I Roll to Roleplay

[Trask]

Hypothetical scenario

You have a room wherein you have detailed a secret door exists. The secret door can be activated by pulling a small lever that exists in a stuffed moose head on the wall. Your players are in this room and they suspect that there is a secret door here because of some bloody footprints they are tracking that mysteriously vanish at the wall.

Player 1 asks you to describe the room in detail. Player 2 decides he wants to try and search for the activator, and you tell him to roll an investigation check.

While Player 2 is rolling his check, Player 1 says that he walks over to the moose head and looks inside the mouth. You describe the lever, and he says he pulls it. The secret door opens.

What is your opinion on rolling a check to discover something hidden or solve some puzzle, and using your character to solve the same problem creatively? Do you think it is unfair to allow Player 1 to overcome an obstacle without even having to roll a check? Say Player 1 dumps his intelligence hard and has no proficiency in investigation, but his prodding as a player leads to the discovery of many of the campaign's secrets. Or is it part of the game that a player can "skip" rolling a die if they are clever enough? Are obstacles that can be solved with roleplaying better than ones that can not be?

What do you think?

[Malifice]

Do you think it is unfair to allow Player 1 to overcome an obstacle without even having to roll a check?

Absolutely not.

Foe example, no-one in my games 'rolls perception.' I'll ask for a check from time to time, but otherwise if they're looking for something, they tell me what they are looking for, how they are doing it and where they are looking. Based on that narration from the player they might get no check at all, roll with disadvantage, get a check, get a check at advantage, or find what they are looking for, with no roll required.

Ditto every other skill and check.

[mgshamster]

Absolutely not.

Foe example, no-one in my games 'rolls perception.' I'll ask for a check from time to time, but otherwise if they're looking for something, they tell me what they are looking for, how they are doing it and where they are looking. Based on that narration from the player they might get no check at all, roll with disadvantage, get a check, get a check at advantage, or find what they are looking for, with no roll required.

Ditto every other skill and check.

What he said. ↑

[Pex]

If the player figures out the Thing on his own there's no need to roll a check. He succeeds. If the player doesn't figure it out which can be for the simple reason the player's perspective is different than yours as you the DM know everything what is obvious to you is not obvious to him, the player can roll.

[Nifft]

I do try to give a more accurate details and an overall less-misleading description to a player whose PC has a higher Perception check.

They paid the points, they should be more perceptive than someone who is relying on brute cunning.

[Mercurias]

I would let someone get by with it so long as it is properly in character. Cunning can be a lot of fun for the story, particularly when based on quirks of the characters that can’t be quantified in a character sheet.

So I guess it would fly if the situation made sense, so long as the player is both staying true to their character and appropriately sharing the spotlight with the rest of the table.

[strangebloke]

Only ask for a roll if the outcome (specifically, failing the check) is interesting.

[Requilac]

This is completely fair. And in fact, automatically succeeding on a check without rolling sometimes is an expectation. Look at page 236 of the DMG where it talks about this exact subject. In the ignoring the dice section they even mention a very similar situation where the DM may allow for automatic success. Its optional for the DM of course, and the DMG even does list some negatives to this approach, but overall its not against the assumptions of 5e whatsoever.

You know, I used to not be taking a liking to the DMG, but now its kind of growing on me. The educational value of this forum never ceases to amaze me, especially when its teaching me the things I never thought I needed to learn.

[2D8HP]

Once upon a time they were no skill checks to roll, 'cause no skills, and the Player 1 way was just how the game is played, if that's fun for your table, then it's a fine way to play, as is the Player 2 way, it's when different folks at the table have different tastes that it becomes a problem, and if I had a solution for that I think I'd be in a different line of work.

As for Player 1 dumping INT but coming up with good ideas, let 'em, unless we also start telling folks "You're to stupid to play a PC with an 18 INT" I don't think policing how players play their PC's decisions based on the PC's mental stats will work, nor do I think it should be attempted.

[Trask]

Just to be clear, I agree with the Player 1 approach and I encourage it in my table. But I do see the argument in the other side of the fence when some people criticize the split we assign between combat and social aspects of the game. And I also have personally experienced the Player 1 approach in a negative way when discussions about the nature of some trap or piece of machinery could become bogged down in tedium with real world knowledge being brought about how to solve something and how exactly some principle of physics or something works. Sometimes the abstraction of a roll is good just to move the game along.

But ultimately I think that anything that causes PCs to act more thoughtfully and creatively and encourages them to engage with the fictional setting is a positive good.

[Darth Ultron]

Both are fine, but you might really want to pick a type and stick to it.

You want to avoid doing both types of games. You don't want some players roll playing and some players role playing.

[LaserFace]

I let a little bit of both happen in my games.

I can't always give a good description of a room's furnishings beyond vague ideas, like, "oh you know, it's a bedroom with a nice big bed, a dresser, that stuff; there are also paintings on the wall..." and maybe I'll dress it up a bit if it helps the atmosphere. But, if I suddenly describe the item of interest in tremendously greater detail than the rest, it's just a dead giveaway. So, generally speaking, this ends up with people rolling investigate to look for important info and whatever. But, if someone asks a very pointed question because they were paying close attention to other clues, or are just clever, I have no problem skipping a roll where I think it's appropriate.

Like, to me it's not much different from when somebody asks me what a NPC's name was because they forgot and never wrote it down. I have them roll an INT check to recall it. But, if someone else at the table genuinely remembers, I'm not going to force that person to roll for their character. They just remember it.

[Lunali]

If you were going to have a roll (in this case perception) it would be before you described the room in detail. If they can see enough to figure it out on their own, (meaning if you've described it to a point where they can) then they should be able to find the lever without a roll.

Note, this is all on the assumption you don't suspect them of cheating. If you do suspect cheating, make traps that will only be triggered by cheaters.

[Finback]

You give them clues.
Player 1 rolls. a) He rolls a 15. You could say, "well, clearly there would be some sort of mechanism". b) He rolls a 25. "The mechanism would probably lead around this wall, and...you start to look at that moose head a bit funny..."

You give them clues - the better the roll, the better the clues. If they pulled, say, a 30+, you give them an NPC minion named Watson to exclaim "By Jove!"

Player 2, good on them. Sometimes people just luck out and do the obvious. Of course, that can be part of the fun of DMing.. getting your players to a point where they don't trust reality any more. "Is this a bluff? Or is it a double bluff?" *DM smiles* "OHGODS A TRIPLE BLUFF?!"

[KorvinStarmast]

Just to be clear, I agree with the Player 1 approach and I encourage it in my table. But I do see the argument in the other side of the fence when some people criticize the split we assign between combat and social aspects of the game. There is no argument, or rather, the argument falls under a false dichotomy.
Do not look at this as "either-or" but rather, as a DM, apply either approach, or both approaches, to keep the game interesting and to provide a bit of spotlight to each player.
Beyond that, what Malifice said, and what strangebloke said.