If the player described looking or doing the thing that was needed to find the whoozit, then I would bypass the roll. But some folks just don't have the background for it. So after the roll I detail where the thing was found so they gain knowledge.
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?"
In the beginning I struggled to figure out when to ask for Investigation and when to ask for Perception.
I've settled on Perception is looking, smelling, hearing - you walk into a room and see....
Investigation is touching - looking through the stack of papers or inside the desk or through the trash pile....
Perception - You notice a stone which is slightly different from those around it. Players most often say they look at it to figure out what to about it. Many forum games have players making a roll in anticipation to save time, which I don't mind.
I haven't had a player do a string of rolls to find something out, yet. I honestly don't remember having players try to figure out a puzzle by rolling. Hopefully it's because I present the situation in a way that they know they have to do something not just roll for it.
----
I completely understand that some people are not heavy thinkers or puzzle solvers in real life. Their PC may know the answer that the player does not. That's what rolls are for.
-----
I think you're fairly close, here.
For me, Investigation is the "bypass the boring stuff" button. Let's say there's a statue on a plinth that a player wishes to obtain, but suspects that it might be a trap. We could do the bit-by-bit method.
"Can I see any wires?"
"Nope."
"Is the plinth integral to the ground?"
"Yes."
"Is there a button that the statue is resting on?"
"Nope."
"Is the material of the plinth uniform?'
"Yes."
"Is it made of metal?"
"Nope."
"Hmmm...no traps, I grab the statue."
"As you walk up, you break a trip wire and a giant ball comes rolling towards you...roll for initiative..."
"Oh, FFS! My 20 Int and 20 Wis character with proficiencies in both Investigation and Perception didn't see or think about a trip wire?!"
Investigation is meant to bypass all of that, the frustration that comes from spending twenty minutes of interrogating the DM for every single possible angle of a trap. As DM, I can insist on a more detailed and explicit description of what they do (and trigger the trap if they screw it up), but once I'm satisfied, we can just go with a roll and resolve it that way.
Perception and Investigation, while they do have overlap, are different. Perception is noticing odd things, like there's some disturbed dust in front of the fireplace. Investigation is taking clues and using them to draw a conclusion. Maybe you notice that one of the candlestick holders is more worn and polished than the rest. You see that there is a strange cord that runs from it into the wall. You piece it together and realise that if you pull it, then something will happen. Add to that the disturbed dust from the mantle piece and you might put two and two together and realise that the fireplace is a secret door and that pulling on the candlestick will probably open it.
Both Investigation and Perception are rolls intended to bypass the "interrogate the DM for 20 minutes to find out information that will be helpful" stage, and they refer to two different ways of learning about the world around the characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Bypassing actual role-playing that requires the players to actually describe their characters' actions in order to observe things to obtain such information reduces what is supposed to be a role-playing game to a game of numbers.
Your caricature of this process in which it is just a series of Yes or No questions mischaracterizes how people used to play before a skill system like now's existed.
We didn't just say Is this that? and Is that this? to get answers. We had to work for those answers by describing what our characters were doing.
Players' describing what they are doing to examine something or to be able to perceive something and then and only then the DM's providing answers can often make for the most amusing and narratively spectacular moments in a session.
It is not immersive for the DM to describe literally everything each individual PC sees and similarly impractical for any given DM to have a literal artwork depicting what the group sees. Players should describe where their characters are searching, if they are doing a hands-on investigation, but for what is simply visible to their PC's? That is the kind of thing passive observation skills are intended for.
Oh and just because someone says they are searching, say, a desk or a bookcase does not mean that has to have an instantaneous result, either. Things taking time is also an aspect of RP (and one of the hardest for a lot of modern players to master, it seems).
Investigation is touching - looking through the stack of papers or inside the desk or through the trash pile....
I completely disagree. You are using a sense to observe your surroundings. (unless I misunderstand you somehow)
How are you going to see anything in a desk or under papers or in a book if you don't touch it?
There are two aspects there, though. There is what is in the desk or in a pile of papers and there is what is on the desk in plain sight, which may or may not be obviously important. Investigation skill is a Sherlock Holmes style deductive reasoning approach, so recognizing that the name on the letter in plain sight on the desk bears similarities to someone the party has dealt with before... same surname or perhaps even an anagram of a surname they recognize, to further such an example.
The DM could simply point that out to them directly, deem it obvious enough to them on its face, or could set a target for a passive or active investigation check. Or some other check, perhaps, like a history check to recognize the name. Placing a check in there should only be things which provide shortcuts to answers. For anything that would dead end the party if they do not learn there and then, usually best to have them simply notice it.
