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 felt that too. Society often looks at the introvert and tries to "bring them out of their shell".
Sorry, but I don't want to be cured of my introversion. It's a large part of my makeup. Many studies have even shown that it is biological, due to responses to different neurotransmitters.
Now, if you are talking of shyness, anxiety or a lack of self confidence, that's a different story. But the societal opinion that there is something wrong with you if you dislike excessive socialising with large groups or prefer to stay quiet until you have something interesting to say is infuriating. You go off and have your parties, I'm happy here with my book and a cup of tea, thanks.
Note: I am aware that Memnosyne's post wasn't actually suggesting "curing" introversion, but it could be read as implying it, and this is an issue which resonates deeply with me. I am very much in favour of playing characters who are significantly different to yourself if that's what you want, and if you can use it as a therapeutic tool to alter your own behaviour or deal with problems you have, great. But the extrovert-dominant society needs to get it into their thick skulls that many (most?) introverts are quite happy being who we are, and would be even happier if they stopped trying to fix us (i.e. make us behave more like them) and stopped biasing the world in favour of the extrovert.
1) 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. ... 2) 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.
1) That's not a thing. Everybody rolling once at most (which is standard practice) is not problematic to begin with, in many cases one or two players will prefer trying to aid another one instead of rolling themselves, and you can usually just ask what they're doing that'd require a roll.
2) Investigation is closer to Perception, one of the Knowledge skills or even something like flippin' Athletics than Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation. That's what you said ("there is no body-language subcomponent", although I'd have called in interaction), but then you jump to "either the GM gives away the plot or they don't" - why? You get information, that's all. Information is not plot. It's info, and giving the players snippets of info to piece together is great. Investigation is not some reliable narrator voice in your players' heads, it's basically just a source of raw (and occasionally misleading) data.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So it's a long post and I didn't have the time to read it all, but got a fair bit in. I might read the rest later.
But to this I'd like to add. Why are players expected to use their own intelligence when we're not expected to use our own physical strength in other skill checks etc? I'm probably not as smart as a 20 intelligence character with expertise in Investigation, so why am I expected to make the deductions instead of rolling for it like I would with any other skill check?
Let's say I announce the following "My character/I take a look around the room, trying to piece together what seems out of place, Sherlock Holmes-style" and then the DM responds, roll an investigation check, and then he tells me, even narrates what my characters finds and how, unless I did a good flavourful explanation myself. This to me is 100% in line with RP and what I'd expect from a nice player-DM interaction on the matter of investigation checks.
In short, I don't really buy your premise that Investigation is not meant to be rolled because it covers what the players should use their own brains for. It's my character that's really smart, not me.
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.
Tell me, how many people who have, I dunno, a grade 11 education, can look at a differential equation and solve? There are some things you "just don't get lucky" over. If I had a choice between a single university math major or 300 kids in high school who have never even seen calculus taking a shot at solving a differential equation, there is only one choice.
There are certain segments of the game where individual players don't have the knowledge. The best solution that has been presented to me is that the two people in a group with the most knowledge/experience in an area can work together, and ONE can roll with Advantage.
And as for RAW and I, I have stated many times I have House Rules that make the game harder, not easier. But in the vast majority of cases, yes, I use RAW.
In short, I don't really buy your premise that Investigation is not meant to be rolled because it covers what the players should use their own brains for. It's my character that's really smart, not me.
Also remember that it could be the other way around. If a player is smart but their character is not, then allowing the player to use their own intelligence to perform an investigation then they will be doing better than their character should.
All of which are things a good GM tries to get their players to do with their own brains.
This is basically what it comes down to and while I see your point, I don't agree with it completely. For me it's simply an issue of gameplay and rules mechanics separation. My character might be a INT 20, Expertise in Investigation, 300 year old Elf investigator who can deduce the location of the mayor's kidnapped husband just by sniffing a hair found on their sitting room sofa, but I'm not. Especially if we're playing after a long hard day and have had a few drinks. Which means that the dice have to step in and help me portray the character in a way that is more appropriate to their stats. So I roll for investigation.
Well, I do something that might warrant a roll for investigation and the DM might allow me to roll, but you get the point. B)
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.
Tell me, how many people who have, I dunno, a grade 11 education, can look at a differential equation and solve? There are some things you "just don't get lucky" over. If I had a choice between a single university math major or 300 kids in high school who have never even seen calculus taking a shot at solving a differential equation, there is only one choice.
There are certain segments of the game where individual players don't have the knowledge. The best solution that has been presented to me is that the two people in a group with the most knowledge/experience in an area can work together, and ONE can roll with Advantage.
And as for RAW and I, I have stated many times I have House Rules that make the game harder, not easier. But in the vast majority of cases, yes, I use RAW.
I think there is probably a middle ground here. It is certainly valid to rule that a given test is an "advanced" skill/tool test and you are only allowed to roll if you have proficiency in that skill or tool set (I do this as DM). At the same time there are some tests that you should be able to attempt with or without the appropriate skill proficiency (I also do this as DM!). It's not a black and white situation and the DM is entitled to use their judgement on who is allowed to roll for a given test.
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.
Tell me, how many people who have, I dunno, a grade 11 education, can look at a differential equation and solve? There are some things you "just don't get lucky" over. If I had a choice between a single university math major or 300 kids in high school who have never even seen calculus taking a shot at solving a differential equation, there is only one choice.
There are certain segments of the game where individual players don't have the knowledge. The best solution that has been presented to me is that the two people in a group with the most knowledge/experience in an area can work together, and ONE can roll with Advantage.
And as for RAW and I, I have stated many times I have House Rules that make the game harder, not easier. But in the vast majority of cases, yes, I use RAW.
I suggest going back to the rules and reading the part where it says that it's the DM's job to call for ability checks and that there must be a chance of success for anyone even attempting the check.
Also, just because the high school kids don't have the proficiency doesn't mean that can't actually try to solve the equation. Will they fail? Most likely. But as we've seen even on this very forum, not even the obvious outcome of failure can prevent some people from trying.
