There is a whole world of difference between a player who just lazily says "I want to roll Investigation" (to which the proper response could be either "Sure thing, describe what your character is doing" or "Just describe what you are doing, I'm calling the checks" depending on the mood)...
...and using an ability (skill) check in order to bridge the gap that exists because 1) the character is more talented than the player and 2) because the player sits at home and even the best description of a DM might not give you a full picture. The player needs to be encouraged to describe the actions but there needs to be a leeway that accounts for the players own skill and perception loss due to not being their character.
I do agree with you, Yurei, that the better you are at something, the richer and deeper your game and playstyle is. Someone who has extensively trained martial arts will be infinitely better at playing a monk than someone who hasn't even seen many action movies. Same with sword fighting, archery etc. But I don't see it as requirement. And certainly a game does not have to be "excellent" in order for the table to have fun.
It is a common practice to allow socially awkward people play outgoing characters in game because no one will require you to actually seduce or persuade a living person at the table. Persuasion is words, body language, tone of voice, smile, confidence, eye movement. 90% of that is taken care of by the roll - as a DM I only require words ie. what you are trying to say because it gives them the opportunity to say something incredibly clever for an advantage or monumentally stupid for disadvantage. But I will never say to a player "you didn't say that convincingly to me" because that is encroaching on player's limitation.
And sometimes I won't even require words - "I want to try and seduce the barkeeper" is definitely not something that will be met with "Okay, what are you saying?"
There is a hilarious Community bit about that btw:
Anyway, to each their own - in my opinion you are unnecessarily punishing yourself with your approach to the Bard class. One of the first thing I tell my players, some of whom are simply socially awkward, that they can describe their character actions in 3rd person if they prefer. I certainly wouldn't demand of them to recite me improvised poems in order to allow them a Performance check for their bards.
EDIT:
And well, going by that logic, in order to have the best game you'd have to essentially ban playing anything other than human at the table. I mean, here we are, talking about skills and checks, and that is infinitely simpler than trying to put ourselves in another species shoes.
I don't see an issue with the skill at all, I mean the player with the rogue searching the desk the player may not be as good at roleplay he also doesn't have an actual desk to search so he/she may not even think of checking for false drawer bottoms etc.
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.
You are totally selling yourself short.
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?"
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.
You are totally selling yourself short.
This is interestingly antithetical to one of the therapeutic applications of D&D.
By having someone deliberately play a class that is uncomfortable for them, it can provide them with a platform for pushing themselves in new directions. The player doesn't need to be a "rockstar", but if the player can go from a quiet introvert to being comfortable cracking a few jokes and flirting with dragons, that may represent a significant amount of personal growth.
I don't have a problem with Investigation specifically, it's one of a number of proficiencies in 5e that is a little vague and due to this has potential overlap with other skills and situational ambiguity (e.g. is the rogue street rat with 8 Str allowed to use Dex to climb a wall? What about Acrobatics instead of Athletics?)
Your question to me seems more about role-playing versus roll-playing. I think the "right" answer is different for every game / table. I've played in some super intense games where hours might pass without touching the dice. Most of those games were not DND, as the system itself, and in particular progression is so combat focused by default.
My solution to roll-playing in the game I am running was to make it clear in session 0 that as a general rule you (the player) do not roll unless I (the DM) ask you to roll. Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what you need to roll, if anything. The exception is attack rolls in combat, cause they are pretty standard.
I make extensive use of passive Perception and Investigation to avoid players using metagaming to detect secrets.
What I'm really trying to say is that passing things off to a dice roll is fine as long as it's the DM who decides when and what to roll rather than the player rolling pre-emptively.
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?
Say I fail the Investigation/Perception/ Insight roll. The next player says "OK, I will roll.", instead of "Our best guy did not find something/ hear something/ disbelieve this person telling us something, and that is good enough for me".
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?
Say I fail the Investigation/Perception/ Insight roll. The next player says "OK, I will roll.", instead of "Our best guy did not find something/ hear something/ disbelieve this person telling us something, and that is good enough for me".
So players assume that when the DM rolls for them, they'll roll well? That seems optimistic. Typically players will all ask if they can make these rolls before the result of whoever was fastest on the draw is even in, in my experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
You are totally selling yourself short.
This is interestingly antithetical to one of the therapeutic applications of D&D.
By having someone deliberately play a class that is uncomfortable for them, it can provide them with a platform for pushing themselves in new directions. The player doesn't need to be a "rockstar", but if the player can go from a quiet introvert to being comfortable cracking a few jokes and flirting with dragons, that may represent a significant amount of personal growth.
Play for yourself, not for other people.
Honestly, I have very mixed feelings about this concept that introversion is somehow something to be cured. As someone who is extremely introverted, I object to this on a personal level. At the same time, I recognise that Western society is built for extroverts and that means that it really is true that my introversion can be a very real impediment at times. I can accept that, although it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I think another problem with having a problem with investigate comes when you look at other skills. Would you expect player to describe precisely what the character is looking for when they track something? Do you expect a player to describe how they use the rope to make a climbing check?