DMs needn't describe everything. Nor have 'a literal artwork' at hand. I am simply saying a player should describe his or her character's actions when trying to locate or perceive something.
You're actually agreeing with me here.
As I said, "As DM, I can insist on a more detailed and explicit description of what they do (and trigger the trap if they screw it up)..."
Now, where I draw the line on what satisfies me depends on the circumstances, how "trapped" the item is, how fun it is, etc. They won't tell me that they're going to roll, they tell me what they're doing. I might prompt them for more detail, depending on what's happened. What I don't want is for things to go as my caricature depicted, where they're just spending ages asking questions rather than actually engaging with the game. When things start to grind, you call the roll.
I've literally sat in a session for twenty minutes, listening to a player interrogate the DM because they were paranoid that there was a trap and demanded answers to try and find them.
There was no effing trap.
The DM could have spared us all after two minutes by having them roll Investigation. Or you roll Investigation and on a success, the DM tells you that there is this one trap you missed.
To complete the quote:
"...but once I'm satisfied, we can just go with a roll and resolve it that way."
Investigation doesn't need to supplant good and valuable RP. It draws a line under it when that ends and we start getting into the dumb stuff that follows when the good RP hits a wall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Bypassing actual role-playing that requires the players to actually describe their characters' actions in order to observe things to obtain such information reduces what is supposed to be a role-playing game to a game of numbers.
So, a player says "I search the desk".
Are they flipping through the contents of the drawers? Dumping each one out? Checking the bottoms of each and feeling around in the openings? Knocking on it to find hollows? Noticing that the drawers and their openings are all two inches too short?
Do you abstract it into a roll, or do you make them describe exactly how they do it?
If you make them describe, then not only do you potentially get the tedious laundry lists of investigative steps, but you break the separation of character and player. A naive farm boy isn't going to know how to toss a room, even if their player does. More importantly, somebody who's never thought about that sort of thing should be able to play an experienced thief, and not get penalized for it.
The room is dark and a character needs to feel his or her way around while in search of something potentially of value. What's better? Just having the player make an Investigation roll at perhaps Disadvantage? Or having the player describe what his or her character does, laying on the floor and stretching his or her right arm as far as possible, moving it in an arc, then the DM's telling the player when something smooth and cold but strangely radiating some warmth can be felt as the character reaches beneath what has not yet been discovered is a bed?
Some people are into that sort of detailed description; some aren't.
sometimes it's just a matter of taste (or even a sense of pacing)
sometimes it's a matter of patience, or verbal skills, or even spatial skills --- so if you're running a game to teach kids social skills and whatnot, getting them out of their comfort zone may be part of the point. (but doing that to adults who didn't sign up for it may be annoying or patronizing...a session zero issue, perhaps.)
sometimes it's a problem with how much "stuff" they have to hold in their head at a time. for example, I find this sort of thing way easier when there's a grid map with objects drawn or placed there, rather than trying to keep the whole scene, wholesale, in the theater of the mind.
So, for another example, if I say "I roll investigation to see what I find" and the DM responds with "but you have to tell me how you search for clues first!" like we're playing some improvisational game of "simon says"...I'm probably not enjoying that interaction. If, instead, they respond "which room do you start with?" and make me risk failure each room, then at least there's a reason for the added detail...
Investigation is touching - looking through the stack of papers or inside the desk or through the trash pile....
I completely disagree. You are using a sense to observe your surroundings. (unless I misunderstand you somehow)
How are you going to see anything in a desk or under papers or in a book if you don't touch it?
Are you referring to interacting with something, or using your sense of touch? If it is the first, it depends what they're trying to do. If it is the second it is very clearly perception.
Investigation is touching - looking through the stack of papers or inside the desk or through the trash pile....
I completely disagree. You are using a sense to observe your surroundings. (unless I misunderstand you somehow)
How are you going to see anything in a desk or under papers or in a book if you don't touch it?
Are you referring to interacting with something, or using your sense of touch? If it is the first, it depends what they're trying to do. If it is the second it is very clearly perception.
Pretty clearly they were referring to interacting with, i.e. one cannot search a stack of papers without manipulating the papers to unstack them enough to see what is there
I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say "some folks don't have the background for it." Any player can describe how a character regardless of its class or anything is interacting with an environment or an object that might lead to its locating something. No? Or do you mean new players who might lack experience enough to know they can do this?
That is exactly what I mean. Kids don't have the background to search in a drawer for hidden panels or go through books looking for a storage box or switch. Even some adults new to RPGs aren't sure about limits. Those familiar with fantasy computer games can have trouble because the computer game has limits and almost always gives a clue when you pan your mouse around.