Also, also, there are a lot of situations that aren't as extreme as your example. For instance, let's say the group needs to figure out the name of a mythical wizard and the DM sets the DC at 19 for an Int (history) check. The Wizard and the Bard both botch their rolls and fails but the Barbarian (int 8 so minus one, no PB) manages to roll a 20 and they remember a story that their grandma used to tell before bedtime. My grammy always told me to be afraid of a wizard by the name of Bonky Boo. Sure sounds like the guy we're after!" Upon hearing this the wizard and bard both realize that the uneducated barbarian is actually right. Whoudathunkit! It just takes good roleplaying and a good DM.
Of course, the DM would be absolutely in the right to say that unless you had proficiency in History you aren't allowed to roll. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this forum, or anywhere else, that advocates "just rolling until you succeed".
Tell me, how many people who have, I dunno, a grade 11 education, can look at a differential equation and solve?
True enough, but (except for geeks like me*) solving the differential equation is unlikely to be the goal. It may be, for example, finding the speed of something given information you have about distances travelled. If that is the case, some may be able to intuit the result, or make an educated guess. It may even be possible for a character to create a physical representation of the problem and measure the answers required.
* True story: In high school, I spent hours upon hours attempting to integrate the normal distribution. I still have a stack of note books full of unsuccessful attempts at my parents house. I did this for several reasons: Firstly, I don't like looking things up in tables, it's icky, I want a formula**. Secondly, my maths teacher told me it was impossible, and I always enjoyed proving my teachers wrong. However, the main reason was that I enjoy maths in itself, and just spending that time working through various equations was a lot of fun, for me, even though it accomplished nothing.
** Even for my driving test, I refused to just memorise stopping distances and, instead, learned*** the formula to calculate them.
*** OK, I tell a lie. I could have looked up the formula. Instead, I took the data in the table and derived it from scratch, because that was more fun than just looking up something someone else had worked out.
I've always thought of investigation as a hint button at times, but it's also skill of finding things out, I might tell my DM that I'm researching, looking etc, but if I can't seem to get that final step he'll ask for an investigation check to point out something that i didn't catch
Two notes, since there's two distinct threads of conversation happening in this thread.
1.) The skill, as written, states "when you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, roll Investigation." Folks who say that Investigation should not be "Roll to receive plot" are correct - it should not be that thing. As written, however? It is that thing. The skill openly states "roll this when you want to understand clues", and many folks in this thread have openly stated "I shouldn't have to do any thinking - that's what my character is for." It strikes me as probably being one of the reasons Investigation is so commonly "mis"used as Slow, Careful Perception: DMs intuitively know that having a "Solve the Plot" button on a player's sheet is terrible for their games, and even most players realize this quickly if they don't know it intuitively themselves. Investigation-as-written basically amounts to letting players spoilerize their own campaign as they play it, which is not okay. The entire reason people play these games is to find out what happens. No one would ever play an RPG 'campaign' where the DM said "Okay. Alice - roll a d20. This will decide whether the Evil Lich-Monarch subjugates the kingdom in darkness forever, or if your party manages to find a road to victory." So why should we tolerate people doing that in small scale with Investigation?
Related, but more into part two...
2.) An unintelligent player who puts themself in the shoes of a hyperintelligent character is not going to feel hyperintelligent if their means of Experiencing High Intelligence(C) is throwing a clicky-clack math rock and demanding the DM be smart for them. Unintelligent players get to have other people be smart for them every day. I imagine it's awful, and not at all what they want when they create Smartus P. Antalones, their brainiac wizard. They want to experience for themselves what being the brains of the operation is like, in whatever way they can. Same with invincibly awkward folks trying to play a suave, rapier-tongued charismatic superstar, or absent-minded oblivious derps trying to play a keenly aware character in perfect tune with their environment and surroundings.
Faking mental stats by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they be smart, charismatic, or wise on the player's behalf does not allow a person to live their fantasy - it allows someone to watch someone else narrate their fantasy for them, which is the next best thing to useless. It's also patently unfair to the DM, who is being asked to have a real-life score of 20 in Int, Wis, and Cha so they can perfectly portray all the things everyone is saying it's blatantly unfair to force players to be good at themselves. "I shouldn't have to be super smart to play a super-smart character!" is a noble goal. "I should ba able to make the DM be super-smart for me by throwing dice at his head!" is less so, especially when the DM is no more or less likely to have a better IRL stat than any given player.
The truth of the matter is that there is no single person on the entire Earth who can successfully "pretend to be someone else" to the extent people demand of their roleplaying. All of your decisions come from your brain, are colored by your knowledge and experiences, and are determined by your mental capabilities. When Alice steps into the shoes of Blue Tanya, Muscle Queen of the Wastelands, she is not "making the decisions Blue Tanya would make". She is making the decisions Alice-the-player would make if she were isekai'd into the role of Blue Tanya. Telling Alice she is not allowed to use her own brain to run Blue Tanya is ridiculous, but that's what people so often suggest. The common refrain of "someone with a really high IRL mental stat shouldn't be allowed to use that as their dump stat and then be super good at it anyways! That's not fair!" is true but also useless, because that is unavoidable.
You cannot ignore a player's ability to play the game, any more than you can ignore the character's abilities within the game world. Alice's basic high school education grants her a degree of knowledge Blue Tanya the low-intelligence barbarian would never have access to. Alice cannot turn that knowledge off. She cannot not know what she knows. She can attempt to refrain from using that knowledge, but her decisions will always be influenced by what she knows. Blue Tanya does not have her own brain - Alice has a Blue Tanya filter in her Alice brain she clicks on whenever it's game time. If Alice is not allowed to make the decisions Alice would make because "it's not fair", and instead is forced to throw dice any time Blue Tanya has to do anything more complicated than relieve herself, Alice will not enjoy the game. She has to be allowed to let her own Alice-talents shine, which may well mean Blue Tanya is smarter than she should be.
That is simply the reality of the game. Alice cannot not be Alice. I cannot not be me, however much certain folks around here would love that. You cannot not be you. That means there will always be limits on what you can successfully portray. The further beyond those limits you go, the more you rely on the dice to do your gaming for you, the more you abstract and fuzz and obscure because you can't back up your sheet? The less satisfying your game will be. That's not any sort of judgment on people or the game, it's merely an observation of fact. Boiling away everything but "I throw a d20 to see if I win or lose" also means you've boiled away everything that makes this sort of game amazing. You have overcooked spaghetti, not a splendid campaign.