There was another thread recently with a new DM considering giving a character bonuses to bow attacks because the player knew a lot about bow maintenance. It was the sort of thing any character proficient in a bow would know and do, but many players would not.
It kind of seems like the real question is where do you draw the line between mandating a player know things vs. just assuming they know how to do their jobs, and letting the dice decide if they did a good job or not.
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.
You are totally selling yourself short.
This is interestingly antithetical to one of the therapeutic applications of D&D.
By having someone deliberately play a class that is uncomfortable for them, it can provide them with a platform for pushing themselves in new directions. The player doesn't need to be a "rockstar", but if the player can go from a quiet introvert to being comfortable cracking a few jokes and flirting with dragons, that may represent a significant amount of personal growth.
Play for yourself, not for other people.
Honestly, I have very mixed feelings about this concept that introversion is somehow something to be cured. As someone who is extremely introverted, I object to this on a personal level. At the same time, I recognise that Western society is built for extroverts and that means that it really is true that my introversion can be a very real impediment at times. I can accept that, although it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I never referred to it as "curing". The opposite scenario is equally valid, where someone who is normally extroverted might opt to play a quiet, brooding rogue/wizard to practice being more introspective. The bottom line is, if someone wants to change something about who they are, D&D provides a platform for exploring that process.
I used introversion as my example because I am an extreme introvert and want it to be a choice, not a prison. If I turn down a public speaking opportunity, it should be because I won't enjoy it, not because I'm afraid to fail.
No matter our nature, we should all strive to grow as people. Not to be different, but to be more.
I believe Memnosyne's intent was less about 'curing' introversion - believe me, I very much understand where you're coming from - as it was about the use of roleplaying games such as D&D in therapy to help some folks get over inhibitive levels of social awkwardness. There's nothing wrong or defective with introversion, but some folks are unfortunately half-crippled by a near-complete inability to function around other people. Those folks could use help, and I understand and applaud the use of the game in that respect.
That said, the whole 'everyone in the party rolls until someone rolls high' thing is another DMing problem, and one fairly easily solved with a laying-out of the rules in Session 0 and enforcing the idea that not every roll counts. My recent issues with Investigation go beyond common table faux pas like Check Spamming. Persuasion is often in a similar basket, yes. People will say "I try to sweet-talk the guard", or even just "Rolling Persuasion on the guard," sometimes without even telling the DM what they're trying to persuade the guard to do. In this instance at least, Persuasion-the-skill can be used to account for all the things previously mentioned and can be inferred as the strength of the delivery, but yes - as a DM, I would require a player to give me at least a solid gist of what they were trying to say. Same with Deception - a player would have to tell me the lie they're trying to spin. In both cases, the better a job the player does the easier the check would be, if they needed to make a check at all.
Some folks find that massively unfair, but it is alas simply the nature of the game. We're all there to have fun and create cool awesome stories with our friends, and if the DM is doing every last millimeter of the narrative lifting for a bunch of people who're doing nothing but pushing buttons on their character sheet...well. I would stop DMing that game in a breathtaking hurry and I imagine many others would do the same.
Investigation, though, is even worse in that there is no body-language subcomponent of it. Not really. There's no "this is your argument; roll [X] to see how well you deliver it". You roll Investigation and either the GM gives away the plot or they don't. It's obnoxious, especially in the hands of a player who's trying to substitute his PC's brain for his own. it turns into "Press X to Win", and that's just no way to play D&D to me. At least not to any campaign-length degree. Maybe that's not an issue in a one-shot, could even be beneficial for a game on a time crunch like at conventions or such, but for the long-form games the ruleset is there for? It just sits wrong with me to have a button labeled "Roll Dice to Think."
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.
You are totally selling yourself short.
This is interestingly antithetical to one of the therapeutic applications of D&D.
By having someone deliberately play a class that is uncomfortable for them, it can provide them with a platform for pushing themselves in new directions. The player doesn't need to be a "rockstar", but if the player can go from a quiet introvert to being comfortable cracking a few jokes and flirting with dragons, that may represent a significant amount of personal growth.
Play for yourself, not for other people.
Honestly, I have very mixed feelings about this concept that introversion is somehow something to be cured. As someone who is extremely introverted, I object to this on a personal level. At the same time, I recognise that Western society is built for extroverts and that means that it really is true that my introversion can be a very real impediment at times. I can accept that, although it doesn't mean I have to like it.
It would be better for society to adapt to make allowances for people to be introverts. There's no more need to force them to be extroverted (which many introverts simply can't do) than there is a need to force left-handed people to be right-handed.
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.