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 is not immersive for the DM to describe literally everything each individual PC sees and similarly impractical for any given DM to have a literal artwork depicting what the group sees. Players should describe where their characters are searching, if they are doing a hands-on investigation, but for what is simply visible to their PC's? That is the kind of thing passive observation skills are intended for.
Oh and just because someone says they are searching, say, a desk or a bookcase does not mean that has to have an instantaneous result, either. Things taking time is also an aspect of RP (and one of the hardest for a lot of modern players to master, it seems).
I agree with everything you've said there.
DMs needn't describe everything. Nor have 'a literal artwork' at hand. I am simply saying a player should describe his or her character's actions when trying to locate or perceive something. Not just say Can I roll [blank]? That as the player describes his or her character's actions the DM would then tell the player what his or her character locates or perceives. Simple, really.
The room is dark and a character needs to feel his or her way around while in search of something potentially of value. What's better? Just having the player make an Investigation roll at perhaps Disadvantage? Or having the player describe what his or her character does, laying on the floor and stretching his or her right arm as far as possible, moving it in an arc, then the DM's telling the player when something smooth and cold but strangely radiating some warmth can be felt as the character reaches beneath what has not yet been discovered is a bed?
The first is void of vividness ... and of any sense of mystery. It reduces a game with which we tell stories to one of mere numbers.
People play D&D differently. But when I DM I expect my players to be at least somewhat creative and to role-play and not just roll dice.
Rolls should not and in fact do not preclude RP'ing the set up for them or the results. One can still say "I am searching the desk" or "I am carefully searching the desk, wary of traps" or "I am searching the papers piled on the desk" and potentially have different outcomes from each, even if all had the same roll attached.
Similarly, RPing out an action gives zero indication at how well the character actually carried out the action, unless the DM is either allowing the players to simply declare themselves successful, or if all actions are successful or fail purely based on how the action is described, with no chance or skill element at all. As long as someone describes lockpicking procedure in sufficient detail they could be allowed to automatically succeed, but that would carry the risks of the DM and players having to both have sufficient knowledge OOC as well as the whole thing getting really tedious and repetitive quickly.
My general rule is that perception is for things that a dog would figure out, and investigation is for things a dog would be really stupid about but a human would figure out.
Perception is being able to to sense things with all five senses. Investigation is being able to deduce meaning from clues. Perception gives you clues, but doesn't help you decipher what they mean, Investigation lets you figure out what things mean but doesn't help you sense clues in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Perception is being able to to sense things with all five senses. Investigation is being able to deduce meaning from clues. Perception gives you clues, but doesn't help you decipher what they mean, Investigation lets you figure out what things mean but doesn't help you sense clues in the first place.
Very close to my interpretation, which is that perception lets you notice things. Investigation lets you deduce which of the things you notice are important (and why). Insight lets you sense which of the things you notice has some deeper meaning, but usually not why.
Examples:
You notice a person in the next room is saying things and even hear precisely what they are saying, despite the background noise (Perception success).
They mentioned the gray wharf, well known for fishing and grey herring fish. The the survivors of the raid mentioned the bandits smelling like herring! This person might know something about the bandits, might even be one of them! (Investigation success)
Wait, something's not right here. Their comments regarding the grey wharf sound like lies.... so maybe they are only pretending to be a bandit member? Or perhaps they are even a... red herring?? (Insight success)
Are they flipping through the contents of the drawers? Dumping each one out? Checking the bottoms of each and feeling around in the openings? Knocking on it to find hollows? Noticing that the drawers and their openings are all two inches too short?
Do you abstract it into a roll, or do you make them describe exactly how they do it?
If you make them describe, then not only do you potentially get the tedious laundry lists of investigative steps, but you break the separation of character and player. A naive farm boy isn't going to know how to toss a room, even if their player does. More importantly, somebody who's never thought about that sort of thing should be able to play an experienced thief, and not get penalized for it.
Old-school play prioritized player skill over character abilities and did without skills except for those to which specific classes had access.
Why?
Because a player of considerable intelligence stuck playing a character with low INT should be able to use his or her own intuition to figure something out. [And not allowing that is the further implication of what you propose in which a player who might not possess the intuition to think of something has a character with a high INT and just rolls to manage.] A player with a character with low INT should not just constantly feign ignorance and suffer the consequences of forever failing rolls. Good characters are characters who defy expectations. An intelligent character failing at something requiring intelligence because the player lacked the intuition to figure it out can be funny or be a source of further danger—and with it excitement—for the party.
