DM:Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it.
Wizard: Can I make an Arcana roll to see what the circle is?
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the type of magic circle is 13) Go ahead
Bard:Wait, can I figure out what the heraldic crest is?
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the meaning of the family crest is 15 as the family is extinct and the crest very old ) Sure - give me a history check
Rogue:While they're doing that, I want to check out the bookshelf
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to find the hollowed out book with the key in it is 14 ) Roll investigation
Wizard:I got a 16
Bard: 13?
Rogue:Woo! Natural 20 - so 23!
But as many people have noted, remembering things doesn't work that way.
Still - many GMs ( including myself! ) often feel that the players need to work for their clues. I mean, what happens if I just blurt out all the clues at once? Where's the challenge? Where's the fun?
And then I ran across this quote about the GUMSHOE system: "The premise is that investigative games are not about finding clues, they are about interpreting the clues that are found" and I had a light-bulb go off.
Even when my players find all the clues the "old fashioned way" they go off on tangents I'd never thought of :p
And ... is rolling an Arcana check really fun, or is the fact that your character is smart enough to know these things, the fun part? Isn't putting together the clues into theory and running off to find out if your theory is true the fun?
So - what about passive knowledge scores for noticing things, and only using rolls when the character is actively doing things?
DM: ( checks notes, notes the "passive knowledge" scores of who would immediately notice what ). Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it - points to Bard - and while you do recognize elements, this is a crest that you don't recognize, although it looks archaic.
Rogue:I want to check out the bookshelf
DM: Sure - Roll investigation
Bard: Wait a minute, I dig around in my backpack and pull out my copy of Barthemol's History of Heraldic Imagery, and see if I can't somehow decipher this crest.
DM: OK - give me a History roll
Rogue: Woo! Natural 20 - so 23!
What I might add to this, is a "success tracker", where I check off a box every time someone got an "automatic success" in a skill.
If WizardandBard both had Arcana scores high enough to recognize what the magic circle was for, I would give the "automatic success" to them alternatively: Wizard got it this time, Bard gets it next time, Wizard the time after that. That way everyone gets to feel "smart".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
But as many people have noted, remembering things doesn't work that way.
They don't necessarily have to be remembering things. The roll could also represent if they knew it in the first place.
And then I ran across this quote about the GUMSHOE system: "The premise is that investigative games are not about finding clues, they are about interpreting the clues that are found" and I had a light-bulb go off.
Agreed.
So - what about passive knowledge scores for noticing things, and only using rolls when the character is actively doing things?
DM: ( checks notes, notes the "passive knowledge" scores of who would immediately notice what ). Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it - points to Bard - and while you do recognize elements, this is a crest that you don't recognize, although it looks archaic.
...
Thoughts?
I use this approach myself. It works well, in my opinion. I also like to tack on "So-and-so, thanks to your knowledge of the arcane, you recognize this as ..." so the player knows I've actually taken their skill proficiency into account.
It took me a long time to get to the point where I didn't ask for a roll for every action ever. Once I figured out the idea that I can treat their skills as natural, organic processes much like we do in real life, it made my job much easier.
I'm off a similar mind, I give the obvious information, and any information inside the DC threshold, up front. I pass the "you're the mvp" torch around as much as possible. I also try to sprinkle information that feels particular to the individual characters. The tricky part that I've been trying to figure out is: Ask for a roll vs. Let the players ask/ describe for a roll.
The hidden message behind the graffiti, do I ask the players to roll an investigation or do I just let the players do their thing potentially missing the clue. I can see two arguments so it makes the decision a little difficult at times.
You know, the more I dig into the GUMSHOE system ( I just picked up Ashen Stars ), the more I think it lines up with this approach.
In GUMSHOE
"Core clues" - the things that the players need to know to advance the story - are pretty much automatic; got the right skill, at the right time, in the right place, and you tell the GM you're using the skill in a appropriate way - a required clue pops out.
If the party is dragging, the GM can "prompt", and ask who has a particular investigative ability - or if the party is "on game" they'll be tossing out possible uses of their investigative skills for the GM - even suggesting creative uses of their skills to pull clues out of the scene that the GM hadn't considered.
The party can spend points to dig out supplementary clues, which aren't required to move the story on, but definitely can help ( provide more depth, or create shortcuts to scenes to investigate that the party would normally have access to yet ), or they can be red herrings.
In D&D
"Core clues" - the things that the players need to know to make a transition to another scene or encounter - are pretty much automatic; got the right proficiency, at the right time, in the right place, and you tell the GM you're using the skill in a appropriate way - a required clue pops out.
If the party is dragging, the GM can "prompt", and ask who has a particular proficiency, or has that written down and just shouts out the clue ( that's how I had it in my scenario ) - or if the party is "on game" they'll be tossing out possible uses of their skills for the GM - even suggesting creative uses of their skills to pull clues out of the scene that the GM hadn't considered.
The party can make skill rolls to dig out supplementary clues, which aren't required to move the story on, but definitely can help ( provide more depth, or create shortcuts to scenes or encounters that the party would't normally have access to yet - e.g. you find a secret door into the castle). Or they can be red herrings.
You can draw an almost 1:1 mapping here, if you view "Making DC rolls" as a mechanism for generating "investigation points".
To expand on my original story/scenario
DM: ( checks notes, notes the "passive knowledge" scores of who would immediately notice what - notes the "required clue" here, and it's attached "supplementary clue" - or she just make up supplementary useful clues up on the spot, as needed ). Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it - points to Bard- and you recognize the crest as belonging to the House of D'rehl, who used to occupy Windspire Keep on the coast near the Shipfang Shoals. ( required clue- gives them a dungeon location to travel to/investigate )
Bard: Wait a minute, I dig around in my backpack and pull out my copy ofDemrol's History of the Great Families of Nedershire and see if I can't find something about the house of D'rehl.
DM: OK - give me a History roll ( DM knows that there is a supplementary clue here about the family keep being consumed by "a great evil", which would allow the party to prepare against undead when they go to Windspire Keep ).
Or really, I guess, the lesson there is make the DC of finding generic required clues to point to a "next scene/location/encounter" very low, or just give it to them automatically if they have the proficiency - and make sure that there's a required clue that fits someone's proficiency.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The tricky part that I've been trying to figure out is: Ask for a roll vs. Let the players ask/ describe for a roll.