Faking mental stats by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they be smart, charismatic, or wise on the player's behalf does not allow a person to live their fantasy - it allows someone to watch someone else narrate their fantasy for them, which is the next best thing to useless. It's also patently unfair to the DM, who is being asked to have a real-life score of 20 in Int, Wis, and Cha so they can perfectly portray all the things everyone is saying it's blatantly unfair to force players to be good at themselves.
I can see your point. Like I said, it's very easy to go too far in either direction. It's no good for the player to just "throw dice at the DM's head", as you put it. Equally, it is no good for the high Int character to fail an intelligence based task because the player's intelligence is too low, just as it is no good for the high Str character to miss an attack because their player is unable to even lift the massive greatsword their character is wielding.
There is a middle ground where the player controls what the character does, but the character's scores and abilities are used to determine the outcome.
You are right that investigation is tricky, because normally you want the players themselves want to solve the fun puzzles (and so do they). However if none of the players can solve it, but the party has an Int 20 wizard whose background means he would definitely know the answer, it's difficult to justify saying that the character just forgot everything he knew on that subject.
Like I said, there is a middle ground to find, but it is tricky.
I'd be fine with nuking Investigation from 5e entirely. Let the players figure stuff out on their own and if they spin their wheels for a while on putting the clues together, you can interject and say, "After thinking it through, [character with 20 INT] makes a deduction."
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.
Tell me, how many people who have, I dunno, a grade 11 education, can look at a differential equation and solve? There are some things you "just don't get lucky" over. If I had a choice between a single university math major or 300 kids in high school who have never even seen calculus taking a shot at solving a differential equation, there is only one choice.
There are certain segments of the game where individual players don't have the knowledge. The best solution that has been presented to me is that the two people in a group with the most knowledge/experience in an area can work together, and ONE can roll with Advantage.
And as for RAW and I, I have stated many times I have House Rules that make the game harder, not easier. But in the vast majority of cases, yes, I use RAW.
You fix that by setting the DC. Make it a DC 21 and a person of average intelligence (10-11) will never solve the problem without training, no matter how lucky they are and how many advantage die they get to roll. But a super-genius with their 20 int might just be able to. You can still let the person roll, they don't know they can't possibly succeed, so maybe letting them roll is just theater, but its still more fun to get to roll and fail than it is to be told you can't even try.
Two notes, since there's two distinct threads of conversation happening in this thread.
1.) The skill, as written, states "when you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, roll Investigation." Folks who say that Investigation should not be "Roll to receive plot" are correct - it should not be that thing. As written, however? It is that thing. The skill openly states "roll this when you want to understand clues", and many folks in this thread have openly stated "I shouldn't have to do any thinking - that's what my character is for." It strikes me as probably being one of the reasons Investigation is so commonly "mis"used as Slow, Careful Perception: DMs intuitively know that having a "Solve the Plot" button on a player's sheet is terrible for their games, and even most players realize this quickly if they don't know it intuitively themselves. Investigation-as-written basically amounts to letting players spoilerize their own campaign as they play it, which is not okay. The entire reason people play these games is to find out what happens. No one would ever play an RPG 'campaign' where the DM said "Okay. Alice - roll a d20. This will decide whether the Evil Lich-Monarch subjugates the kingdom in darkness forever, or if your party manages to find a road to victory." So why should we tolerate people doing that in small scale with Investigation?
Related, but more into part two...
2.) An unintelligent player who puts themself in the shoes of a hyperintelligent character is not going to feel hyperintelligent if their means of Experiencing High Intelligence(C) is throwing a clicky-clack math rock and demanding the DM be smart for them. Unintelligent players get to have other people be smart for them every day. I imagine it's awful, and not at all what they want when they create Smartus P. Antalones, their brainiac wizard. They want to experience for themselves what being the brains of the operation is like, in whatever way they can. Same with invincibly awkward folks trying to play a suave, rapier-tongued charismatic superstar, or absent-minded oblivious derps trying to play a keenly aware character in perfect tune with their environment and surroundings.
1) Understanding clues is not the same as figuring out the plot, solving the puzzle or disarming the trap.
Say you find an improbable number of candles in a room. Investigation might lead you to surmize they're used for ritual purposes, or that they could be used to trigger something, or that they don't burn up, or any number of things. It might also tell you the last time the ritual was enacted, but it won't tell you if it was successful, what it was intended to to, or how to perform it yourself. You might conclude doing something with them will likely open a portal or reveal something or have some other funky effect, but you won't necessarily be able to tell what it is you have to do with them. Noticing they don't burn up is a pretty clear indication they're special, but beyond that? You don't really know.
Investigation helps you figure stuff out, but nothing in the rules says it helps you figure out anything and everything. It lets you find stuff, but nothing in the rules says it tells you everything you want to know about the stuff you found. Again, it's not an all-knowing reliable narrator in your head. It's like Athletics - you can climb a bunch of stuff with it if you roll well enough, but some stuff you'll never be able to climb regardless of your dice results.
2) Acrobatics isn't going to let me experience being an amazing catburglar either, and playing a 20 Str character won't make me feel like the winner of a Strongman competition. There are limits to the power of roleplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'd be fine with nuking Investigation from 5e entirely. Let the players figure stuff out on their own and if they spin their wheels for a while on putting the clues together, you can interject and say, "After thinking it through, [character with 20 INT] makes a deduction."
That's pretty much how it was in the olden days of TSR. Players having to exhaustively list everything their character did to find stuff - I look at the underside of the table, I pull all of the wall torches, I pull out every book in the bookcase, and so on. Trust me, that was far from perfect. Investigation as a way to nudge PCs in the right direction - not to give them the entire solution - works much, much better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The issue I see, Pang, is that the rules say you can roll Investigation to figure out clues.
A theoretical such exchange goes like this:
DM: Describes ritual site. "Investigator": "Investigation roll, 17. What do I learn?" DM: "...okay. Sure. You notice there's a lot more candles than needed simply to light the spaces, and despite the charring on their wicks there's no sign of any lost or melted wax." "Investigator": "Cool. Investigation roll to understand those clues. 19. What does that mean?" DM: "Chuck, I don't recall asking for - " "Investigator": "The rules say I can use Investigation to understand clues. Please tell me what the clues I discovered mean." DM: "...Fine. The candles have burned but there's no melted wax, which means they're magical somehow. The number and arrangement of candles is indicative of some sort of ritual arrangement." "Investigator": "Great. Investigation check to understand that new information better. Oh cool, 23. What does this mean?"
