Yes to this but also I think it should apply to like basic “you can see it so yes it’s there” For example this past weekend… Me: “is this the guy who stole our scroll and I saw run away?” Dm: “idk make a perception check” Me: “wouldn’t I know what he looks like? I saw his face” Dm: “idk maybe you did maybe you didn’t” Me “the miniatures all look the same and you never gave me a description even though we rolled for initiative before. I would be aware of him so I feel like this should just be passive perception. Dm:… Ugh… fine! I got an 18” Dm: “yeah this is the guy you saw before” **screams internally*

Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Roll to see a trap you already noticed with your PP.😅😂

Disagree. Spider-Man uses intuition BEFORE the danger happen. This the main issue I have with perception. The Dungeon Dudes failed to talk about this even though they said it is all scenes.

I describe the targets emotional state/true feelings at the moment.

Personally I describe one or two elements of body language that would correspond to the emotion/state being conveyed. Someone lying? You notice some subtle fidgeting/they won't make eye contact/their voice breaks slightly or varies in pitch oddly/they move their eyes as if they're inventing something/etc. Someone getting angry? You notice their face becoming slightly redder/fingers start to tighten around whatever they're holding/muscle in shoulder starts tensing/etc.

And I'll describe the opposite of these for negative insights, e.g. "Do I think they're lying?" "You don't notice any variations in their voice or tense body language; they're looking at you throughout with a gentle smile."

@@dtsazza This is the best way to run Insight. The other thing I like to do is ask my players what they are trying to get insight about. Are they trying to gauge whether the NPC is being truthful? Are they trying to discover their motivations or intent? I also try to lay the groundwork for there to be normal behaviors that might throw them off. Specifically narrating that a character rolls their eyes up before they answer any question, or that they don't seem to be making eye contact, their voice cracks as they talk, they keep picking at a fingernail. Incorporating some of these behaviors can help turn an insight check into a puzzle, where the player is being given multiple and competing pieces of information without being told what the answer is, forcing them to make a conclusion for themselves. I go over skill checks in session zero, what each skill covers and what it doesn't. I also encourage them to tell me what they are trying to do so I can match it to the skill, if it is even needed. Some of them area little nebulous, but having this discussion gives them the chance to ask questions and to get all of us on the same page.

@@JJV7243

Yeah I think this is the best course of action. They even just said that rolls are for additional information. If you are consistent with telling people they gain no new information on low rolls then they won't metagame on them.

In our table, there's a joke regarding Stealth rolls, where independent of what the result are, we always say "You believe you are hidden". Because you tried to do something and your roll just shows the success degree on hiding, but for you, even a 2 was an attempt, and you are hidden.. even if is just for whoever has low passive perception.. You just ain't that hard to see though :P

@@RaphaelDDL That's actually something I do at my table as well. I try to keep what my answers are for stealth and insight as "You believe that..." and my players picked up on it pretty quick. Just because they roll high or low and get an answer, doesn't mean that answer is what actually happened. Keeps them on edge even with really good rolls, and is always the most fun on stealth lol

Holy shit, this just blew my mind. I will definitely be using this for my tables going forward.

I dont let them see the roll period

I firmly believe that a truly charismatic person is a better listener than speaker.

Congrats

Exactly

This is definitely true for tool proficiencies. All characters have the same 18 skills, albeit with different modifiers. But the DM can not reasonably be asked to keep track of the tool proficiencies, as characters either have them or not. Finding uses for them is entirely on the players.

I do this myself for all my characters. I will usually describe what I'm trying to do and how like, "sniffing the air I try to see if I can pick up the scent off someone being in the room recently like, B.O., perfume or leather or grass." "Looking at the diplomat do I pick up any insight as to how his travels have been and his current state of mind?" "With my experience studying beasts of this region, are there any clues as to what kind of creature it may have been thanks to tracks and broken twigs? Snatched fur or mucus anywhere?"

Yes! players do have the responsibility to find those opportunities but sometimes for whatever reason they don't. More experienced players (especially those with experience on the other side of the screen) will make their intentions pretty clear without recurring to "gamey language" (like "I want to perception the room" ugh). But you might have inexperienced players, or players that have experience playing in a group where that sort of behavior was not called out or outright encouraged. So, how to encourage your players to do things in certain ways? The answer is you, as a DM, should try to reward desired behaviors or punish the undesired ones. An easy example could be: A character enters the bedroom of a potential enemy they are trying to gain information on and asks to "investigate the room" vs A character enters the same room and starts describing what they want to investigate and in which way (e.g: "I'll check under the bed for loose floorboards"). In the first case you could ask for a plain investigation check and set a high DC, in the second case you could decide to outright give the player a clue without a roll (even if "loose floorboards under the bed" was not in your notes. Maybe you had a secret letter from an ally of the bad guy hidden in a drawer and you decide that the loose floorboard idea is good enough to shift the letter from one location to the other) If you communicate this sort of thing in advance (preferably in a session 0) and keep to it, you'll definitely encourage your players to describe in detail what they're doing and how they're using their skills. Every player at the table should know that "investigating a room" will usually mean an investigation check with a high DC and taking the time to describe what and how you investigate could mean an auto success with no roll attached.

I'll clarify that when I say "punish" undesirable behaviors I'm not talking about punishing the players or characters, just communicating in advance that those sort of actions will yield poorer results. Also, when I talk about changing the location of clues to reward a creative or descriptive player Im talking about doing it sparingly, secretly and only when you feel it is a good idea. Every DM will get better at gauging these sort of scenarios with time, as will the players get better at descriptive actions.