The hidden message behind the graffiti, do I ask the players to roll an investigation or do I just let the players do their thing potentially missing the clue. I can see two arguments so it makes the decision a little difficult at times.
I think both.
Or rather I'm thinking there's three tiers of clues here
If the clue is a requirement for the party to get to a next scene or encounter, and the party doesn't have any other leads, don't even ask for a roll. Give the clue to someone who has the matching proficiency, and who has gone the longest without the "you're the MVP torch" ( that phrase did make me chuckle ) - and make sure you have some form of "core clue" that matches up to someone's proficiency
If the clue is a path to a next scene or encounter, and the party has other leads, give the party the clue automatically if and only if someone has a passive skill score which exceeds the DC of that clue. And here it's allowed to have "core" or "path" clues for which the party may or may not have a matching proficiency.
If the clue is a "path/core clue" that the party wouldn't get automatically, or is a "nice to have" - makes the situation clearer, bypasses obstacles, points them at resources - then the party needs to do something active to get it; that secret door leads to a tunnel which bypasses the Ogre lair - but they don't find it unless they actively search for it.
I would think that active rolls would require the player to be able to do something, or bring some resource to bear - not just "think hard".
With knowledge based clues, you can even "stack" them; something general they get automatically with a high enough passive score ( you know that these blade are of Elvish make from Gondolin ), but until you get that sword back home to your historical Arcane library and do some research ( requiring an active skill roll ), you might not be able to identify which legendary blade it is.
If you want to get really fancy with knowledge based clues you can stack them according to DC. The Bard has a passive Arcane skill of 13, and can tell that the magic circle is a binding circle automatically. The Wizard has a passive Arcane skill of 16, and can tall that it's a binding circle, but can also tell that it is most effective against creatures of fey origin.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The way I normally handle it, is by adding an extra layer of specifics to checks, to drill down into what they're looking for, and what to make the check on. Their proficiencies give them basic information, but if they want specifics, they'll have to be specific as to what they're look for. So in your example (my addition in red):
DM:Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it.
Wizard: Can I make an Arcana roll to see what the circle is?
DM: At present, you immediately see that's it's some form of magic, or ritual circle - what are you specifically trying to decipher? The runes?
Wizard: Yes - I'd like to see if I can discern what type of ritual this circle is used for
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the type of magic circle is 13) Go ahead... *roll*... Alright, you've seen these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. As you run your hand over each of the runes, their faint, unnatural glow suggests that it's recently been used.
Bard:Wait, can I figure out what the heraldic crest is?
DM:Of your knowledge of heraldry, this crest is immediately unfamiliar to you - certainly not one you've seen at any local tourney or office. You could inspect the crest more closely if you'd like to?
Bard: Yes, I'd like to see if I can recall anything about it.
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the meaning of the family crest is 15 as the family is extinct and the crest very old ) Sure - give me a history check *Bard rolls* ... Twin serpents on a chevroned shield, crowned with ivy... as you run your hand over each element, you remember hearing of this crest... the Adamast Family... the oldest of the three great houses, that were all but killed in the Great Purge... It's no wonder you struggled to remember it - this crest is ancient!
Rogue:While they're doing that, I want to check out the bookshelf
DM: It's full of old dusty books, 6 shelves high, with rows of volumes on everything from history to the arcane
Rogue: Are any of the books unusual - does anything stand out?
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to find the hollowed out book with the key in it is 14 ) Roll investigation... *rogue rolls*... As you scan the books, one on the third shelf seems to stand out - it doesn't seem to belong to any of the other volumes - it's title: 'The Open Path'
---
You've touched on making sure that crucial information is available - and nobody wants to be stuck in a room, with an outrageously obscure clue that requires a ridiculously specific check, but it's good to encourage characters to be specific in what they're looking for.
"Core clues" - the things that the players need to know to make a transition to another scene or encounter - are pretty much automatic; got the right proficiency, at the right time, in the right place, and you tell the GM you're using the skill in a appropriate way - a required clue pops out.
...
Or really, I guess, the lesson there is make the DC of finding generic required clues to point to a "next scene/location/encounter" very low, or just give it to them automatically if they have the proficiency - and make sure that there's a required clue that fits someone's proficiency.
You don't have to keep the DCs super low if you allow retries, which you should in most cases. When the game says breaking down a door is a DC 18 strength check, that's for a single attempt. It's important to have that level of granularity because someone might try to break down the door in the middle of combat (e.g. as an escape route). The same applies for spotting traps or clues or hidden creatures. Outside of combat, the player's going to succeed eventually if they can succeed at all, and the DMG advices you to assume they succeed after x10 the time for a single attempt. Anyone can succeed on a DC 20 check (the highest recommended DC) if their roll bonus is higher than -1.
If you just let people succeed when there's no time pressure and follow the three clue rule, the players are very likely to be able to progress. If they need to be able to figure out X to progress, leave at least 3 clues that will all support the same conclusion. Then, as the DM, you can guide them in the general direction of clues by describing in more detail parts of the room that stand out; players usually chase whatever you emphasize, whether it's actually important or not.
You don't have to keep the DCs super low if you allow retries, which you should in most cases. When the game says breaking down a door is a DC 18 strength check, that's for a single attempt. It's important to have that level of granularity because someone might try to break down the door in the middle of combat (e.g. as an escape route). The same applies for spotting traps or clues or hidden creatures. Outside of combat, the player's going to succeed eventually if they can succeed at all, and the DMG advices you to assume they succeed after x10 the time for a single attempt. Anyone can succeed on a DC 20 check (the highest recommended DC) if their roll bonus is higher than -1.
If you just let people succeed when there's no time pressure and follow the three clue rule, the players are very likely to be able to progress. If they need to be able to figure out X to progress, leave at least 3 clues that will all support the same conclusion. Then, as the DM, you can guide them in the general direction of clues by describing in more detail parts of the room that stand out; players usually chase whatever you emphasize, whether it's actually important or not.
I'm not a huge fan of repeats when there is no cost other than time. "you failed ... to you want to try again.... nope.... again?" Of course they will try again.