I believe Memnosyne's intent was less about 'curing' introversion - believe me, I very much understand where you're coming from - as it was about the use of roleplaying games such as D&D in therapy to help some folks get over inhibitive levels of social awkwardness. There's nothing wrong or defective with introversion, but some folks are unfortunately half-crippled by a near-complete inability to function around other people. Those folks could use help, and I understand and applaud the use of the game in that respect.
That said, the whole 'everyone in the party rolls until someone rolls high' thing is another DMing problem, and one fairly easily solved with a laying-out of the rules in Session 0 and enforcing the idea that not every roll counts. My recent issues with Investigation go beyond common table faux pas like Check Spamming. Persuasion is often in a similar basket, yes. People will say "I try to sweet-talk the guard", or even just "Rolling Persuasion on the guard," sometimes without even telling the DM what they're trying to persuade the guard to do. In this instance at least, Persuasion-the-skill can be used to account for all the things previously mentioned and can be inferred as the strength of the delivery, but yes - as a DM, I would require a player to give me at least a solid gist of what they were trying to say. Same with Deception - a player would have to tell me the lie they're trying to spin. In both cases, the better a job the player does the easier the check would be, if they needed to make a check at all.
Some folks find that massively unfair, but it is alas simply the nature of the game. We're all there to have fun and create cool awesome stories with our friends, and if the DM is doing every last millimeter of the narrative lifting for a bunch of people who're doing nothing but pushing buttons on their character sheet...well. I would stop DMing that game in a breathtaking hurry and I imagine many others would do the same.
Investigation, though, is even worse in that there is no body-language subcomponent of it. Not really. There's no "this is your argument; roll [X] to see how well you deliver it". You roll Investigation and either the GM gives away the plot or they don't. It's obnoxious, especially in the hands of a player who's trying to substitute his PC's brain for his own. it turns into "Press X to Win", and that's just no way to play D&D to me. At least not to any campaign-length degree. Maybe that's not an issue in a one-shot, could even be beneficial for a game on a time crunch like at conventions or such, but for the long-form games the ruleset is there for? It just sits wrong with me to have a button labeled "Roll Dice to Think."
With regard Investigation (and Perception), that's why I make extensive use of passive scores. It's to avoid situations like this:
(Player): "I search the room /roll -> I rolled a 20 on Perception!" (DM): "You don't find anything." (Because there was nothing to find). (Player): *disappointed face* "What a waste of a 20."
Having said that, I don't see Investigation as a "Press X to Win". As a DM I tend to use it more often as a "Roll <X> to get a clue". My experience with puzzles and riddles that have to be solved by the players rather than their characters tends to be quite negative to be honest. Things that seem glaringly obvious to someone who already knows the answer can be very difficult to deduce by someone who doesn't for any number of reasons. e.g. when I read out a particular riddle, the players latch on to one word in particular that leads them down the wrong path in a time limited situation. But you know, there's the wizard with Int 20 sitting there, surely this character would have some Insight.
Also Int is already enough of a dump stat in 5e, it is good to give it some extra value.
It seems to me your main objection is to the way Investigation is being used rather than the skill itself.
I think it's important not to *force* people to roleplay to some expected level. I will admit as DM on some days I have lots of creative energy and all the NPCs get some 1st person flair when I portray them, whereas on other days I might just not be up to that level and then it becomes more of 3rd person description.
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.
You are totally selling yourself short.
This is interestingly antithetical to one of the therapeutic applications of D&D.
By having someone deliberately play a class that is uncomfortable for them, it can provide them with a platform for pushing themselves in new directions. The player doesn't need to be a "rockstar", but if the player can go from a quiet introvert to being comfortable cracking a few jokes and flirting with dragons, that may represent a significant amount of personal growth.
Play for yourself, not for other people.
Honestly, I have very mixed feelings about this concept that introversion is somehow something to be cured. As someone who is extremely introverted, I object to this on a personal level. At the same time, I recognise that Western society is built for extroverts and that means that it really is true that my introversion can be a very real impediment at times. I can accept that, although it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I never referred to it as "curing". The opposite scenario is equally valid, where someone who is normally extroverted might opt to play a quiet, brooding rogue/wizard to practice being more introspective. The bottom line is, if someone wants to change something about who they are, D&D provides a platform for exploring that process.
I used introversion as my example because I am an extreme introvert and want it to be a choice, not a prison. If I turn down a public speaking opportunity, it should be because I won't enjoy it, not because I'm afraid to fail.
No matter our nature, we should all strive to grow as people. Not to be different, but to be more.
Yes, fair enough, and I agree that roleplaying is great way to explore new aspects.
My comment was not directed so much at you but more an expression of a general level of personal frustration at society. Apologies if I caused offense.
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?
Say I fail the Investigation/Perception/ Insight roll. The next player says "OK, I will roll.", instead of "Our best guy did not find something/ hear something/ disbelieve this person telling us something, and that is good enough for me".
So players assume that when the DM rolls for them, they'll roll well? That seems optimistic. Typically players will all ask if they can make these rolls before the result of whoever was fastest on the draw is even in, in my experience.