If it's all about abstracting things into rolls. Reducing characters to numbers and not what they might be capable of in a moment where the player's intuition can have the character transcend those numbers. It's rollplaying and not roleplaying.
Old-school play prioritized player skill over character abilities and did without skills except for those to which specific classes had access.
Why?
Because a player of considerable intelligence stuck playing a character with low INT should be able to use his or her own intuition to figure something out. [And not allowing that is the further implication of what you propose in which a player who might not possess the intuition to think of something has a character with a high INT and just rolls to manage.] A player with a character with low INT should not just constantly feign ignorance and suffer the consequences of forever failing rolls. Good characters are characters who defy expectations. An intelligent character failing at something requiring intelligence because the player lacked the intuition to figure it out can be funny or be a source of further danger—and with it excitement—for the party.
If it's all about abstracting things into rolls. Reducing characters to numbers and not what they might be capable of in a moment where the player's intuition can have the character transcend those numbers. It's rollplaying and not roleplaying.
A distinction that has been made for decades.
I don't think I would enjoy that play style at all. Why would I let someone dump INT and still play as though they didn't? Seems unfair to everyone else at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I completely disagree. You are using a sense to observe your surroundings. (unless I misunderstand you somehow)
I don't think that Investigation or Perception should be linked to any specific senses, since observation and deduction not limited to a single sense.
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.
Just to put it in simple form for kids and beginners to understand.
"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
How are you going to see anything in a desk or under papers or in a book if you don't touch it?
"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
If the player described looking or doing the thing that was needed to find the whoozit, then I would bypass the roll. But some folks just don't have the background for it. So after the roll I detail where the thing was found so they gain knowledge.
"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
I think you're fairly close, here.
For me, Investigation is the "bypass the boring stuff" button. Let's say there's a statue on a plinth that a player wishes to obtain, but suspects that it might be a trap. We could do the bit-by-bit method.
"Can I see any wires?"
"Nope."
"Is the plinth integral to the ground?"
"Yes."
"Is there a button that the statue is resting on?"
"Nope."
"Is the material of the plinth uniform?'
"Yes."
"Is it made of metal?"
"Nope."
"Hmmm...no traps, I grab the statue."
"As you walk up, you break a trip wire and a giant ball comes rolling towards you...roll for initiative..."
"Oh, FFS! My 20 Int and 20 Wis character with proficiencies in both Investigation and Perception didn't see or think about a trip wire?!"
Investigation is meant to bypass all of that, the frustration that comes from spending twenty minutes of interrogating the DM for every single possible angle of a trap. As DM, I can insist on a more detailed and explicit description of what they do (and trigger the trap if they screw it up), but once I'm satisfied, we can just go with a roll and resolve it that way.
Perception and Investigation, while they do have overlap, are different. Perception is noticing odd things, like there's some disturbed dust in front of the fireplace. Investigation is taking clues and using them to draw a conclusion. Maybe you notice that one of the candlestick holders is more worn and polished than the rest. You see that there is a strange cord that runs from it into the wall. You piece it together and realise that if you pull it, then something will happen. Add to that the disturbed dust from the mantle piece and you might put two and two together and realise that the fireplace is a secret door and that pulling on the candlestick will probably open it.
Both Investigation and Perception are rolls intended to bypass the "interrogate the DM for 20 minutes to find out information that will be helpful" stage, and they refer to two different ways of learning about the world around the characters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It is not immersive for the DM to describe literally everything each individual PC sees and similarly impractical for any given DM to have a literal artwork depicting what the group sees. Players should describe where their characters are searching, if they are doing a hands-on investigation, but for what is simply visible to their PC's? That is the kind of thing passive observation skills are intended for.
Oh and just because someone says they are searching, say, a desk or a bookcase does not mean that has to have an instantaneous result, either. Things taking time is also an aspect of RP (and one of the hardest for a lot of modern players to master, it seems).
There are two aspects there, though. There is what is in the desk or in a pile of papers and there is what is on the desk in plain sight, which may or may not be obviously important. Investigation skill is a Sherlock Holmes style deductive reasoning approach, so recognizing that the name on the letter in plain sight on the desk bears similarities to someone the party has dealt with before... same surname or perhaps even an anagram of a surname they recognize, to further such an example.
The DM could simply point that out to them directly, deem it obvious enough to them on its face, or could set a target for a passive or active investigation check. Or some other check, perhaps, like a history check to recognize the name. Placing a check in there should only be things which provide shortcuts to answers. For anything that would dead end the party if they do not learn there and then, usually best to have them simply notice it.
You're actually agreeing with me here.
As I said, "As DM, I can insist on a more detailed and explicit description of what they do (and trigger the trap if they screw it up)..."