What I try to do is make a single roll stand in for any possible future repeats: Rogue goes to pick a lock, DC is 13, rolls an 8. No one is around, no one is likely to come by, and no one is pursuing the party. Me: "OK, you spread out your thieves tools, and start to work on the lock. It's tougher than it looked originally, and you struggle to move the intricate and complex internal working of this very well made lock around ... a minute passes ... then two ... then 5 ... after about 5 or 6 minutes ( 13-8 ) you finally feel the last pin slip into place, and the satisfying shift of the cylinder accompanied by a quiet *click*. Looking down, you wince a bit as your attempts have scratched up the face plate of the lock somewhat." ( perception DC of 15: 20-(13-8) = 15 to notice the lock has been tampered with ). I think the conversational pauses between ".. a minute passes ... then two ... then 5 ..." are important as it gives players the opportunity to interrupt with "screw it, stand aside, I'm going to just break down the door".
Repeats make perfect sense if there's a cost and drama, associated with re-tries: " ... you hurriedly jam you lock picks into the door lock, as the freezing water is now up to you knees ... you struggle to move the last pin in position, but it's jammed ... whoever made this lock made the tolerances tight, and you just can't move it! The water continues to rush through the hull where the Iomere has been holed ... do you want to keep trying, or make a dash for the upper deck?"
I do like "the rule of 3" - although the "3" are likely best spread over multiple scenes or encounters.
I'm thinking that a scene should contain at least one "core" clue, that will point to a transition to another scene, that will be obvious to the proficiency of someone in the party. Not a low DC - just a "here you go". It need not - should not - be the best clue to the best "next encounter" - just an obvious clue to a next scene. The best clue, to the best "next encounter" should be screened by some actual investigation, thought, and work - which the players may or may not succeed at.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I had a really bad habit of helping my players out too much, prompting them all the time to try something different, giving them clues just because I saw them stop and think for a moment. Eventually, almost 2 yrs worth of gaming later, I figured it out, I am now comfortable just sitting back and listening to my players. It's made them feel better about their actions and decisions, I don't feel so scattered trying to anticipate what they're going to do, and it allows me to focus more on making the world live and breath.
The way I normally handle it, is by adding an extra layer of specifics to checks, to drill down into what they're looking for, and what to make the check on. Their proficiencies give them basic information, but if they want specifics, they'll have to be specific as to what they're look for. So in your example (my addition in red):
-snip-
You've touched on making sure that crucial information is available - and nobody wants to be stuck in a room, with an outrageously obscure clue that requires a ridiculously specific check, but it's good to encourage characters to be specific in what they're looking for.
I really liked that you put layers of clues into it based on how the players decided to approach their respective "gimme" clues. Combining that with the multiple tiers of clues that Vedexent has been presenting feels like it could really make people feel like their skills mean something. It's also more than a "can I roll investigation", you're rewarding the thoughtfulness of simple RP, which in turn should promote more connection with the game as a whole.
I didn't have time to respond to Chequers before, but while I like the flavor of giving the player information based on their exact approach, I think there's a danger there.
Magic Circle:
Is Arcane in nature ( General - DC 10 )
Is a Binding Circle ( General - DC 13 )
Is "tuned" to mephits ( Runes - DC 15 )
Is used for Magma Mephits ( Circle Construction - DC 16 )
Has been used recently ( Candles - DC 12 )
PC walks into the room with a passive Arcana of 13, they'll automatically pick up on the fact that it's a) magic circle and b) it's used for binding, and c) it's been used recently
Different PC walks into the room with a passive Arcana of 16, they'll automatically pick up on the fact that it's a magic circle and b) it's used for binding, c) it's been used recently, and d) the runes indicate it's tied to Mephits,
While I really do like the flavor of tuning results to what the player is doing - I'm worried it would lead to "investigation spamming".
DM: At present, you immediately see that's it's some form of magic, or ritual circle - what are you specifically trying to decipher? The runes?
Wizard: Yes - I'd like to see if I can discern what type of ritual this circle is used for
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the type of magic circle is 13) Go ahead... *roll*... Alright, you've seen these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. As you run your hand over each of the runes, their faint, unnatural glow suggests that it's recently been used.
Wizard: Great! Now I'd like to investigate the circle construction
DM: Ummm...
Wizard: And after that, I want to examine the candles !
I think tying clues to particular aspects of what they're examining is really great flavor though.
DM: Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. After a little more examination, you realize that you've see these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits', and reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm.
The question I have at that point is "Can the Wizard make an active roll to try and get more information?" If they had some "tool" to bring to bear, then yes, they pull out a reference book, and some parchment and try to decipher it.
I'm kind of leaning toward the idea of "Yes - but only once" - which seems a bit like an artificial restriction.
----
Realistically, the GM probably isn't going to pre-invent all these details. What you'll probably do is check against the PC roll, or the PC's passive knowledge score, and invent details up to a particular difficulty level on the fly - but tying them to specific aspects of the item examined is excellent flavor.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I really liked that you put layers of clues into it based on how the players decided to approach their respective "gimme" clues. Combining that with the multiple tiers of clues that Vedexent has been presenting feels like it could really make people feel like their skills mean something. It's also more than a "can I roll investigation", you're rewarding the thoughtfulness of simple RP, which in turn should promote more connection with the game as a whole.
That's the idea. 5e is good in that anyone can try anything - but that doesn't mean they should, and DMs have to be a little more direct with promoting specialisms. I DMd a group of new players that would often have the wizard take on the mantle of scout for the party, just because he had the highest stealth skill (or rather, he was the only one who didn't get a disadvantage as he didn't wear armour). A decent perception from a group of goblins ended that... but it was made me think - it's important to help players resonate with their characters specialisms, and just because a player can do something, doesn't mean they should.
I didn't have time to respond to Chequers before, but while I like the flavor of giving the player information based on their exact approach, I think there's a danger there.
*snip*
Realistically, the GM probably isn't going to pre-invent all these details. What you'll probably do is check against the PC roll, or the PC's passive knowledge score, and invent details up to a particular difficulty level on the fly - but tying them to specific aspects of the item examined is excellent flavor.
That's a great point, Vedexent, and not actually one I've had to deal with. Normally, the player will ask to do what they want to do, I'll ask for the appropriate roll, and they'll usually be satisfied with the answer.
Perhaps the answer lies in the thoroughness of the answer (I'm using your example that you've added to my previous example, 'cause it's great.)
DM: At present, to your trained eye, immediately see that's it's some form of magic, or ritual circle - what are you specifically trying to decipher? The runes?
