is not all knowing as well - rolling Investigation check that will tell the rogue that they correctly deduced how the mechanism of the trap is working does not require me to be an expert locksmith in order to run a game.
3. Sometimes players are just stuck because, let's be honest, they sit at the table and don't walk in shoes of their characters. The goal might be for the DM to create an eureka moment for the players but if that doesn't happen then well...
Just watch the first Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey Jr. - there is a scene at the table where Holmes makes a bunch of deductions that are, frankly, beyond a typical player's skill level. The roll needs to bridge that gap because - again - we play characters who are usually better at doing this stuff than we are.
I agree with your observations here. For myself, I understand D&D to be a roll-playing game where dice are used to resolve conflict. The problem is when dice are used to generate narrative and action where there is no conflict to resolve. Perception/Insight/Investigation are all kind of a jumbled mess in the same way athletics/acrobatics sometimes step on each other. Things only get more complicated when, as you noted, tool proficiency comes into the mix. When the DM understands the players' motives then many of these issues can be resolved faster and prevent unnecessary theater/frustration (e.g. "I search the table." "What are you looking for?" "A clue that would explain..." [there is no clue in the table] "You don't find anything. And, really, there's nothing to find in there."). DMs really need to consider when it's appropriate to create mystery, doubt, suspicion, etc. otherwise they might find they're just creating environments that encourage overthinking and player paranoia.
Any dice check (skills, ability, saves) can be harmful if it's not used to resolve specific conflict. Where the player or DM create adequate narrative, there is no conflict.
There’s one fatal flaw in your reasoning Yurei. How the eff is “the player” supposed to search/investigate/find anything in the mayor’s desk?!? “The player” is here in the real world, and the mayor’s desk is in fantasyland with the player’s character. The player can’t do squat all to that mayor’s desk. That’s why they need their character to do it for them.
If some players and DMs want their game to work the way you want them huzzah for them. If others want to just roll Investigation and get the results, let them have at it. Who the heck are any of us to tell them their fun is wrong?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Finding a puzzle or a clue to a puzzle isn't the same as solving the puzzle. Investigation is a great skill to use for determining if and how many clues you find, especially when you have to hurry or are hindered in some way, but those are clues - they're not the evil plot that's afoot. It's the skill for research, but doesn't necessarily tell you what that research is useful for. Perception might allow you to spot a hidden book; Investigation can tell you it's a ledger of sorts and that the odd structure of the data in it is likely a code, but neither is going to just give you the encoded information in the book (though depending on the code, I might let Investigation give a clue as to how the code might work). Perception can let you notice a trap, Investigation can help you figure out how it functions, and depending on how elaborate or artful it is set up the players may still need to come up with a way to circumvent it. There are certainly ways to make both skills useful in their own way without allowing them to eliminate any and all need for player ingenuity.
That aside, through the use of Investigation you "might deduce the location of a hidden object". As such, there's certainly some overlap with Perception.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My problem with the OP's suggestions are that my character will have a lot more knowledge about doing the job than I will.
If we want to take the rogue rifling through the desk example. A trained, experienced and skilled rogue will know just where to look, where hidden latches typically are hidden, how to tell if a drawer has a false bottom, etc. I've never rifled through a mayor's drawer (or anyone else's for that matter. I've had a rather sheltered life) in search of a hidden compartment, so I wouldn't begin to know how to do these things. Sure, I may have seen it in a movie, but that's a far cry from actually doing the thing. Probably there are things besides latches and false bottoms, and I don't even know what they are, but my rogue PC sure would.
Or solving a puzzle. I like to think I'm a pretty smart, intuitive person, but I'm not a 20 INT level of smart or 20 WIS intuitive. How could I possibly role play my high-INT or high-WIS character coming to a conclusion when I personally would not be capable of reaching that conclusion on my own. The character would simply be able to think of things that I would not and could not.
Making a roll lets me play a character who can do things I can't and knows things I don't.
I'm soft on Investigation/Perception boundaries. As someone who's done IRL research and investigations of academic/historic, journalistic and legal (civil and criminal) nature (yes my resume is weird) I can say you can actually see IRL people who are more INT oriented and others more WIS oriented when it comes to analytic and intuitive methods arriving at the same ends.