Now, where I draw the line on what satisfies me depends on the circumstances, how "trapped" the item is, how fun it is, etc. They won't tell me that they're going to roll, they tell me what they're doing. I might prompt them for more detail, depending on what's happened. What I don't want is for things to go as my caricature depicted, where they're just spending ages asking questions rather than actually engaging with the game. When things start to grind, you call the roll.
I've literally sat in a session for twenty minutes, listening to a player interrogate the DM because they were paranoid that there was a trap and demanded answers to try and find them.
There was no effing trap.
The DM could have spared us all after two minutes by having them roll Investigation. Or you roll Investigation and on a success, the DM tells you that there is this one trap you missed.
To complete the quote:
"...but once I'm satisfied, we can just go with a roll and resolve it that way."
Investigation doesn't need to supplant good and valuable RP. It draws a line under it when that ends and we start getting into the dumb stuff that follows when the good RP hits a wall.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So, a player says "I search the desk".
Are they flipping through the contents of the drawers? Dumping each one out? Checking the bottoms of each and feeling around in the openings? Knocking on it to find hollows? Noticing that the drawers and their openings are all two inches too short?
Do you abstract it into a roll, or do you make them describe exactly how they do it?
If you make them describe, then not only do you potentially get the tedious laundry lists of investigative steps, but you break the separation of character and player. A naive farm boy isn't going to know how to toss a room, even if their player does. More importantly, somebody who's never thought about that sort of thing should be able to play an experienced thief, and not get penalized for it.
Some people are into that sort of detailed description; some aren't.
So, for another example, if I say "I roll investigation to see what I find" and the DM responds with "but you have to tell me how you search for clues first!" like we're playing some improvisational game of "simon says"...I'm probably not enjoying that interaction. If, instead, they respond "which room do you start with?" and make me risk failure each room, then at least there's a reason for the added detail...
Are you referring to interacting with something, or using your sense of touch? If it is the first, it depends what they're trying to do. If it is the second it is very clearly perception.
Pretty clearly they were referring to interacting with, i.e. one cannot search a stack of papers without manipulating the papers to unstack them enough to see what is there
That is exactly what I mean. Kids don't have the background to search in a drawer for hidden panels or go through books looking for a storage box or switch. Even some adults new to RPGs aren't sure about limits. Those familiar with fantasy computer games can have trouble because the computer game has limits and almost always gives a clue when you pan your mouse around.
"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
Rolls should not and in fact do not preclude RP'ing the set up for them or the results. One can still say "I am searching the desk" or "I am carefully searching the desk, wary of traps" or "I am searching the papers piled on the desk" and potentially have different outcomes from each, even if all had the same roll attached.
Similarly, RPing out an action gives zero indication at how well the character actually carried out the action, unless the DM is either allowing the players to simply declare themselves successful, or if all actions are successful or fail purely based on how the action is described, with no chance or skill element at all. As long as someone describes lockpicking procedure in sufficient detail they could be allowed to automatically succeed, but that would carry the risks of the DM and players having to both have sufficient knowledge OOC as well as the whole thing getting really tedious and repetitive quickly.
My general rule is that perception is for things that a dog would figure out, and investigation is for things a dog would be really stupid about but a human would figure out.
Perception is being able to to sense things with all five senses. Investigation is being able to deduce meaning from clues. Perception gives you clues, but doesn't help you decipher what they mean, Investigation lets you figure out what things mean but doesn't help you sense clues in the first place.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Very close to my interpretation, which is that perception lets you notice things. Investigation lets you deduce which of the things you notice are important (and why). Insight lets you sense which of the things you notice has some deeper meaning, but usually not why.
Examples:
Old-school play prioritized player skill over character abilities and did without skills except for those to which specific classes had access.
Why?
Because a player of considerable intelligence stuck playing a character with low INT should be able to use his or her own intuition to figure something out. [And not allowing that is the further implication of what you propose in which a player who might not possess the intuition to think of something has a character with a high INT and just rolls to manage.] A player with a character with low INT should not just constantly feign ignorance and suffer the consequences of forever failing rolls. Good characters are characters who defy expectations. An intelligent character failing at something requiring intelligence because the player lacked the intuition to figure it out can be funny or be a source of further danger—and with it excitement—for the party.
If it's all about abstracting things into rolls. Reducing characters to numbers and not what they might be capable of in a moment where the player's intuition can have the character transcend those numbers. It's rollplaying and not roleplaying.
A distinction that has been made for decades.
I don't think I would enjoy that play style at all. Why would I let someone dump INT and still play as though they didn't? Seems unfair to everyone else at the table.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master