So on and so forth, until either the player has tortured the entire plot out of the DM or the DM puts their foot down and tells Chuck to **** off and play the game properly. Investigation is the only check I know of that is recursive this way - where you can, through a technicality of RAW, roll Investigation to understand the results of your Investigation check. It is ridiculous, yes. A lot of DMs will put their foot down early in that process. Some DMs won't, either because they don't understand the game as well as they need to or because the "investigator" player has an overwhelming personality and can bully their way into doing whatever they like. In any of those cases, one can just substitute recursive Investigation checks for any sort of actual thinking on the players' part, which reduces the entire game to "roll to see if you win."
I don't want to roll to see if I win. I want to play, and through that play discover whether or not we win.
Faking mental stats by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they be smart, charismatic, or wise on the player's behalf does not allow a person to live their fantasy - it allows someone to watch someone else narrate their fantasy for them, which is the next best thing to useless. It's also patently unfair to the DM, who is being asked to have a real-life score of 20 in Int, Wis, and Cha so they can perfectly portray all the things everyone is saying it's blatantly unfair to force players to be good at themselves.
I can see your point. Like I said, it's very easy to go too far in either direction. It's no good for the player to just "throw dice at the DM's head", as you put it. Equally, it is no good for the high Int character to fail an intelligence based task because the player's intelligence is too low, just as it is no good for the high Str character to miss an attack because their player is unable to even lift the massive greatsword their character is wielding.
There is a middle ground where the player controls what the character does, but the character's scores and abilities are used to determine the outcome.
You are right that investigation is tricky, because normally you want the players themselves want to solve the fun puzzles (and so do they). However if none of the players can solve it, but the party has an Int 20 wizard whose background means he would definitely know the answer, it's difficult to justify saying that the character just forgot everything he knew on that subject.
Like I said, there is a middle ground to find, but it is tricky.
The thing is, it's not tricky. Or at least I'd say the balance is fairly commonplace at tables. There are many many TTRPGs where investigation is much more important to the crux of the game than D&D, and there are investigative mechanics to aid the course of the game because the game presumes the players aren't forensic pathologists, crypto-linguists, forensic accountants, or cybersecurity specialists, and people enjoy them. Yes, a player can bring some sort of background in the application of violence or physical activity or some more cerebral vocation or pastime to the game and a table is often (but not always) a great boon to a table immersion into a game. But it's not essential, otherwise the appeal of these games would be completely lost on folks who've never "been there, done that."
Between player inspired action and mechanical resolution of character capabilities there is in fact balance, and I'd say even moreso there is dialogue. The players and the mechanics are in conversation with and over the adventure or game world and the DM moderates or facilitates that conversation. So it's not "either" the player relies on their inspired wits "or" they throw dice at the DMs head and make the DM perform. Just as that's not the case in any other action beyond the RL capacity of the player that requires the DM to call for a roll. It takes some play time for players and DMs to get comfortable with it, but I'd argue no more than getting comfortable with any other recreational pursuit.
I don't think this topic is really "Investigation: Why this skill proficiency is (potentially) actively harmful for 5e." I mean, really, who plays games where investigations are a focus (raises hand) and finds the investigation skill mechanic detrimental to the game (lowers hand). What's really being said in this thread is the OP, and possibly some other players have difficulty or foresee difficulty in playing or running games featuring investigation either in feeling the pressure to literally "match wits" with the investigation's challenges or allow rolls and stats help tell the story of the investigation. So rather than a validly antagonistic take on an aspect of the game, I'm seeing more a need for some assistance in achieving that balance in one or a few posters games.
With due respect, read a Sherlock Holmes book. Does not matter which. Holmes is an absolutely brilliant investigator to nigh divine levels. However that does not mean they have all the clues in front of them right from the opening scene.
The significance of any given clue does not equal the significance of the entire plot.
Furthermore, the significance of any given clue may not be revealed until in combination with other clues.
In the final act, the final clues are found and the whole thing comes together. This is the formula of every good mystery story.
The Sherlock novels and myriad film, play and TV series interpretations and variants are generally very acclaimed.
Read one and thereby learn how to apply the investigation skill to your story writing as a DM.
This and Hercules Peroit, Inspector Morse, McNulty and Bunk, Benson and Stabler, go back to Poe who arguably created the archetype that led to Holmes ... take your pick the investigative procedural or drama with investigation at the core is a staple in mass entertainment. Heck, I'd actually make a case that (at least the movies, not sure about tv show) Riggs and Murtaugh are probably the most D&D caliber investigators of all time.
I mean if only if there was a resource for the game that set up small like one shot examples of mysteries played out in D&D ... oh wait. There must be live and stream plays of some of those adventures already.
(Aside, why aren't people talking about Candlekeep Mysteries more? As a DM who's about a session away of dropping the party into "Book of the Raven" [although in my adaption there's no actual book] I'm surprised the release sort of just came and went, which might have also led to some productive discussions, grounded in the game, of how to play mysteries and investigations, and the variety of ways among that how. I mean I wasn't overwhelmed by the work I've largely skimmed before
Oh, were-ravens, cool! And they're sort of funny.
choosing the selection I did, but I think I like it overall.)
The issue I see, Pang, is that the rules say you can roll Investigation to figure out clues.
A theoretical such exchange goes like this:
DM: Describes ritual site. "Investigator": "Investigation roll, 17. What do I learn?" DM: "...okay. Sure. You notice there's a lot more candles than needed simply to light the spaces, and despite the charring on their wicks there's no sign of any lost or melted wax." "Investigator": "Cool. Investigation roll to understand those clues. 19. What does that mean?" DM: "Chuck, I don't recall asking for - " "Investigator": "The rules say I can use Investigation to understand clues. Please tell me what the clues I discovered mean." DM: "...Fine. The candles have burned but there's no melted wax, which means they're magical somehow. The number and arrangement of candles is indicative of some sort of ritual arrangement." "Investigator": "Great. Investigation check to understand that new information better. Oh cool, 23. What does this mean?"