And that brings up another point. I came to the conclusion that only someone proficient in a skill can actually make a roll in it (Bards with Jack of all Trades, I have been lucky to avoid that land mine), and implemented that in my game some time ago. Taken to the N'th degree, I am not going to let a number of Barbarians and Fighters continue to make an Arcana check, when none of them have Prof in Arcana. If the party is large enough, eventually someone will make the DC roll, and that is just wrong to me. Same goes for Investigation. As for Perception, I have yet to have a group composition where no one has Perception.
And that brings up another point. I came to the conclusion that only someone proficient in a skill can actually make a roll in it (Bards with Jack of all Trades, I have been lucky to avoid that land mine), and implemented that in my game some time ago. Taken to the N'th degree, I am not going to let a number of Barbarians and Fighters continue to make an Arcana check, when none of them have Prof in Arcana. If the party is large enough, eventually someone will make the DC roll, and that is just wrong to me. Same goes for Investigation. As for Perception, I have yet to have a group composition where no one has Perception.
I don't feel thats natural. That's like saying hey, you want to climb a tree but you can't because you don't know athletics. You don't get bonuses, but that doesn't mean you can't try. It also doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for the action. The consequences might be greater for you specifically because you don't know how either.
I think that's where a lot of meat and potatoes of this thread lies, on the quandries of dice roll spamming.
That said, the whole 'everyone in the party rolls until someone rolls high' thing is another DMing problem, and one fairly easily solved with a laying-out of the rules in Session 0 and enforcing the idea that not every roll counts. My recent issues with Investigation go beyond common table faux pas like Check Spamming. Persuasion is often in a similar basket, yes. People will say "I try to sweet-talk the guard", or even just "Rolling Persuasion on the guard," sometimes without even telling the DM what they're trying to persuade the guard to do. In this instance at least, Persuasion-the-skill can be used to account for all the things previously mentioned and can be inferred as the strength of the delivery, but yes - as a DM, I would require a player to give me at least a solid gist of what they were trying to say. Same with Deception - a player would have to tell me the lie they're trying to spin. In both cases, the better a job the player does the easier the check would be, if they needed to make a check at all.
I'm going to take both of these into account. If the fighter with 8 INT wants to have a go at the alchemy set and try to brew a concoction I'm saying requires an Int Alchemist Tools check, well, have fun. Hope you have some sort of way to add a bonus to that possible 19, more than likely MUCH lower roll you're about to make.
In terms of roll spamming, I just take turns as the DM. My table is generally 5, so I'll ask two people to make a roll. If someone else can present some piece of information that convinces me to also let them roll, then sure. We set this after about 5 sessions in when half the session was perception checks and wasn't fun. I want player interaction, but at the same time I understand that like was pointed out, there are times when the players just aren't asking the right questions. I have two options as a DM, force them to tough it out, or help move the plot along. This isn't Peacock where I can just fast forward through the bad parts of The Office to get to the Jim and Dwight jokes, I get to suffer through all the boring Angela parts too....or I can somewhat provide a helping hand and get Stanley in there with Angela to do something that normally doesn't happen.
Forcing them to tough it out isn't fun for me as a DM, or them as players. Helping the plot move along gets us back on track. Now if I find out that its due to the players just being lazy, as I move that plot along? I'm going to impose penalties, and if they say something about it I'm gonna call em out. "Well, when you walked out of the room with the giant footprints and you purposely looked at me and said Ok so whats in the next room, who would have thought there was a giant damn bugbear in there waiting for you. Roll initiative. :) " That bugbear wasn't in that room, but now they are. Bring the focus back, lets try this again, and then we can get this party really started.
That boils down to investment though. If the players don't feel that, they aren't going to want to ask those questions. Moreover, if you keep telling your players you can't do that, they will eventually stop trying and then it turns back into "Well can I just roll Arcana or not." Not everything has to be a binary success or failure either. The fighter tries to mix a potion with the alchemist kit, and is doomed to fail miserably. However, in the process discovers one of the herbs he used did actually have medicinal properties, and lets the Wizard know. Now I can give that Wizard a bonus to their next roll because they are coming into it with new knowledge. Now the party doesn't feel the fighter just wasted the resource. If you're going through the dungeon and there have been spike trap after spike trap after spike trap, eventually the characters are going to get keen on looking out for spike traps. Gonna give them passive perception bumps and then include that for when the next one comes up. Whoever had the lowest score, I'll call their character out as the one who saw it and pointed it out to the rest of the party.
. 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.
That’s really sad, you are restricting yourself from a boatload of fun just because you are not a stand up comedian, or a competent musician. That self imposed restriction is a real shame. There are no such official rules in any version of D&D that I have ever played.