Wizard: Yes - I'd like to see if I can discern what type of ritual this circle is used for
DM: Alright, so as you scan the runes, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the formation of the circle, you recall you've see these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the arcane markings.
The question I have at that point is "Can the Wizard make an active roll to try and get more information?" If they had some "tool" to bring to bear, then yes, they pull out a reference book, and some parchment and try to decipher it.
I suppose it depends on what further information they're trying to get. Perhaps a detect magic could reveal whether there's the presence of any lingering magic in the chamber? Or yes - if they find a book on ancient runes, they could find out more. But simply rolling another skill to get more information, I'd probably say 'you've deciphered all you can about the circle' and not ask for the check.
DM: Alright, so as you scan the runes, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the formation of the circle, you recall you've see these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the arcane markings.
Where what you're doing is closing off other avenues of "investigation spamming" in your initial response. And, you're really just leading with the specifics of their investigation descriptions, but you're leading on to everything else.
I'm guessing that if they said they're examining the structure of the magic circle, you might say something along the lines of:
DM: Alright, so as you scan the mathematical and geometrical lines that build up the complex magical construction, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the meticulously inked runes, you realize the the particular resonances that this circle construct would create would be tuned to creatures of a more infernal nature - given the size of it, possibly something like Mephits. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the circle's makeup.
So really, the information that the player gets doesn't change - but the flavor totally shifts according to their description of how they're investigating.
I guess my question about additional investigative rolls really only applies to my "you automatically get the data, up to your passive score DC, just by being there" approach. What I struggle with then, is: should the player also get an active roll, for knowledge based skill.
Clearly it's yes if they can bring some additional reference/spell/tool to bear.
But can they just concentrate on trying to remember?
To loop back to the GUMSHOE system, players under that system have a "point pool" they can draw on. I'm kind of equating "GUMSHOE Investigative Points" to "D&D Skill Rolls". So the answer I'm coming up with is - "yes, but only once"
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
DM: Alright, so as you scan the mathematical and geometrical lines that build up the complex magical construction, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the meticulously inked runes, you realize the the particular resonances that this circle construct would create would be tuned to creatures of a more infernal nature - given the size of it, possibly something like Mephits. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the circle's makeup.
Bard: I try really, really, hard to remember if, in my travels, I have heard stories about summoning circles, anything that might help us figure out what actually happened here.
DM: You remember stories about summoning circles, stories about demons stealing souls from improperly made circles, you remember a story about a man who fell in love with a succubus that he pulled into a circle, there was even a story about a wizard who used a circle once and brought about a crusade to defeat Vecna. As to what happened here...you're left to your imagination.
A player can try anything however, recollection, as you're putting, it is a fickle thing, and you've already let them exhaust a lot of their options. Once you start closing off avenues of discovery it's going to have to become permanent, otherwise you'll have the "Can I assist in remembering what he remembers?" situations or some other situation in that vein.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Pretty much, any avenue already used is done, if the players start getting pedantic, just shut them down with the "You've gotten everything you can out of that magic circle". There are questions that you can blow off, "Do I know if the candles hold any specific meaning?", that kind of thing is just prolonging the inevitable necessity to move on. I guess it goes back to the point you made earlier: if they're bringing something new to the table, give 'em a bone. "I try really hard to remember ..." doesn't really bring much new to the table, but "I try to recall some of the stories I heard about ...." puts it into a more sensible and approachable response.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I guess my question about additional investigative rolls really only applies to my "you automatically get the data, up to your passive score DC, just by being there" approach. What I struggle with then, is: should the player also get an active roll, for knowledge based skill.
The only true 'passive' score is a characters passive perception - and that's generally used to notice hidden creatures.
You, as the DM, have to decide how much an individual character is likely to know, based on what you know about their character - the combination of the experiences they've had, the class they are, their background, their bonds, their skill proficiencies. I think that's what you mean by a 'passive knowledge' score...
It's important to make sure that you're calling for the rolls based on what they're asking to do - not the other way around. Rather than a player saying 'I'll make an arcana check to see if I can decipher the runes', I encourage players to describe what they're trying to achieve, and then ask for a roll accordingly. If I deem them likely to know it automatically, then I give the information. I only ask for rolls in these situations if there's a chance they could fail: if I decide it requires actual skill to achieve.
A ranger tracking a wounded deer's hoof prints in freshly fallen snow? No check needed. A ranger tracking a wounded deer, across muddy, waterlogged terrain, with a three-day head start, and plenty of other traffic on the road? Check needed.
If there's an important clue you want them to find, and you're worried they're not going to find it, then it's up to you to draw them to it.
Ultimately, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here.
Bard: I try really, really, hard to remember if, in my travels, I have heard stories about summoning circles, anything that might help us figure out what actually happened here.
I would argue this is too vague for the DM to do anything with, and ask the bard to be more specfic. I'd encourage the bard to be more direct, to give the DM something to bounce off.
Bard: 'A summoning circle... that reminds me of the time I spent in a travelling circus with that gnome that used to be a priest... he used to use something similar in one of his acts... Do I recall if the gnome told me anything about it?'
DM: 'Make me a religion check' *roll* 'You remember one night, the show had ended, and you and the gnome were sharing some bitterleaf in the big top. A dwarven cleric of Tymora approached, fixed the gnome with a stern stare and said: 'What yer doin' is dangerous wit that summoin' circle... ya haven't even removed tha runes! Do ye even know that a circle of summonin' stays active, as long as tha runes are in place!?'
That way, you've given a clue: 'the summoning circle is still active', whilst not holding the hand of player, and also letting the roleplay form naturally, using the players background, combined with a skill check.
Yes - the only RAW passive scores are perception, and passive investigation tied to the Observant feat.
The whole point of the OP was to kick around the idea of passive knowledge skills - see a thing, remember it - which is how real life works, and which I am really leaning towards in game :)
The idea being: You walk into the room, you see the thing, the DM describes all the details your "Passive Knowledge" score would allow you, free of charge, no rolls needed, no rolls allowed unless you can bring some spell/tool/reference work to bear on the problem as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm all for turning knowledge into a passive skill, except when a character is actively researching something. I've used this rule in my games, and I've found it cuts down on unnecessary rolls quite a bit.