So on and so forth, until either the player has tortured the entire plot out of the DM or the DM puts their foot down and tells Chuck to **** off and play the game properly. Investigation is the only check I know of that is recursive this way - where you can, through a technicality of RAW, roll Investigation to understand the results of your Investigation check. It is ridiculous, yes. A lot of DMs will put their foot down early in that process. Some DMs won't, either because they don't understand the game as well as they need to or because the "investigator" player has an overwhelming personality and can bully their way into doing whatever they like. In any of those cases, one can just substitute recursive Investigation checks for any sort of actual thinking on the players' part, which reduces the entire game to "roll to see if you win."
I don't want to roll to see if I win. I want to play, and through that play discover whether or not we win.
I can see this. However, DMs are encouraged not to allow their players to call for checks. They can describe their actions, and the DM calls for the check if they choose.
In this case, as soon as the player said they rolled investigation, I would expect most DMs to put their foot down. If players are rolling without the DM along and the DM is allowing it, I would suggest that there are bigger problems than the investigation skill.
Faking mental stats by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they be smart, charismatic, or wise on the player's behalf does not allow a person to live their fantasy - it allows someone to watch someone else narrate their fantasy for them, which is the next best thing to useless. It's also patently unfair to the DM, who is being asked to have a real-life score of 20 in Int, Wis, and Cha so they can perfectly portray all the things everyone is saying it's blatantly unfair to force players to be good at themselves.
I can see your point. Like I said, it's very easy to go too far in either direction. It's no good for the player to just "throw dice at the DM's head", as you put it. Equally, it is no good for the high Int character to fail an intelligence based task because the player's intelligence is too low, just as it is no good for the high Str character to miss an attack because their player is unable to even lift the massive greatsword their character is wielding.
There is a middle ground where the player controls what the character does, but the character's scores and abilities are used to determine the outcome.
You are right that investigation is tricky, because normally you want the players themselves want to solve the fun puzzles (and so do they). However if none of the players can solve it, but the party has an Int 20 wizard whose background means he would definitely know the answer, it's difficult to justify saying that the character just forgot everything he knew on that subject.
Like I said, there is a middle ground to find, but it is tricky.
The thing is, it's not tricky. Or at least I'd say the balance is fairly commonplace at tables. There are many many TTRPGs where investigation is much more important to the crux of the game than D&D, and there are investigative mechanics to aid the course of the game because the game presumes the players aren't forensic pathologists, crypto-linguists, forensic accountants, or cybersecurity specialists, and people enjoy them. Yes, a player can bring some sort of background in the application of violence or physical activity or some more cerebral vocation or pastime to the game and a table is often (but not always) a great boon to a table immersion into a game. But it's not essential, otherwise the appeal of these games would be completely lost on folks who've never "been there, done that."
Between player inspired action and mechanical resolution of character capabilities there is in fact balance, and I'd say even moreso there is dialogue. The players and the mechanics are in conversation with and over the adventure or game world and the DM moderates or facilitates that conversation. So it's not "either" the player relies on their inspired wits "or" they throw dice at the DMs head and make the DM perform. Just as that's not the case in any other action beyond the RL capacity of the player that requires the DM to call for a roll. It takes some play time for players and DMs to get comfortable with it, but I'd argue no more than getting comfortable with any other recreational pursuit.
I don't think this topic is really "Investigation: Why this skill proficiency is (potentially) actively harmful for 5e." I mean, really, who plays games where investigations are a focus (raises hand) and finds the investigation skill mechanic detrimental to the game (lowers hand). What's really being said in this thread is the OP, and possibly some other players have difficulty or foresee difficulty in playing or running games featuring investigation either in feeling the pressure to literally "match wits" with the investigation's challenges or allow rolls and stats help tell the story of the investigation. So rather than a validly antagonistic take on an aspect of the game, I'm seeing more a need for some assistance in achieving that balance in one or a few posters games.
With due respect, read a Sherlock Holmes book. Does not matter which. Holmes is an absolutely brilliant investigator to nigh divine levels. However that does not mean they have all the clues in front of them right from the opening scene.
The significance of any given clue does not equal the significance of the entire plot.
Furthermore, the significance of any given clue may not be revealed until in combination with other clues.
In the final act, the final clues are found and the whole thing comes together. This is the formula of every good mystery story.
The Sherlock novels and myriad film, play and TV series interpretations and variants are generally very acclaimed.
Read one and thereby learn how to apply the investigation skill to your story writing as a DM.
This and Hercules Peroit, Inspector Morse, McNulty and Bunk, Benson and Stabler, go back to Poe who arguably created the archetype the led to Holmes ... take your pick the investigative procedural or drama with investigative at the core is a staple in mass entertainment. Heck, I'd actually make a case that (at least the movies, not sure about tv show) Riggs and Murtaugh are probably the most D&D caliber investigators of all time.
I mean if only if there was a resource that game small like one shot examples of mysteries played out in D&D ... oh wait. There must be live and stream plays of some of those adventures already.
(Aside, why aren't people talking about Candlekeep Mysteries more? As a DM who's about a session away of dropping the party into "Book of the Raven" [although in my adaption there's no actual book] I'm surprised the release sort of just came and went, which might have also led to some productive discussions, grounded in the game, of how to play mysteries and investigations, and the variety of ways among that how. I mean I wasn't overwhelmed by the work I've largely skimmed before
Oh, were-ravens, cool! And they're sort of funny.
choosing the selection I did, but I think I like it overall.)
EDIT: I'm wondering if maybe some of the desire expressed to remove investigation from the other tasks sometimes resolved mechanically comes from placing investigation into some sort of prestige talent in our media, versus the reality of investigation which can be pretty sleepy. I mean why privilege investigation over tracking both in terms of the story mechanics of plot are needle in a haystack found through mental augury type exercises.
When I run combat I don't identify the targets vulnerabilities (unless the player is an inquisitive and there's a subclass feature) at the outset. When combat resolves, I will narrate or ask the player to narrate how the attack overcame the opponents defenses. When contesting a secret that doesn't want to be found, and the players haven't followed what I've laid out (which may well mean I didn't lay out the path all that well) I will have the table role-play out ideas and ones that seem actually engaged with the secret, if the player doesn't see it, I'll let them role to contest that secret's defenses, and if successful reveal the vulnerabilities through which the secret was arrived at.
I felt that too. Society often looks at the introvert and tries to "bring them out of their shell".
Sorry, but I don't want to be cured of my introversion. It's a large part of my makeup. Many studies have even shown that it is biological, due to responses to different neurotransmitters.