And that brings up another point. I came to the conclusion that only someone proficient in a skill can actually make a roll in it (Bards with Jack of all Trades, I have been lucky to avoid that land mine), and implemented that in my game some time ago. Taken to the N'th degree, I am not going to let a number of Barbarians and Fighters continue to make an Arcana check, when none of them have Prof in Arcana. If the party is large enough, eventually someone will make the DC roll, and that is just wrong to me. Same goes for Investigation. As for Perception, I have yet to have a group composition where no one has Perception.
I find this hilarious, in several of your threads you talk about being infuriated by people not following RAW to the letter, and yet here you are creating an absurd home brew ruling. There are some occasions where a piece of knowledge or the use of a particular skill is so rare or unusual that I tell my players only someone proficient can attempt the check, but that is the (rare) exception and not the rule. Think about modern society, everyone does a ‘basic level curriculum’ in school, it might vary in content from school to school but the basics are similar enough. I might not have an A level (and therefore be proficient) in cookery, and certainly I’m no restaurant level chef, but I cook a variety of meals well enough for people to come back for more. I’m no carpenter but can put up a shelf, not an electrician but can wire a plug etc.
Being proficient simply means you get to add your proficiency bonus because due to your background / class etc you are generally better at those skills than someone else who doesn’t have that background.
I do not think there is anything wrong with Investigation, and rollplaying is also kind of essential to roleplaying depending on the discrepancy between the player and character. The point of roleplay is to allow the player be someone they are not, and forcing players to roleplay well in order to achieve good results is a antithetical to the idea of being anyone you want. Letting rollplay replace roleplay allows players to be someone they are not without needing the player to be knowledgeable, creative, nor social, and that is a good thing in my opinion. Just as a player's physical abilities are divorced from their character's physical abilities, a player's mental abilities should be allowed to be divorced from a character's mental abilities. If a player wants to roleplay a wizard on the level of Einstein and Hawking, it makes far more practical sense for the player to simply state they want to roll for Investigation or state something simply/vague rather than slow the game down thinking about how to try to roleplay what a genius would do for the next ten minutes.
I can certainly roleplay a Harper auditing a city's treasury going into detail about looking for discrepancies between the expected tax revenue and actual taxes collected, tallying the weapons of the city's armories to make sure funds properly utilized and no one is stealing, double check all the invoices and outflow of money to make sure officials are not giving kickbacks, etc. However, requiring that level of roleplay in order to do well from another player that clearly lacks the education, training, and practice that I have is a bit absurd in my opinion. I do not expect the average person to say anything more than "I try to find out if there is corruption in the city council", and something a little more detailed like "I search the office for financial records and compare it to the receipts" would be pretty impressive in my opinion for a person with no background in business.
I'm a frequent critic of the idea that throwing dice can substitute for a player's imagination and talent.
I think this often goes too far one way or the other, because it is a difficult balance to find.
Of course, the players are "controlling" their characters, but they are also not their characters. We don't even consider expecting a player to to jump across a 15 ft gap, they describe it and the result is dependent on their ability scores. This is easy when it comes to physical action, but not mental ones.
A player could be a lot more intelligent, wise, or charismatic than their character, or vice versa. A player will know many things their character doesn't and vice versa.
So, the player whose character is a rogue thief may not have the mindset to describe searching for a hidden catch inside a drawer. It's not something they would think of or do when searching a desk. However, that's the character's bread and butter. The character would probably do this on impulse, whenever he is searching, because that's his day job. Similarly, the player of a Battlemaster Fighter may not have a great understanding of tactics in combat, but it is second nature to the character to analyse a battlefield to find the strengths and weaknesses in the enemies lines, the tactical advantage they can gain by a particular manoeuvre. Is it fair to penalise the player for choosing a character who thinks so much differently to themselves?
That said, it needs to not go too far the other way. The player must maintain control over their character, and not just rollplay, as Yurei put it.
Like I said, I think this is a very difficult area to balance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a whole world of difference between a player who just lazily says "I want to roll Investigation" (to which the proper response could be either "Sure thing, describe what your character is doing" or "Just describe what you are doing, I'm calling the checks" depending on the mood)...
...and using an ability (skill) check in order to bridge the gap that exists because 1) the character is more talented than the player and 2) because the player sits at home and even the best description of a DM might not give you a full picture. The player needs to be encouraged to describe the actions but there needs to be a leeway that accounts for the players own skill and perception loss due to not being their character.
I do agree with you, Yurei, that the better you are at something, the richer and deeper your game and playstyle is. Someone who has extensively trained martial arts will be infinitely better at playing a monk than someone who hasn't even seen many action movies. Same with sword fighting, archery etc. But I don't see it as requirement. And certainly a game does not have to be "excellent" in order for the table to have fun.
It is a common practice to allow socially awkward people play outgoing characters in game because no one will require you to actually seduce or persuade a living person at the table. Persuasion is words, body language, tone of voice, smile, confidence, eye movement. 90% of that is taken care of by the roll - as a DM I only require words ie. what you are trying to say because it gives them the opportunity to say something incredibly clever for an advantage or monumentally stupid for disadvantage. But I will never say to a player "you didn't say that convincingly to me" because that is encroaching on player's limitation.