The one problem is that once you do decide to do things this way, you need to be very careful about how you think of knowledge DCs. Essentially, if you set a DC high enough, and you're using passive knowledge, you can be sure your PCs will have zero chance of knowing something. With active rolls, there's always a chance they might know. This is a definite problem with published adventures (which will have set DCs), and often the thing the PCs now have no chance of knowing can be highly relevant information.
The solution to this is to make it clearer to your players when researching something is an option. Now, if a knowledge DC is too high for any PC to succeed on with a passive check, I will let the character know how they might be able to find out that piece of information. For example, a wizard might not recognize a specific magical effect if their passive Arcana is too low, but they might know (based on their passive) what tome or library they could find the answer in. Or alternatively, they might know something about a particular magical effect, but they are missing pieces that could be filled in with previous research. For example, a wizard might be able to discern that runes on chest are abjuration magic, but without research, they won't know that it's a glyph of warding.
I'm all for turning knowledge into a passive skill, except when a character is actively researching something. I've used this rule in my games, and I've found it cuts down on unnecessary rolls quite a bit.
The one problem is that once you do decide to do things this way, you need to be very careful about how you think of knowledge DCs. Essentially, if you set a DC high enough, and you're using passive knowledge, you can be sure your PCs will have zero chance of knowing something. With active rolls, there's always a chance they might know. This is a definite problem with published adventures (which will have set DCs), and often the thing the PCs now have no chance of knowing can be highly relevant information.
The solution to this is to make it clearer to your players when researching something is an option. Now, if a knowledge DC is too high for any PC to succeed on with a passive check, I will let the character know how they might be able to find out that piece of information. For example, a wizard might not recognize a specific magical effect if their passive Arcana is too low, but they might know (based on their passive) what tome or library they could find the answer in. Or alternatively, they might know something about a particular magical effect, but they are missing pieces that could be filled in with previous research. For example, a wizard might be able to discern that runes on chest are abjuration magic, but without research, they won't know that it's a glyph of warding.
Agreed - passive is when looking and evaluating; active is for active research, or bringing spells/tools/reference materials to bear.
And yeah, I'm also finding as I try and sketch out who it would work practically, that requires that you get a lot more specific with you DCs!
I'm playing with an approach like - start with 10, and then adding modifiers for age, commonality of the knowledge, complexity of the magic, etc.
In playing with that sort of idea, I wandered into negative modifiers as well, especially with "level of detail" - so as in your example - a Wizard can definitely tell something is arcane, might only get the school, but not have enough "points" to get to the specific spell or effect.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does this sound familiar?
DM: Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it.
Wizard: Can I make an Arcana roll to see what the circle is?
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the type of magic circle is 13) Go ahead
Bard: Wait, can I figure out what the heraldic crest is?
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the meaning of the family crest is 15 as the family is extinct and the crest very old ) Sure - give me a history check
Rogue: While they're doing that, I want to check out the bookshelf
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to find the hollowed out book with the key in it is 14 ) Roll investigation
Wizard: I got a 16
Bard: 13?
Rogue: Woo! Natural 20 - so 23!
But as many people have noted, remembering things doesn't work that way.
Still - many GMs ( including myself! ) often feel that the players need to work for their clues. I mean, what happens if I just blurt out all the clues at once? Where's the challenge? Where's the fun?
And then I ran across this quote about the GUMSHOE system: "The premise is that investigative games are not about finding clues, they are about interpreting the clues that are found" and I had a light-bulb go off.
Even when my players find all the clues the "old fashioned way" they go off on tangents I'd never thought of :p
And ... is rolling an Arcana check really fun, or is the fact that your character is smart enough to know these things, the fun part? Isn't putting together the clues into theory and running off to find out if your theory is true the fun?
So - what about passive knowledge scores for noticing things, and only using rolls when the character is actively doing things?
DM: ( checks notes, notes the "passive knowledge" scores of who would immediately notice what ). Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it - points to Bard - and while you do recognize elements, this is a crest that you don't recognize, although it looks archaic.
Rogue: I want to check out the bookshelf
DM: Sure - Roll investigation
Bard: Wait a minute, I dig around in my backpack and pull out my copy of Barthemol's History of Heraldic Imagery, and see if I can't somehow decipher this crest.
DM: OK - give me a History roll
Rogue: Woo! Natural 20 - so 23!
What I might add to this, is a "success tracker", where I check off a box every time someone got an "automatic success" in a skill.
If Wizard and Bard both had Arcana scores high enough to recognize what the magic circle was for, I would give the "automatic success" to them alternatively: Wizard got it this time, Bard gets it next time, Wizard the time after that. That way everyone gets to feel "smart".
Thoughts?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
They don't necessarily have to be remembering things. The roll could also represent if they knew it in the first place.
Agreed.
I use this approach myself. It works well, in my opinion. I also like to tack on "So-and-so, thanks to your knowledge of the arcane, you recognize this as ..." so the player knows I've actually taken their skill proficiency into account.
It took me a long time to get to the point where I didn't ask for a roll for every action ever. Once I figured out the idea that I can treat their skills as natural, organic processes much like we do in real life, it made my job much easier.
I'm off a similar mind, I give the obvious information, and any information inside the DC threshold, up front. I pass the "you're the mvp" torch around as much as possible. I also try to sprinkle information that feels particular to the individual characters. The tricky part that I've been trying to figure out is: Ask for a roll vs. Let the players ask/ describe for a roll.
The hidden message behind the graffiti, do I ask the players to roll an investigation or do I just let the players do their thing potentially missing the clue. I can see two arguments so it makes the decision a little difficult at times.
You know, the more I dig into the GUMSHOE system ( I just picked up Ashen Stars ), the more I think it lines up with this approach.
In GUMSHOE
"Core clues" - the things that the players need to know to advance the story - are pretty much automatic; got the right skill, at the right time, in the right place, and you tell the GM you're using the skill in a appropriate way - a required clue pops out.
If the party is dragging, the GM can "prompt", and ask who has a particular investigative ability - or if the party is "on game" they'll be tossing out possible uses of their investigative skills for the GM - even suggesting creative uses of their skills to pull clues out of the scene that the GM hadn't considered.
The party can spend points to dig out supplementary clues, which aren't required to move the story on, but definitely can help ( provide more depth, or create shortcuts to scenes to investigate that the party would normally have access to yet ), or they can be red herrings.