That said, in the actual description of Investigation in the basic rules, one usage cited is "Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check." That application is the classic "research" or "investigation" skill found throughout TTRPGs. There is no interesting way any game will ever capture an intellectual hunt for information in a library beyond making some DM fluff referencing the Library of Congress Zoom out shot in All the President's Men and then having the PC roll investigation (or investigation based skill challenge for the party). I am not going to make my party go through the cross referencing, corroborating and often translating material when a character is working their intellect any more than I would have them draw me a blue print and structural analysis if they're going to shore up the ceiling to a mine.
Investigation (and maybe laterally perception) are ways the DM can through the Player a bone reflective of the what the Character's mental faculties are capable of grokking. And sometimes, the DM just isn't that brilliant in their puzzle design (how many threads of "I spent so much time on this puzzle and my players didn't get it" show up on this board, blame shift much?) and needs to draw them a more sensible map through investigation checks.
Lastly, there's player vs player tension. Sometimes a player may feel, and in some instance may actually be, smarter than another player. But the stats and skills reflect differently. If I play a high INT with investigation expertise, what do I have to do to "earn" my rolls? DM adjudicates good faith play and lets rolls occur accordingly, or we land in another thread lit up around here.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
IME the big problem with Investigation is that no-one can actually figure out what it's for, most of the obvious things you could use it for overlap with perception, insight, or persuasion.
Yeah, D&D is not a video game where you can pixel hunt for the interactive object on screen. A player shouldn't be penalized for not being able to think of looking in the exact spot to find the needed McGuffin any more than they should be penalized because they can't hit a target 100 feet away with a longbow. That's what their character's skills are for.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That is a great point. I have watched several Chris Ramsay videos where he plays with intricate puzzle boxes and it is astounding how some mechanisms can work. It is humbling as well :)
You have to look at this another way. The Investigation skill is just as valuable as any other skill.
But the key is this: The DM should be rolling the dice, and modifying with the char's bonuses, and then telling the player "you found something" when something was to be found, and "you found nothing" if there is nothing to be found OR the DM rolled a low value. It should be treated the same as any passive check, even though it is an active check. Same for many other active checks, like Perception.
This concept adds a huge load to the DM's already full plate, but creates way more immersion, and the player/char wall issue disappears.
I don't think that changes a whole lot in practice. I don't allow rerolls (I don't think many DMs do), so knowing you rolled low doesn't let you get around the fact that you rolled low. I'll describe why a roll is low (the light got in your eyes; the librarian took his sweet time bringing you the books you requested, so you were pressed for time; the room is so cluttered with nicnacs that looking for something that's out of order is like trying to find a needle in a haystack; etc), that feels more immersive to me than the players having no idea whether their character had an off day or not.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It does cut out meta-gaming, but that is another subject, only somewhat related to this one.
I totally agree with OP, but I think Investigation is far from the only culprit here, though it might be the worst. I’ve found Persuasion in particular to have a similar issue, where a player doesn’t roleplay and just spins the dice, or roleplays really well and still gets screwed over. It’s at a point where I usually just let players roleplay their way through social encounters, and only ask for checks if they don’t.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Surely this issue applies to all skills and abilities that a character might have? The players are not the characters, the characters are a made up usually heroic representation of what the player wants to imagine themselves being for that game. I am an ex army medic and also previously a British Fencing club coach, so I have hands on experience in the military using a variety of modern weapons as well as fencing weapons, but I'm not able to wang around a great axe, or a sword and shield while wearing heavy armour. My degree was medical physics and human anatomy and physiology, which means I know a lot about the body and vulnerable spots which you could say might be akin to sneak attacks, and when you combine it with my fencing and fighting with light and primarily dex based weapons you could say I fit the rogue type character. But I personally know next to nothing about picking locks and creating or disarming poison dart traps, or huge axes swinging from the walls etc. My military fieldcraft and survival training give me some great outdoorsman type skills but I'm no druid or ranger. I love listening to music but I am tone deaf, I personally have the charisma of a damp squid, and would make a terrible lead singer, or public speaker, and my artwork is still at the level of stick figures.