And sometimes I won't even require words - "I want to try and seduce the barkeeper" is definitely not something that will be met with "Okay, what are you saying?"
There is a hilarious Community bit about that btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgu_-rR1X8&ab_channel=lemonoclefox
Anyway, to each their own - in my opinion you are unnecessarily punishing yourself with your approach to the Bard class. One of the first thing I tell my players, some of whom are simply socially awkward, that they can describe their character actions in 3rd person if they prefer. I certainly wouldn't demand of them to recite me improvised poems in order to allow them a Performance check for their bards.
EDIT:
And well, going by that logic, in order to have the best game you'd have to essentially ban playing anything other than human at the table. I mean, here we are, talking about skills and checks, and that is infinitely simpler than trying to put ourselves in another species shoes.
I don't see an issue with the skill at all, I mean the player with the rogue searching the desk the player may not be as good at roleplay he also doesn't have an actual desk to search so he/she may not even think of checking for false drawer bottoms etc.
You are totally selling yourself short.
"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
This is interestingly antithetical to one of the therapeutic applications of D&D.
By having someone deliberately play a class that is uncomfortable for them, it can provide them with a platform for pushing themselves in new directions. The player doesn't need to be a "rockstar", but if the player can go from a quiet introvert to being comfortable cracking a few jokes and flirting with dragons, that may represent a significant amount of personal growth.
Play for yourself, not for other people.
I don't have a problem with Investigation specifically, it's one of a number of proficiencies in 5e that is a little vague and due to this has potential overlap with other skills and situational ambiguity (e.g. is the rogue street rat with 8 Str allowed to use Dex to climb a wall? What about Acrobatics instead of Athletics?)
Your question to me seems more about role-playing versus roll-playing. I think the "right" answer is different for every game / table. I've played in some super intense games where hours might pass without touching the dice. Most of those games were not DND, as the system itself, and in particular progression is so combat focused by default.
My solution to roll-playing in the game I am running was to make it clear in session 0 that as a general rule you (the player) do not roll unless I (the DM) ask you to roll. Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what you need to roll, if anything. The exception is attack rolls in combat, cause they are pretty standard.
I make extensive use of passive Perception and Investigation to avoid players using metagaming to detect secrets.
What I'm really trying to say is that passing things off to a dice roll is fine as long as it's the DM who decides when and what to roll rather than the player rolling pre-emptively.
Say I fail the Investigation/Perception/ Insight roll. The next player says "OK, I will roll.", instead of "Our best guy did not find something/ hear something/ disbelieve this person telling us something, and that is good enough for me".
So players assume that when the DM rolls for them, they'll roll well? That seems optimistic. Typically players will all ask if they can make these rolls before the result of whoever was fastest on the draw is even in, in my experience.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, I have very mixed feelings about this concept that introversion is somehow something to be cured. As someone who is extremely introverted, I object to this on a personal level. At the same time, I recognise that Western society is built for extroverts and that means that it really is true that my introversion can be a very real impediment at times. I can accept that, although it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I think another problem with having a problem with investigate comes when you look at other skills. Would you expect player to describe precisely what the character is looking for when they track something? Do you expect a player to describe how they use the rope to make a climbing check?
There was another thread recently with a new DM considering giving a character bonuses to bow attacks because the player knew a lot about bow maintenance. It was the sort of thing any character proficient in a bow would know and do, but many players would not.
It kind of seems like the real question is where do you draw the line between mandating a player know things vs. just assuming they know how to do their jobs, and letting the dice decide if they did a good job or not.
I never referred to it as "curing". The opposite scenario is equally valid, where someone who is normally extroverted might opt to play a quiet, brooding rogue/wizard to practice being more introspective. The bottom line is, if someone wants to change something about who they are, D&D provides a platform for exploring that process.
I used introversion as my example because I am an extreme introvert and want it to be a choice, not a prison. If I turn down a public speaking opportunity, it should be because I won't enjoy it, not because I'm afraid to fail.
No matter our nature, we should all strive to grow as people. Not to be different, but to be more.
I believe Memnosyne's intent was less about 'curing' introversion - believe me, I very much understand where you're coming from - as it was about the use of roleplaying games such as D&D in therapy to help some folks get over inhibitive levels of social awkwardness. There's nothing wrong or defective with introversion, but some folks are unfortunately half-crippled by a near-complete inability to function around other people. Those folks could use help, and I understand and applaud the use of the game in that respect.