In D&D
"Core clues" - the things that the players need to know to make a transition to another scene or encounter - are pretty much automatic; got the right proficiency, at the right time, in the right place, and you tell the GM you're using the skill in a appropriate way - a required clue pops out.
If the party is dragging, the GM can "prompt", and ask who has a particular proficiency, or has that written down and just shouts out the clue ( that's how I had it in my scenario ) - or if the party is "on game" they'll be tossing out possible uses of their skills for the GM - even suggesting creative uses of their skills to pull clues out of the scene that the GM hadn't considered.
The party can make skill rolls to dig out supplementary clues, which aren't required to move the story on, but definitely can help ( provide more depth, or create shortcuts to scenes or encounters that the party would't normally have access to yet - e.g. you find a secret door into the castle). Or they can be red herrings.
You can draw an almost 1:1 mapping here, if you view "Making DC rolls" as a mechanism for generating "investigation points".
To expand on my original story/scenario
DM: ( checks notes, notes the "passive knowledge" scores of who would immediately notice what - notes the "required clue" here, and it's attached "supplementary clue" - or she just make up supplementary useful clues up on the spot, as needed ). Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it - points to Bard - and you recognize the crest as belonging to the House of D'rehl, who used to occupy Windspire Keep on the coast near the Shipfang Shoals. ( required clue - gives them a dungeon location to travel to/investigate )
Bard: Wait a minute, I dig around in my backpack and pull out my copy of Demrol's History of the Great Families of Nedershire and see if I can't find something about the house of D'rehl.
DM: OK - give me a History roll ( DM knows that there is a supplementary clue here about the family keep being consumed by "a great evil", which would allow the party to prepare against undead when they go to Windspire Keep ).
Or really, I guess, the lesson there is make the DC of finding generic required clues to point to a "next scene/location/encounter" very low, or just give it to them automatically if they have the proficiency - and make sure that there's a required clue that fits someone's proficiency.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think both.
Or rather I'm thinking there's three tiers of clues here
I would think that active rolls would require the player to be able to do something, or bring some resource to bear - not just "think hard".
With knowledge based clues, you can even "stack" them; something general they get automatically with a high enough passive score ( you know that these blade are of Elvish make from Gondolin ), but until you get that sword back home to your historical Arcane library and do some research ( requiring an active skill roll ), you might not be able to identify which legendary blade it is.
If you want to get really fancy with knowledge based clues you can stack them according to DC. The Bard has a passive Arcane skill of 13, and can tell that the magic circle is a binding circle automatically. The Wizard has a passive Arcane skill of 16, and can tall that it's a binding circle, but can also tell that it is most effective against creatures of fey origin.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Sounds very familiar, Vedexent.
The way I normally handle it, is by adding an extra layer of specifics to checks, to drill down into what they're looking for, and what to make the check on. Their proficiencies give them basic information, but if they want specifics, they'll have to be specific as to what they're look for. So in your example (my addition in red):
DM: Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles. Against the back wall is a shelf of books, and on the wall to the left is shield with a heraldic crest on it.
Wizard: Can I make an Arcana roll to see what the circle is?
DM: At present, you immediately see that's it's some form of magic, or ritual circle - what are you specifically trying to decipher? The runes?
Wizard: Yes - I'd like to see if I can discern what type of ritual this circle is used for
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the type of magic circle is 13) Go ahead... *roll*... Alright, you've seen these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. As you run your hand over each of the runes, their faint, unnatural glow suggests that it's recently been used.
Bard: Wait, can I figure out what the heraldic crest is?
DM: Of your knowledge of heraldry, this crest is immediately unfamiliar to you - certainly not one you've seen at any local tourney or office. You could inspect the crest more closely if you'd like to?
Bard: Yes, I'd like to see if I can recall anything about it.
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the meaning of the family crest is 15 as the family is extinct and the crest very old ) Sure - give me a history check *Bard rolls* ... Twin serpents on a chevroned shield, crowned with ivy... as you run your hand over each element, you remember hearing of this crest... the Adamast Family... the oldest of the three great houses, that were all but killed in the Great Purge... It's no wonder you struggled to remember it - this crest is ancient!
Rogue: While they're doing that, I want to check out the bookshelf
DM: It's full of old dusty books, 6 shelves high, with rows of volumes on everything from history to the arcane
Rogue: Are any of the books unusual - does anything stand out?
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to find the hollowed out book with the key in it is 14 ) Roll investigation... *rogue rolls*... As you scan the books, one on the third shelf seems to stand out - it doesn't seem to belong to any of the other volumes - it's title: 'The Open Path'
---
You've touched on making sure that crucial information is available - and nobody wants to be stuck in a room, with an outrageously obscure clue that requires a ridiculously specific check, but it's good to encourage characters to be specific in what they're looking for.
You don't have to keep the DCs super low if you allow retries, which you should in most cases. When the game says breaking down a door is a DC 18 strength check, that's for a single attempt. It's important to have that level of granularity because someone might try to break down the door in the middle of combat (e.g. as an escape route). The same applies for spotting traps or clues or hidden creatures. Outside of combat, the player's going to succeed eventually if they can succeed at all, and the DMG advices you to assume they succeed after x10 the time for a single attempt. Anyone can succeed on a DC 20 check (the highest recommended DC) if their roll bonus is higher than -1.
If you just let people succeed when there's no time pressure and follow the three clue rule, the players are very likely to be able to progress. If they need to be able to figure out X to progress, leave at least 3 clues that will all support the same conclusion. Then, as the DM, you can guide them in the general direction of clues by describing in more detail parts of the room that stand out; players usually chase whatever you emphasize, whether it's actually important or not.
I'm not a huge fan of repeats when there is no cost other than time. "you failed ... to you want to try again.... nope.... again?" Of course they will try again.
What I try to do is make a single roll stand in for any possible future repeats: Rogue goes to pick a lock, DC is 13, rolls an 8. No one is around, no one is likely to come by, and no one is pursuing the party. Me: "OK, you spread out your thieves tools, and start to work on the lock. It's tougher than it looked originally, and you struggle to move the intricate and complex internal working of this very well made lock around ... a minute passes ... then two ... then 5 ... after about 5 or 6 minutes ( 13-8 ) you finally feel the last pin slip into place, and the satisfying shift of the cylinder accompanied by a quiet *click*. Looking down, you wince a bit as your attempts have scratched up the face plate of the lock somewhat." ( perception DC of 15: 20-(13-8) = 15 to notice the lock has been tampered with ). I think the conversational pauses between ".. a minute passes ... then two ... then 5 ..." are important as it gives players the opportunity to interrupt with "screw it, stand aside, I'm going to just break down the door".