Now, if you are talking of shyness, anxiety or a lack of self confidence, that's a different story. But the societal opinion that there is something wrong with you if you dislike excessive socialising with large groups or prefer to stay quiet until you have something interesting to say is infuriating. You go off and have your parties, I'm happy here with my book and a cup of tea, thanks.
Note: I am aware that Memnosyne's post wasn't actually suggesting "curing" introversion, but it could be read as implying it, and this is an issue which resonates deeply with me. I am very much in favour of playing characters who are significantly different to yourself if that's what you want, and if you can use it as a therapeutic tool to alter your own behaviour or deal with problems you have, great. But the extrovert-dominant society needs to get it into their thick skulls that many (most?) introverts are quite happy being who we are, and would be even happier if they stopped trying to fix us (i.e. make us behave more like them) and stopped biasing the world in favour of the extrovert.
1) That's not a thing. Everybody rolling once at most (which is standard practice) is not problematic to begin with, in many cases one or two players will prefer trying to aid another one instead of rolling themselves, and you can usually just ask what they're doing that'd require a roll.
2) Investigation is closer to Perception, one of the Knowledge skills or even something like flippin' Athletics than Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation. That's what you said ("there is no body-language subcomponent", although I'd have called in interaction), but then you jump to "either the GM gives away the plot or they don't" - why? You get information, that's all. Information is not plot. It's info, and giving the players snippets of info to piece together is great. Investigation is not some reliable narrator voice in your players' heads, it's basically just a source of raw (and occasionally misleading) data.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So it's a long post and I didn't have the time to read it all, but got a fair bit in. I might read the rest later.
But to this I'd like to add. Why are players expected to use their own intelligence when we're not expected to use our own physical strength in other skill checks etc? I'm probably not as smart as a 20 intelligence character with expertise in Investigation, so why am I expected to make the deductions instead of rolling for it like I would with any other skill check?
Let's say I announce the following "My character/I take a look around the room, trying to piece together what seems out of place, Sherlock Holmes-style" and then the DM responds, roll an investigation check, and then he tells me, even narrates what my characters finds and how, unless I did a good flavourful explanation myself. This to me is 100% in line with RP and what I'd expect from a nice player-DM interaction on the matter of investigation checks.
In short, I don't really buy your premise that Investigation is not meant to be rolled because it covers what the players should use their own brains for. It's my character that's really smart, not me.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Tell me, how many people who have, I dunno, a grade 11 education, can look at a differential equation and solve? There are some things you "just don't get lucky" over. If I had a choice between a single university math major or 300 kids in high school who have never even seen calculus taking a shot at solving a differential equation, there is only one choice.
There are certain segments of the game where individual players don't have the knowledge. The best solution that has been presented to me is that the two people in a group with the most knowledge/experience in an area can work together, and ONE can roll with Advantage.
And as for RAW and I, I have stated many times I have House Rules that make the game harder, not easier. But in the vast majority of cases, yes, I use RAW.
Also remember that it could be the other way around. If a player is smart but their character is not, then allowing the player to use their own intelligence to perform an investigation then they will be doing better than their character should.
This is basically what it comes down to and while I see your point, I don't agree with it completely. For me it's simply an issue of gameplay and rules mechanics separation. My character might be a INT 20, Expertise in Investigation, 300 year old Elf investigator who can deduce the location of the mayor's kidnapped husband just by sniffing a hair found on their sitting room sofa, but I'm not. Especially if we're playing after a long hard day and have had a few drinks. Which means that the dice have to step in and help me portray the character in a way that is more appropriate to their stats. So I roll for investigation.
Well, I do something that might warrant a roll for investigation and the DM might allow me to roll, but you get the point. B)
I think there is probably a middle ground here. It is certainly valid to rule that a given test is an "advanced" skill/tool test and you are only allowed to roll if you have proficiency in that skill or tool set (I do this as DM). At the same time there are some tests that you should be able to attempt with or without the appropriate skill proficiency (I also do this as DM!). It's not a black and white situation and the DM is entitled to use their judgement on who is allowed to roll for a given test.
I suggest going back to the rules and reading the part where it says that it's the DM's job to call for ability checks and that there must be a chance of success for anyone even attempting the check.
Also, just because the high school kids don't have the proficiency doesn't mean that can't actually try to solve the equation. Will they fail? Most likely. But as we've seen even on this very forum, not even the obvious outcome of failure can prevent some people from trying.
Also, also, there are a lot of situations that aren't as extreme as your example. For instance, let's say the group needs to figure out the name of a mythical wizard and the DM sets the DC at 19 for an Int (history) check. The Wizard and the Bard both botch their rolls and fails but the Barbarian (int 8 so minus one, no PB) manages to roll a 20 and they remember a story that their grandma used to tell before bedtime. My grammy always told me to be afraid of a wizard by the name of Bonky Boo. Sure sounds like the guy we're after!" Upon hearing this the wizard and bard both realize that the uneducated barbarian is actually right. Whoudathunkit! It just takes good roleplaying and a good DM.
Of course, the DM would be absolutely in the right to say that unless you had proficiency in History you aren't allowed to roll. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this forum, or anywhere else, that advocates "just rolling until you succeed".
True enough, but (except for geeks like me*) solving the differential equation is unlikely to be the goal. It may be, for example, finding the speed of something given information you have about distances travelled. If that is the case, some may be able to intuit the result, or make an educated guess. It may even be possible for a character to create a physical representation of the problem and measure the answers required.
* True story: In high school, I spent hours upon hours attempting to integrate the normal distribution. I still have a stack of note books full of unsuccessful attempts at my parents house. I did this for several reasons: Firstly, I don't like looking things up in tables, it's icky, I want a formula**. Secondly, my maths teacher told me it was impossible, and I always enjoyed proving my teachers wrong. However, the main reason was that I enjoy maths in itself, and just spending that time working through various equations was a lot of fun, for me, even though it accomplished nothing.
** Even for my driving test, I refused to just memorise stopping distances and, instead, learned*** the formula to calculate them.
*** OK, I tell a lie. I could have looked up the formula. Instead, I took the data in the table and derived it from scratch, because that was more fun than just looking up something someone else had worked out.
I've always thought of investigation as a hint button at times, but it's also skill of finding things out, I might tell my DM that I'm researching, looking etc, but if I can't seem to get that final step he'll ask for an investigation check to point out something that i didn't catch
Two notes, since there's two distinct threads of conversation happening in this thread.