This is great advice, love this!

Some of their checks are just in telling a better story for viewers. However, Mr. Mercer handles most things very well in spite of the antics of the other cast members. There are times it does feel its scripted. Like they just happen to get those good rolls in the last minute. Though I've DM'd a few games that work out the same way. Overall, Crit Roll seems to promote, or try to, a good view into how D&D can be. It's embellished with over-the-top voice actors, sure. This doesn't take away from how well thought out Matt is at storytelling and world building. I've only dabbled into the building part, it's tough. I think in honest truth, the only thing that is misleading in a small way is the voice acting vs. day-to-day D&D sessions. Most games I've been in don't delve too deep into the voice play of the characters. In the long run, it just boils down to the players at your table and their strengths, not that of the characters. If a character's stats would allow for something, but the player running it is unable to see it, sometimes you just have to help them out for sake of brevity and the game itself. Like they said in the video, one roll could completely derail the whole session over a missed roll. Sometimes that's ok, sometimes it isn't. It's up to the DM in those moments to make the call and help keep the session rolling forward. Or not, that is fine as well if it falls within the narrative of the game, you and your players are playing.

I *think* this is Homebrew territory, but it's still interesting to see what the DDs approaches are. Persoanlly, I try to fight the urge to make new rules, but apply exisiting ones to new situations. I allow Cooks to make a skill check on the long rest before battle. If they get 20+, everyone who shared the meal has Inspiration. Someone with Leatherworking can skin and tan a monster hide. The cook would be able to butcher it, resulting in preserving more magical ingredients (especially in the Arcanist is advising). A lot of skills should also give a descent, default, standard of living (similar to Performer).

Take a look at Xanathar's Guide. It covers how tool proficiencies and skill proficiencies overlap and how tools can be used.

@@rysarian4384 I agree that XGtE does add something more. Most are underwhelming though imo, but some are cool. For a West Marches style game, Cobbler is almost a must. ;-)

I love this idea! This would never help my goblin paladin who has dice proficiency from her background as a soldier. Maybe she'll could use it in a situation that involves gambling.

I generally don’t like useless checks, but I’ll admit I do use them on occasion. I find that, IF you’re very careful on how often you use them, it can help discourage the meta-gaming dog piles of checks, because the party starts to break this mentality of “oh, we’re being prompted for a check, there must be SOMETHING important here”. Because they know that sometimes, I’m just keeping them a bit off-balance. But you’re right, if you do it too often, it can kinda encourage players to try and do constant checks on EVERYTHING, so I tend to limit it to once or twice a session, if that.

Intelligence= knowing a tomato is a fruit Wisdom= knowing a tomato doesn't go in a fruit salad Charisma= convincing someone to do it anyway I stole this example

Awesomely put!

@@whiskeySe7en Holy shit. Totally this.

@@whiskeySe7en every new player i have gets told about the ability scores as they relate to tomatos. str = ability to crush a tomato. dex = ability to dodge a thrown tomato. con = ability to eat a rotten tomato. int = knowing a tomato is a fruit. wis = knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad. cha = ability to sell tomato based fruit salad. P.S. Its called salsa, and its delicious xD

Several of the things you have listed under Intelligence aren't actually covered by INT in 5e. Processing data, and application of logic and reason are examples.

The problem with this is it gates all answers behind dice rolls. If the player can figure put the trap based on what the character perceives then that should be perfectly legitimate, otherwise what is even the player's role in 5e?

@@YMasterSexcept that's not what I was saying. I was highlighting what I feel is an in-game use difference between perception and investigation, not good/bad secret for design. That being said, it's not *necessarily* locked behind dice rolls, even with my original example. If the bookcase slid side to reveal the door & the players say: A) they will push/pull on the case - done! No investigation dice needed. B) I'll check the bookcase - roll investigation to (potentially) give them the information about the secret door. C) I'll check the books - roll investigation. Basically specifics from players should get specifics from the DM. If they are dancing around it, then roll to see if they get more information. If they are vague, then roll for the chance of specifics. Plus knowing that there's "something up" with the bookcase will make PCs unstoppable. If their investigation checks fail, then the group will tear down the entire wall to find out what's back there. (Particularly if there's a "completionist" in the group.)

@@AdrianParsons I get that it wasn't the intention behind what you were saying, but it is an unintended consequence of that line of thinking.

Could also use time as a variation. Poor roll it takes longer to find it, but they still find it. I do this often, normally followed by behind the screen random encounter roll. Sets the stage of time in the games. Keeping them aware that it does not stop, and their actions or time taken to perform them can have cause/effect moments. This comes up a LOT on Nat 1's during times.

@@drfolsom74 That's what I was doing when I had the players-not-believing problem. At least for my players, the implication that their bad rolls cause some additional info being missed cements that at least the information they did get is factual. And this method doesn't mean that they can't use extra time investigating if they want to*. "Time wasted" has never been a terribly popular approach. Plus, this method works also when extra time simply cannot be spent, like for noticing someone's eye twitch at the mention of some other person or event. I've found "but that's all you see" very powerful. *Over the years, "investigation" has become a "short rest activity" at my table. For example, if the party stops to investigate a crime scene or an abandoned holy site or a room with knick-knacks and do-dahs aplenty or what have you, they usually stop for long enough to bind their wounds, have a quick chat with NPCs if available, meditate, scout the surroundings for enemies, etc. - depending on the party composition and their talents.