Repeats make perfect sense if there's a cost and drama, associated with re-tries: " ... you hurriedly jam you lock picks into the door lock, as the freezing water is now up to you knees ... you struggle to move the last pin in position, but it's jammed ... whoever made this lock made the tolerances tight, and you just can't move it! The water continues to rush through the hull where the Iomere has been holed ... do you want to keep trying, or make a dash for the upper deck?"
I do like "the rule of 3" - although the "3" are likely best spread over multiple scenes or encounters.
I'm thinking that a scene should contain at least one "core" clue, that will point to a transition to another scene, that will be obvious to the proficiency of someone in the party. Not a low DC - just a "here you go". It need not - should not - be the best clue to the best "next encounter" - just an obvious clue to a next scene. The best clue, to the best "next encounter" should be screened by some actual investigation, thought, and work - which the players may or may not succeed at.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I had a really bad habit of helping my players out too much, prompting them all the time to try something different, giving them clues just because I saw them stop and think for a moment. Eventually, almost 2 yrs worth of gaming later, I figured it out, I am now comfortable just sitting back and listening to my players. It's made them feel better about their actions and decisions, I don't feel so scattered trying to anticipate what they're going to do, and it allows me to focus more on making the world live and breath.
I really liked that you put layers of clues into it based on how the players decided to approach their respective "gimme" clues. Combining that with the multiple tiers of clues that Vedexent has been presenting feels like it could really make people feel like their skills mean something. It's also more than a "can I roll investigation", you're rewarding the thoughtfulness of simple RP, which in turn should promote more connection with the game as a whole.
I didn't have time to respond to Chequers before, but while I like the flavor of giving the player information based on their exact approach, I think there's a danger there.
Magic Circle:
PC walks into the room with a passive Arcana of 13, they'll automatically pick up on the fact that it's a) magic circle and b) it's used for binding, and c) it's been used recently
Different PC walks into the room with a passive Arcana of 16, they'll automatically pick up on the fact that it's a magic circle and b) it's used for binding, c) it's been used recently, and d) the runes indicate it's tied to Mephits,
While I really do like the flavor of tuning results to what the player is doing - I'm worried it would lead to "investigation spamming".
DM: At present, you immediately see that's it's some form of magic, or ritual circle - what are you specifically trying to decipher? The runes?
Wizard: Yes - I'd like to see if I can discern what type of ritual this circle is used for
DM: (checking notes to see that the DC to figure out the type of magic circle is 13) Go ahead... *roll*... Alright, you've seen these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. As you run your hand over each of the runes, their faint, unnatural glow suggests that it's recently been used.
Wizard: Great! Now I'd like to investigate the circle construction
DM: Ummm...
Wizard: And after that, I want to examine the candles !
I think tying clues to particular aspects of what they're examining is really great flavor though.
DM: Alright, so you slip though the secret door, into the dusty chamber. On the floor is scrawled some sort of circle and runes, with the nubs of burnt out candles, which you - points to Wizard - recognize as being a binding circle used to restrain minor spirits. After a little more examination, you realize that you've see these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits', and reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm.
The question I have at that point is "Can the Wizard make an active roll to try and get more information?" If they had some "tool" to bring to bear, then yes, they pull out a reference book, and some parchment and try to decipher it.
I'm kind of leaning toward the idea of "Yes - but only once" - which seems a bit like an artificial restriction.
----
Realistically, the GM probably isn't going to pre-invent all these details. What you'll probably do is check against the PC roll, or the PC's passive knowledge score, and invent details up to a particular difficulty level on the fly - but tying them to specific aspects of the item examined is excellent flavor.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
That's the idea. 5e is good in that anyone can try anything - but that doesn't mean they should, and DMs have to be a little more direct with promoting specialisms. I DMd a group of new players that would often have the wizard take on the mantle of scout for the party, just because he had the highest stealth skill (or rather, he was the only one who didn't get a disadvantage as he didn't wear armour). A decent perception from a group of goblins ended that... but it was made me think - it's important to help players resonate with their characters specialisms, and just because a player can do something, doesn't mean they should.
That's a great point, Vedexent, and not actually one I've had to deal with. Normally, the player will ask to do what they want to do, I'll ask for the appropriate roll, and they'll usually be satisfied with the answer.
Perhaps the answer lies in the thoroughness of the answer (I'm using your example that you've added to my previous example, 'cause it's great.)
DM: At present, to your trained eye, immediately see that's it's some form of magic, or ritual circle - what are you specifically trying to decipher? The runes?
Wizard: Yes - I'd like to see if I can discern what type of ritual this circle is used for
DM: Alright, so as you scan the runes, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the formation of the circle, you recall you've see these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the arcane markings.
I suppose it depends on what further information they're trying to get. Perhaps a detect magic could reveal whether there's the presence of any lingering magic in the chamber? Or yes - if they find a book on ancient runes, they could find out more. But simply rolling another skill to get more information, I'd probably say 'you've deciphered all you can about the circle' and not ask for the check.
Ah - that's a very good approach.
DM: Alright, so as you scan the runes, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the formation of the circle, you recall you've see these runes before in an old tome on 'summoning mephits'. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the arcane markings.
Where what you're doing is closing off other avenues of "investigation spamming" in your initial response. And, you're really just leading with the specifics of their investigation descriptions, but you're leading on to everything else.
I'm guessing that if they said they're examining the structure of the magic circle, you might say something along the lines of:
DM: Alright, so as you scan the mathematical and geometrical lines that build up the complex magical construction, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the meticulously inked runes, you realize the the particular resonances that this circle construct would create would be tuned to creatures of a more infernal nature - given the size of it, possibly something like Mephits. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the circle's makeup.
So really, the information that the player gets doesn't change - but the flavor totally shifts according to their description of how they're investigating.
I guess my question about additional investigative rolls really only applies to my "you automatically get the data, up to your passive score DC, just by being there" approach. What I struggle with then, is: should the player also get an active roll, for knowledge based skill.
Clearly it's yes if they can bring some additional reference/spell/tool to bear.
But can they just concentrate on trying to remember?