That said, the whole 'everyone in the party rolls until someone rolls high' thing is another DMing problem, and one fairly easily solved with a laying-out of the rules in Session 0 and enforcing the idea that not every roll counts. My recent issues with Investigation go beyond common table faux pas like Check Spamming. Persuasion is often in a similar basket, yes. People will say "I try to sweet-talk the guard", or even just "Rolling Persuasion on the guard," sometimes without even telling the DM what they're trying to persuade the guard to do. In this instance at least, Persuasion-the-skill can be used to account for all the things previously mentioned and can be inferred as the strength of the delivery, but yes - as a DM, I would require a player to give me at least a solid gist of what they were trying to say. Same with Deception - a player would have to tell me the lie they're trying to spin. In both cases, the better a job the player does the easier the check would be, if they needed to make a check at all.
Some folks find that massively unfair, but it is alas simply the nature of the game. We're all there to have fun and create cool awesome stories with our friends, and if the DM is doing every last millimeter of the narrative lifting for a bunch of people who're doing nothing but pushing buttons on their character sheet...well. I would stop DMing that game in a breathtaking hurry and I imagine many others would do the same.
Investigation, though, is even worse in that there is no body-language subcomponent of it. Not really. There's no "this is your argument; roll [X] to see how well you deliver it". You roll Investigation and either the GM gives away the plot or they don't. It's obnoxious, especially in the hands of a player who's trying to substitute his PC's brain for his own. it turns into "Press X to Win", and that's just no way to play D&D to me. At least not to any campaign-length degree. Maybe that's not an issue in a one-shot, could even be beneficial for a game on a time crunch like at conventions or such, but for the long-form games the ruleset is there for? It just sits wrong with me to have a button labeled "Roll Dice to Think."
Please do not contact or message me.
It would be better for society to adapt to make allowances for people to be introverts. There's no more need to force them to be extroverted (which many introverts simply can't do) than there is a need to force left-handed people to be right-handed.
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.
With regard Investigation (and Perception), that's why I make extensive use of passive scores. It's to avoid situations like this:
(Player): "I search the room /roll -> I rolled a 20 on Perception!"
(DM): "You don't find anything." (Because there was nothing to find).
(Player): *disappointed face* "What a waste of a 20."
Having said that, I don't see Investigation as a "Press X to Win". As a DM I tend to use it more often as a "Roll <X> to get a clue". My experience with puzzles and riddles that have to be solved by the players rather than their characters tends to be quite negative to be honest. Things that seem glaringly obvious to someone who already knows the answer can be very difficult to deduce by someone who doesn't for any number of reasons. e.g. when I read out a particular riddle, the players latch on to one word in particular that leads them down the wrong path in a time limited situation. But you know, there's the wizard with Int 20 sitting there, surely this character would have some Insight.
Also Int is already enough of a dump stat in 5e, it is good to give it some extra value.
It seems to me your main objection is to the way Investigation is being used rather than the skill itself.
I think it's important not to *force* people to roleplay to some expected level. I will admit as DM on some days I have lots of creative energy and all the NPCs get some 1st person flair when I portray them, whereas on other days I might just not be up to that level and then it becomes more of 3rd person description.
Yes, fair enough, and I agree that roleplaying is great way to explore new aspects.
My comment was not directed so much at you but more an expression of a general level of personal frustration at society. Apologies if I caused offense.
And that brings up another point. I came to the conclusion that only someone proficient in a skill can actually make a roll in it (Bards with Jack of all Trades, I have been lucky to avoid that land mine), and implemented that in my game some time ago. Taken to the N'th degree, I am not going to let a number of Barbarians and Fighters continue to make an Arcana check, when none of them have Prof in Arcana. If the party is large enough, eventually someone will make the DC roll, and that is just wrong to me. Same goes for Investigation. As for Perception, I have yet to have a group composition where no one has Perception.
I don't feel thats natural. That's like saying hey, you want to climb a tree but you can't because you don't know athletics. You don't get bonuses, but that doesn't mean you can't try. It also doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for the action. The consequences might be greater for you specifically because you don't know how either.
I think that's where a lot of meat and potatoes of this thread lies, on the quandries of dice roll spamming.
I'm going to take both of these into account. If the fighter with 8 INT wants to have a go at the alchemy set and try to brew a concoction I'm saying requires an Int Alchemist Tools check, well, have fun. Hope you have some sort of way to add a bonus to that possible 19, more than likely MUCH lower roll you're about to make.
In terms of roll spamming, I just take turns as the DM. My table is generally 5, so I'll ask two people to make a roll. If someone else can present some piece of information that convinces me to also let them roll, then sure. We set this after about 5 sessions in when half the session was perception checks and wasn't fun. I want player interaction, but at the same time I understand that like was pointed out, there are times when the players just aren't asking the right questions. I have two options as a DM, force them to tough it out, or help move the plot along. This isn't Peacock where I can just fast forward through the bad parts of The Office to get to the Jim and Dwight jokes, I get to suffer through all the boring Angela parts too....or I can somewhat provide a helping hand and get Stanley in there with Angela to do something that normally doesn't happen.