1.) The skill, as written, states "when you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, roll Investigation." Folks who say that Investigation should not be "Roll to receive plot" are correct - it should not be that thing. As written, however? It is that thing. The skill openly states "roll this when you want to understand clues", and many folks in this thread have openly stated "I shouldn't have to do any thinking - that's what my character is for." It strikes me as probably being one of the reasons Investigation is so commonly "mis"used as Slow, Careful Perception: DMs intuitively know that having a "Solve the Plot" button on a player's sheet is terrible for their games, and even most players realize this quickly if they don't know it intuitively themselves. Investigation-as-written basically amounts to letting players spoilerize their own campaign as they play it, which is not okay. The entire reason people play these games is to find out what happens. No one would ever play an RPG 'campaign' where the DM said "Okay. Alice - roll a d20. This will decide whether the Evil Lich-Monarch subjugates the kingdom in darkness forever, or if your party manages to find a road to victory." So why should we tolerate people doing that in small scale with Investigation?
Related, but more into part two...
2.) An unintelligent player who puts themself in the shoes of a hyperintelligent character is not going to feel hyperintelligent if their means of Experiencing High Intelligence(C) is throwing a clicky-clack math rock and demanding the DM be smart for them. Unintelligent players get to have other people be smart for them every day. I imagine it's awful, and not at all what they want when they create Smartus P. Antalones, their brainiac wizard. They want to experience for themselves what being the brains of the operation is like, in whatever way they can. Same with invincibly awkward folks trying to play a suave, rapier-tongued charismatic superstar, or absent-minded oblivious derps trying to play a keenly aware character in perfect tune with their environment and surroundings.
Faking mental stats by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they be smart, charismatic, or wise on the player's behalf does not allow a person to live their fantasy - it allows someone to watch someone else narrate their fantasy for them, which is the next best thing to useless. It's also patently unfair to the DM, who is being asked to have a real-life score of 20 in Int, Wis, and Cha so they can perfectly portray all the things everyone is saying it's blatantly unfair to force players to be good at themselves. "I shouldn't have to be super smart to play a super-smart character!" is a noble goal. "I should ba able to make the DM be super-smart for me by throwing dice at his head!" is less so, especially when the DM is no more or less likely to have a better IRL stat than any given player.
The truth of the matter is that there is no single person on the entire Earth who can successfully "pretend to be someone else" to the extent people demand of their roleplaying. All of your decisions come from your brain, are colored by your knowledge and experiences, and are determined by your mental capabilities. When Alice steps into the shoes of Blue Tanya, Muscle Queen of the Wastelands, she is not "making the decisions Blue Tanya would make". She is making the decisions Alice-the-player would make if she were isekai'd into the role of Blue Tanya. Telling Alice she is not allowed to use her own brain to run Blue Tanya is ridiculous, but that's what people so often suggest. The common refrain of "someone with a really high IRL mental stat shouldn't be allowed to use that as their dump stat and then be super good at it anyways! That's not fair!" is true but also useless, because that is unavoidable.
You cannot ignore a player's ability to play the game, any more than you can ignore the character's abilities within the game world. Alice's basic high school education grants her a degree of knowledge Blue Tanya the low-intelligence barbarian would never have access to. Alice cannot turn that knowledge off. She cannot not know what she knows. She can attempt to refrain from using that knowledge, but her decisions will always be influenced by what she knows. Blue Tanya does not have her own brain - Alice has a Blue Tanya filter in her Alice brain she clicks on whenever it's game time. If Alice is not allowed to make the decisions Alice would make because "it's not fair", and instead is forced to throw dice any time Blue Tanya has to do anything more complicated than relieve herself, Alice will not enjoy the game. She has to be allowed to let her own Alice-talents shine, which may well mean Blue Tanya is smarter than she should be.
That is simply the reality of the game. Alice cannot not be Alice. I cannot not be me, however much certain folks around here would love that. You cannot not be you. That means there will always be limits on what you can successfully portray. The further beyond those limits you go, the more you rely on the dice to do your gaming for you, the more you abstract and fuzz and obscure because you can't back up your sheet? The less satisfying your game will be. That's not any sort of judgment on people or the game, it's merely an observation of fact. Boiling away everything but "I throw a d20 to see if I win or lose" also means you've boiled away everything that makes this sort of game amazing. You have overcooked spaghetti, not a splendid campaign.
Don't overcook your spaghetti.
Please do not contact or message me.
I can see your point. Like I said, it's very easy to go too far in either direction. It's no good for the player to just "throw dice at the DM's head", as you put it. Equally, it is no good for the high Int character to fail an intelligence based task because the player's intelligence is too low, just as it is no good for the high Str character to miss an attack because their player is unable to even lift the massive greatsword their character is wielding.
There is a middle ground where the player controls what the character does, but the character's scores and abilities are used to determine the outcome.
You are right that investigation is tricky, because normally you want the players themselves want to solve the fun puzzles (and so do they). However if none of the players can solve it, but the party has an Int 20 wizard whose background means he would definitely know the answer, it's difficult to justify saying that the character just forgot everything he knew on that subject.
Like I said, there is a middle ground to find, but it is tricky.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You fix that by setting the DC. Make it a DC 21 and a person of average intelligence (10-11) will never solve the problem without training, no matter how lucky they are and how many advantage die they get to roll. But a super-genius with their 20 int might just be able to. You can still let the person roll, they don't know they can't possibly succeed, so maybe letting them roll is just theater, but its still more fun to get to roll and fail than it is to be told you can't even try.
1) Understanding clues is not the same as figuring out the plot, solving the puzzle or disarming the trap.
Say you find an improbable number of candles in a room. Investigation might lead you to surmize they're used for ritual purposes, or that they could be used to trigger something, or that they don't burn up, or any number of things. It might also tell you the last time the ritual was enacted, but it won't tell you if it was successful, what it was intended to to, or how to perform it yourself. You might conclude doing something with them will likely open a portal or reveal something or have some other funky effect, but you won't necessarily be able to tell what it is you have to do with them. Noticing they don't burn up is a pretty clear indication they're special, but beyond that? You don't really know.