To loop back to the GUMSHOE system, players under that system have a "point pool" they can draw on. I'm kind of equating "GUMSHOE Investigative Points" to "D&D Skill Rolls". So the answer I'm coming up with is - "yes, but only once"
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
DM: Alright, so as you scan the mathematical and geometrical lines that build up the complex magical construction, along with the nubs of burnt out candles, and the meticulously inked runes, you realize the the particular resonances that this circle construct would create would be tuned to creatures of a more infernal nature - given the size of it, possibly something like Mephits. Reaching down to touch one of the candles, you realize that the wax is still pliable and somewhat warm, which leads you to believe it's been activated recently. There's not much else you can discern from the circle's makeup.
Bard: I try really, really, hard to remember if, in my travels, I have heard stories about summoning circles, anything that might help us figure out what actually happened here.
DM: You remember stories about summoning circles, stories about demons stealing souls from improperly made circles, you remember a story about a man who fell in love with a succubus that he pulled into a circle, there was even a story about a wizard who used a circle once and brought about a crusade to defeat Vecna. As to what happened here...you're left to your imagination.
A player can try anything however, recollection, as you're putting, it is a fickle thing, and you've already let them exhaust a lot of their options. Once you start closing off avenues of discovery it's going to have to become permanent, otherwise you'll have the "Can I assist in remembering what he remembers?" situations or some other situation in that vein.
Right - so you're also saying "yes, but only once", correct?
Allow them a single recollection roll? Once it's gone, no more & no one can "assist" once the dice hit the table.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Pretty much, any avenue already used is done, if the players start getting pedantic, just shut them down with the "You've gotten everything you can out of that magic circle". There are questions that you can blow off, "Do I know if the candles hold any specific meaning?", that kind of thing is just prolonging the inevitable necessity to move on. I guess it goes back to the point you made earlier: if they're bringing something new to the table, give 'em a bone. "I try really hard to remember ..." doesn't really bring much new to the table, but "I try to recall some of the stories I heard about ...." puts it into a more sensible and approachable response.
Going back and re-reading this: http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-passive-skills-active-skills-perception-and-knowledge/
I'm actually leaning now towards no rolls at all for knowledge skill - again :)
You walk into a room, you get the data, up to your passive skill rating DC. Automatically, no roll needed.
No roll allowed - unless you can bring a tool, spell, or reference material to bear.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The only true 'passive' score is a characters passive perception - and that's generally used to notice hidden creatures.
You, as the DM, have to decide how much an individual character is likely to know, based on what you know about their character - the combination of the experiences they've had, the class they are, their background, their bonds, their skill proficiencies. I think that's what you mean by a 'passive knowledge' score...
It's important to make sure that you're calling for the rolls based on what they're asking to do - not the other way around. Rather than a player saying 'I'll make an arcana check to see if I can decipher the runes', I encourage players to describe what they're trying to achieve, and then ask for a roll accordingly. If I deem them likely to know it automatically, then I give the information. I only ask for rolls in these situations if there's a chance they could fail: if I decide it requires actual skill to achieve.
A ranger tracking a wounded deer's hoof prints in freshly fallen snow? No check needed. A ranger tracking a wounded deer, across muddy, waterlogged terrain, with a three-day head start, and plenty of other traffic on the road? Check needed.
If there's an important clue you want them to find, and you're worried they're not going to find it, then it's up to you to draw them to it.
Ultimately, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here.
I would argue this is too vague for the DM to do anything with, and ask the bard to be more specfic. I'd encourage the bard to be more direct, to give the DM something to bounce off.
Bard: 'A summoning circle... that reminds me of the time I spent in a travelling circus with that gnome that used to be a priest... he used to use something similar in one of his acts... Do I recall if the gnome told me anything about it?'
DM: 'Make me a religion check' *roll* 'You remember one night, the show had ended, and you and the gnome were sharing some bitterleaf in the big top. A dwarven cleric of Tymora approached, fixed the gnome with a stern stare and said: 'What yer doin' is dangerous wit that summoin' circle... ya haven't even removed tha runes! Do ye even know that a circle of summonin' stays active, as long as tha runes are in place!?'
That way, you've given a clue: 'the summoning circle is still active', whilst not holding the hand of player, and also letting the roleplay form naturally, using the players background, combined with a skill check.
Yes - the only RAW passive scores are perception, and passive investigation tied to the Observant feat.
The whole point of the OP was to kick around the idea of passive knowledge skills - see a thing, remember it - which is how real life works, and which I am really leaning towards in game :)
The idea being: You walk into the room, you see the thing, the DM describes all the details your "Passive Knowledge" score would allow you, free of charge, no rolls needed, no rolls allowed unless you can bring some spell/tool/reference work to bear on the problem as well.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm all for turning knowledge into a passive skill, except when a character is actively researching something. I've used this rule in my games, and I've found it cuts down on unnecessary rolls quite a bit.
The one problem is that once you do decide to do things this way, you need to be very careful about how you think of knowledge DCs. Essentially, if you set a DC high enough, and you're using passive knowledge, you can be sure your PCs will have zero chance of knowing something. With active rolls, there's always a chance they might know. This is a definite problem with published adventures (which will have set DCs), and often the thing the PCs now have no chance of knowing can be highly relevant information.
The solution to this is to make it clearer to your players when researching something is an option. Now, if a knowledge DC is too high for any PC to succeed on with a passive check, I will let the character know how they might be able to find out that piece of information. For example, a wizard might not recognize a specific magical effect if their passive Arcana is too low, but they might know (based on their passive) what tome or library they could find the answer in. Or alternatively, they might know something about a particular magical effect, but they are missing pieces that could be filled in with previous research. For example, a wizard might be able to discern that runes on chest are abjuration magic, but without research, they won't know that it's a glyph of warding.
Agreed - passive is when looking and evaluating; active is for active research, or bringing spells/tools/reference materials to bear.
And yeah, I'm also finding as I try and sketch out who it would work practically, that requires that you get a lot more specific with you DCs!
I'm playing with an approach like - start with 10, and then adding modifiers for age, commonality of the knowledge, complexity of the magic, etc.
In playing with that sort of idea, I wandered into negative modifiers as well, especially with "level of detail" - so as in your example - a Wizard can definitely tell something is arcane, might only get the school, but not have enough "points" to get to the specific spell or effect.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.