Forcing them to tough it out isn't fun for me as a DM, or them as players. Helping the plot move along gets us back on track. Now if I find out that its due to the players just being lazy, as I move that plot along? I'm going to impose penalties, and if they say something about it I'm gonna call em out. "Well, when you walked out of the room with the giant footprints and you purposely looked at me and said Ok so whats in the next room, who would have thought there was a giant damn bugbear in there waiting for you. Roll initiative. :) " That bugbear wasn't in that room, but now they are. Bring the focus back, lets try this again, and then we can get this party really started.
That boils down to investment though. If the players don't feel that, they aren't going to want to ask those questions. Moreover, if you keep telling your players you can't do that, they will eventually stop trying and then it turns back into "Well can I just roll Arcana or not." Not everything has to be a binary success or failure either. The fighter tries to mix a potion with the alchemist kit, and is doomed to fail miserably. However, in the process discovers one of the herbs he used did actually have medicinal properties, and lets the Wizard know. Now I can give that Wizard a bonus to their next roll because they are coming into it with new knowledge. Now the party doesn't feel the fighter just wasted the resource. If you're going through the dungeon and there have been spike trap after spike trap after spike trap, eventually the characters are going to get keen on looking out for spike traps. Gonna give them passive perception bumps and then include that for when the next one comes up. Whoever had the lowest score, I'll call their character out as the one who saw it and pointed it out to the rest of the party.
Bunch of different ways to combat this.
That’s really sad, you are restricting yourself from a boatload of fun just because you are not a stand up comedian, or a competent musician. That self imposed restriction is a real shame. There are no such official rules in any version of D&D that I have ever played.
I find this hilarious, in several of your threads you talk about being infuriated by people not following RAW to the letter, and yet here you are creating an absurd home brew ruling. There are some occasions where a piece of knowledge or the use of a particular skill is so rare or unusual that I tell my players only someone proficient can attempt the check, but that is the (rare) exception and not the rule. Think about modern society, everyone does a ‘basic level curriculum’ in school, it might vary in content from school to school but the basics are similar enough. I might not have an A level (and therefore be proficient) in cookery, and certainly I’m no restaurant level chef, but I cook a variety of meals well enough for people to come back for more. I’m no carpenter but can put up a shelf, not an electrician but can wire a plug etc.
Being proficient simply means you get to add your proficiency bonus because due to your background / class etc you are generally better at those skills than someone else who doesn’t have that background.
I do not think there is anything wrong with Investigation, and rollplaying is also kind of essential to roleplaying depending on the discrepancy between the player and character. The point of roleplay is to allow the player be someone they are not, and forcing players to roleplay well in order to achieve good results is a antithetical to the idea of being anyone you want. Letting rollplay replace roleplay allows players to be someone they are not without needing the player to be knowledgeable, creative, nor social, and that is a good thing in my opinion. Just as a player's physical abilities are divorced from their character's physical abilities, a player's mental abilities should be allowed to be divorced from a character's mental abilities. If a player wants to roleplay a wizard on the level of Einstein and Hawking, it makes far more practical sense for the player to simply state they want to roll for Investigation or state something simply/vague rather than slow the game down thinking about how to try to roleplay what a genius would do for the next ten minutes.
I can certainly roleplay a Harper auditing a city's treasury going into detail about looking for discrepancies between the expected tax revenue and actual taxes collected, tallying the weapons of the city's armories to make sure funds properly utilized and no one is stealing, double check all the invoices and outflow of money to make sure officials are not giving kickbacks, etc. However, requiring that level of roleplay in order to do well from another player that clearly lacks the education, training, and practice that I have is a bit absurd in my opinion. I do not expect the average person to say anything more than "I try to find out if there is corruption in the city council", and something a little more detailed like "I search the office for financial records and compare it to the receipts" would be pretty impressive in my opinion for a person with no background in business.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think this often goes too far one way or the other, because it is a difficult balance to find.
Of course, the players are "controlling" their characters, but they are also not their characters. We don't even consider expecting a player to to jump across a 15 ft gap, they describe it and the result is dependent on their ability scores. This is easy when it comes to physical action, but not mental ones.
A player could be a lot more intelligent, wise, or charismatic than their character, or vice versa. A player will know many things their character doesn't and vice versa.
So, the player whose character is a rogue thief may not have the mindset to describe searching for a hidden catch inside a drawer. It's not something they would think of or do when searching a desk. However, that's the character's bread and butter. The character would probably do this on impulse, whenever he is searching, because that's his day job. Similarly, the player of a Battlemaster Fighter may not have a great understanding of tactics in combat, but it is second nature to the character to analyse a battlefield to find the strengths and weaknesses in the enemies lines, the tactical advantage they can gain by a particular manoeuvre. Is it fair to penalise the player for choosing a character who thinks so much differently to themselves?
That said, it needs to not go too far the other way. The player must maintain control over their character, and not just rollplay, as Yurei put it.
Like I said, I think this is a very difficult area to balance.