That's the point of character skills and abilities, they allow us to play imaginary characters that can do things and act in ways that we as players can not and would not do in real life. If you expect the player to actually 'do' the investigation and explain it in detail do you ask your bard player to bring his guitar? Do you give the rogue player an actual padlock and tell her to pick it first? Or the ranger/druid player to get a map out and create a route card for their overland journeys? No of course you don't. It's a fantasy game, where real world people get to switch off from their 9-5 jobs and the stresses of their lives, and pretend to be a hero who wanders the land saving the world, capturing the baddies and earning fame and fortune for a couple of hours. If you want absolute realism or a simulation then go turn your computer on and play the Sims.
That can be incredibly unfair, and I must say unbalancing.
Some folk are outgoing, flamboyant, and have great acting abilities. If you're running your game in which this counts more than a roll, players could use Ch as a dump stat for their 6 and get no penalty. According to what you said, they would get a bonus for good roleplay instead.
How is that fair when compared to someone who is quiet and possibly socially awkward who puts an 18 in CH so they get a bonus but can't act out what they want their character to say or do?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Not a bad start. Hm.
I'm a frequent critic of the idea that throwing dice can substitute for a player's imagination and talent. Absolutely a 5e character can do things its player would never be able to, but the player still has to be able to envision the actions their character can take, describe them, and bring them to life. In part because the whole rollplaying "I throw a d20 and make the DM say what happens" means the DM is now responsible not only for narrating the entire world, but also all of the PCs, too. Commonly rollplayers are surprised and confused when a DM doesn't narrate their actions for them, and if I'm going to be entirely responsible for dictating the actions of everything on the board, I may as well write a book and not deal with people.
And in additional part because I believe firmly, however much it pains me, that a truly excellent game cannot come from players who are phoning it in, or putting on a front they can't back up. if the player is unwilling to put in the most basic effort to play (i.e. describing their actions), then the player is not generally going to have much fun, and the DM is certainly not going to since they've been given nothing to work with. It's the same reason I do not and never will play bards, no matter how much I love the class. I simply do not have the performance talent required to convince anyone else I'm a magical rock musician with literally inhuman charisma and I never will, so the class is forever closed to me. Wisdom-based classes are a similar problem - I can sortakinna fake 'Wisdom' through deep familiarity with Wise Character tropes and the fact that nobody knows what Wisdom really is anyways, but I know I'm faking it and so does everyone else. That knowledge drags down games and disincentivizes me to play Wisdom characters.
It's not entirely on topic for the thread, but it is a related phenomenon. Everybody's heard the "write what you know" saying for creative writers. It's possibly the most common trite Internet Witticism phrase out there in terms of writing advice. There's a much better revision of the phrase, which goes "know what you write" and it invites writers to write about what they want to - but to do the research first, get an education on the subject of their writing, and to know it before committing to a slapdash, cringe-inducing surface-level mockery of what they're interested in writing, instead.
The same principle applies to a (typical) game of D&D (See spoiler'd footnote). Play what you know, or better - know what you play. Some things are easier to fake than others, but the less fakery you have to do, the deeper and more awesome your game will be - and certain things simply cannot be faked and still retain any weight.
Investigation impinges on this because it's an easy escape button for players that don't know what they're playing, or who don't want to put in the effort to figure out the plot on their own. I've sat in with several games now where the procedure was "find an excuse to roll Investigation until the number's high enough that the DM progresses the plot", and they were all sheerest torture. That's more of a DM problem than a skill check problem, but the skill check's existence enables the DM problem. Investigation allows a player to opt out of thinking for themselves and get the DM to narrate their character thinking for them, and that's not a trend anyone should be encouraging in their game.
I'm explicitly exempting therapeutic or other forms of medical/developmental roleplaying here. I'm well aware that using D&D and/or other roleplaying games as a way to treat those with certain forms of mental or developmental conditions is increasingly popular, and that is legitimately fantastic. But those games operate under a different ecosystem, with entirely different goals, than a for-fun 5e game played in Alice's dining room every Friday with five typical-ass people and a large bowl of Cheez-Its. They are not a part of this discussion, and I kindly ask that they not be used as a weapon against me
Please do not contact or message me.
The skill check's existence enables the use of the skill in the game first and foremost. If it's not used properly, that is on the DM. Investigation doesn't allow anything in and of itself.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What metagaming? I rolled low so the check failed, but the character doesn't know it did a shitty job? Ok, so what are you having the character do it wouldn't do without your metagame knowledge then?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].