Investigation helps you figure stuff out, but nothing in the rules says it helps you figure out anything and everything. It lets you find stuff, but nothing in the rules says it tells you everything you want to know about the stuff you found. Again, it's not an all-knowing reliable narrator in your head. It's like Athletics - you can climb a bunch of stuff with it if you roll well enough, but some stuff you'll never be able to climb regardless of your dice results.
2) Acrobatics isn't going to let me experience being an amazing catburglar either, and playing a 20 Str character won't make me feel like the winner of a Strongman competition. There are limits to the power of roleplay.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's pretty much how it was in the olden days of TSR. Players having to exhaustively list everything their character did to find stuff - I look at the underside of the table, I pull all of the wall torches, I pull out every book in the bookcase, and so on. Trust me, that was far from perfect. Investigation as a way to nudge PCs in the right direction - not to give them the entire solution - works much, much better.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The issue I see, Pang, is that the rules say you can roll Investigation to figure out clues.
A theoretical such exchange goes like this:
DM: Describes ritual site.
"Investigator": "Investigation roll, 17. What do I learn?"
DM: "...okay. Sure. You notice there's a lot more candles than needed simply to light the spaces, and despite the charring on their wicks there's no sign of any lost or melted wax."
"Investigator": "Cool. Investigation roll to understand those clues. 19. What does that mean?"
DM: "Chuck, I don't recall asking for - "
"Investigator": "The rules say I can use Investigation to understand clues. Please tell me what the clues I discovered mean."
DM: "...Fine. The candles have burned but there's no melted wax, which means they're magical somehow. The number and arrangement of candles is indicative of some sort of ritual arrangement."
"Investigator": "Great. Investigation check to understand that new information better. Oh cool, 23. What does this mean?"
So on and so forth, until either the player has tortured the entire plot out of the DM or the DM puts their foot down and tells Chuck to **** off and play the game properly. Investigation is the only check I know of that is recursive this way - where you can, through a technicality of RAW, roll Investigation to understand the results of your Investigation check. It is ridiculous, yes. A lot of DMs will put their foot down early in that process. Some DMs won't, either because they don't understand the game as well as they need to or because the "investigator" player has an overwhelming personality and can bully their way into doing whatever they like. In any of those cases, one can just substitute recursive Investigation checks for any sort of actual thinking on the players' part, which reduces the entire game to "roll to see if you win."
I don't want to roll to see if I win. I want to play, and through that play discover whether or not we win.
Please do not contact or message me.
The thing is, it's not tricky. Or at least I'd say the balance is fairly commonplace at tables. There are many many TTRPGs where investigation is much more important to the crux of the game than D&D, and there are investigative mechanics to aid the course of the game because the game presumes the players aren't forensic pathologists, crypto-linguists, forensic accountants, or cybersecurity specialists, and people enjoy them. Yes, a player can bring some sort of background in the application of violence or physical activity or some more cerebral vocation or pastime to the game and a table is often (but not always) a great boon to a table immersion into a game. But it's not essential, otherwise the appeal of these games would be completely lost on folks who've never "been there, done that."
Between player inspired action and mechanical resolution of character capabilities there is in fact balance, and I'd say even moreso there is dialogue. The players and the mechanics are in conversation with and over the adventure or game world and the DM moderates or facilitates that conversation. So it's not "either" the player relies on their inspired wits "or" they throw dice at the DMs head and make the DM perform. Just as that's not the case in any other action beyond the RL capacity of the player that requires the DM to call for a roll. It takes some play time for players and DMs to get comfortable with it, but I'd argue no more than getting comfortable with any other recreational pursuit.
I don't think this topic is really "Investigation: Why this skill proficiency is (potentially) actively harmful for 5e." I mean, really, who plays games where investigations are a focus (raises hand) and finds the investigation skill mechanic detrimental to the game (lowers hand). What's really being said in this thread is the OP, and possibly some other players have difficulty or foresee difficulty in playing or running games featuring investigation either in feeling the pressure to literally "match wits" with the investigation's challenges or allow rolls and stats help tell the story of the investigation. So rather than a validly antagonistic take on an aspect of the game, I'm seeing more a need for some assistance in achieving that balance in one or a few posters games.
This and Hercules Peroit, Inspector Morse, McNulty and Bunk, Benson and Stabler, go back to Poe who arguably created the archetype that led to Holmes ... take your pick the investigative procedural or drama with investigation at the core is a staple in mass entertainment. Heck, I'd actually make a case that (at least the movies, not sure about tv show) Riggs and Murtaugh are probably the most D&D caliber investigators of all time.
I mean if only if there was a resource for the game that set up small like one shot examples of mysteries played out in D&D ... oh wait. There must be live and stream plays of some of those adventures already.
(Aside, why aren't people talking about Candlekeep Mysteries more? As a DM who's about a session away of dropping the party into "Book of the Raven" [although in my adaption there's no actual book] I'm surprised the release sort of just came and went, which might have also led to some productive discussions, grounded in the game, of how to play mysteries and investigations, and the variety of ways among that how. I mean I wasn't overwhelmed by the work I've largely skimmed before
Oh, were-ravens, cool! And they're sort of funny.
choosing the selection I did, but I think I like it overall.)
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I can see this. However, DMs are encouraged not to allow their players to call for checks. They can describe their actions, and the DM calls for the check if they choose.
In this case, as soon as the player said they rolled investigation, I would expect most DMs to put their foot down. If players are rolling without the DM along and the DM is allowing it, I would suggest that there are bigger problems than the investigation skill.
EDIT: I'm wondering if maybe some of the desire expressed to remove investigation from the other tasks sometimes resolved mechanically comes from placing investigation into some sort of prestige talent in our media, versus the reality of investigation which can be pretty sleepy. I mean why privilege investigation over tracking both in terms of the story mechanics of plot are needle in a haystack found through mental augury type exercises.
When I run combat I don't identify the targets vulnerabilities (unless the player is an inquisitive and there's a subclass feature) at the outset. When combat resolves, I will narrate or ask the player to narrate how the attack overcame the opponents defenses. When contesting a secret that doesn't want to be found, and the players haven't followed what I've laid out (which may well mean I didn't lay out the path all that well) I will have the table role-play out ideas and ones that seem actually engaged with the secret, if the player doesn't see it, I'll let them role to contest that secret's defenses, and if successful reveal the vulnerabilities through which the secret was arrived at.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.