This post includes the mechanics for conducting investigations in The Meidlands. Although divorced from the full context of character build rules, classes, and skills (at least until the SRD is published following the Fall playtest), I am posting this chapter to demonstrate a core feature of the gameplay loop and how it it functions.
For some context for understanding checks and dice mechanics, please read On Dice.
In times past, the songs told of adventurers who traveled the roads, battling beasts and righting wrongs by means of blood, steel, and magic. Although this is, of course, highly romanticized, it says little of maggoty rations, rain-soaked bedrolls, leeches found in uncomfortable places, and the quiet nights when all around the campfire silently wish they had chosen another path. So too, the songs speak of princesses rescued, wicked churchmen foiled, and lords begging wanderers to help save their land — where in truth, it seems more like hunting goblins getting a bit bold at the forest edge, or chasing down a highwayman for a bounty. Until the last few decades, at least.
Although the maggots and the damp and the bounties are still the norm, the threats have increasingly become stranger. Where in one’s grandfather’s day the truly bizarre was the domain of the Inquisition, and the mightiest adventuring companies could hope to win themselves names by dispatching a gossip of harpies (a flock, in the older usage) blown off course and settled too close to civilization, or perhaps a hag, or a haunted barrow — the dark places have grown darker and stranger things lurk within them. The old beasts are more restless on the borderlands, the fae more readily torment those on distant stretches of road, and there is much whispering of dark cults and darker still the things they bring through from the mouth of Hell.
Adventuring has, as a result, become much more exciting, and much more dangerous and demanding. It requires not only steel and spell, but often more than a little sharpness of eye and silver in the tongue.
In The Meidlands, gameplay not only hinges on the three traditional pillars of tabletop roleplaying — combat, puzzle-solving, and exploration — but a fourth pillar rises to prominence: investigation. Much of the narrative pattern of the folk, cult, and cosmic horror involved in confronting the denizens of the hidden world entails at least some detective work and the piecing together of what is actually happening. Some of this is finding material clues and making inferences; some requires canvassing villages — sometimes welcoming, sometimes desperate, sometimes hostile — for the information that could lead to understanding and, potentially, defeating whatever horrific thing has taken root.
The Meidlands provides a system for investigation that allows players to unravel mysteries without needing to be as skilled detectives as their characters, and without having to roleplay out every individual interaction with every NPC who may or may not know something relevant. This investigation mechanic gives the party a framework for pooling their talents in gathering clues, and gives the GM tools to plan for some randomness in what is uncovered — and whether certain things are uncovered at all — without either leading characters by the nose or leaving everything to chance.
When to Use This System
The investigation check procedure is designed to quickly resolve information-gathering without either elaborate extended roleplay with dozens of NPCs or exhaustive step-by-step examination of every physical detail. It works best for canvassing a group of people, searching a location, or any situation where the meaningful question is what the party collectively uncovers rather than how a specific individual responds.
The GM should generally roleplay out individual interactions when they make sense — a specific NPC the party has cultivated, a significant confrontation, an extended interrogation. The investigation system is not a replacement for those scenes. It is a replacement for the twenty background NPCs who may or may not know something useful, and for the hour of careful searching that should produce one or two relevant details without requiring the party to examine every piece of furniture individually. Players who want to know what books are on the shelf will find that the check already accounted for the shelf. The system rewards collaborative strategy and meaningful skill choices; it is not a vehicle for exhausting every possible avenue of inquiry one item at a time.
Investigation Checks
There are two major types of investigation check: social and material. Both operate through the same underlying procedure, allowing a character to take the lead while providing opportunities for their party members to contribute.
A social investigation draws on the Social skill and its specializations. When canvassing a taproom full of ne’er-do-wells, the investigator might employ Intimidation to bully information out of patrons, Persuasion to put them at ease, Insight to read lies and half-truths, or Deception to play the part of someone who already knows about the strange happenings.
A material investigation draws on the Perception skill and its specializations. When searching a ransacked and bloodied chamber for clues beyond the obvious, the investigator might employ Senses to pick up on smells and sounds, Recall to draw connections between this scene and earlier evidence, or Investigation to notice small details and assemble them into a larger picture.
The basic social investigation check uses Persuasion; the basic material investigation check uses Investigation. Players should feel free to propose other specializations where they fit the situation.
Social or Perception pool + specialization + attribute vs. difficulty
The GM sets a difficulty based on the situation — typically 1D to 5D, though it may reach as high as 7D in exceptional circumstances — taking into account who is leading the investigation and what tactic they are using. A given tactic might be completely worthless in a particular situation; conversely, an NPC might readily offer exactly the information being sought if asked directly in the right way. The GM withholds the difficulty and makes no roll until all other contributions are resolved.
The GM should provide a time frame in advance: canvassing a taproom or questioning townsfolk around the market square might take an hour; grilling a few guards might take a few minutes; scouring a room for clues might take fifteen minutes; investigating a large burial chamber might take an hour or more. The GM should account for the number of characters present when setting time frames for material investigations; for social investigations, all party members present are assumed to be participating alongside the primary investigator.
The Primary Investigator
The party nominates a primary investigator to lead the check. For social investigations this is often the character with the highest Social pool; for material investigations, the character with the highest Perception pool. But the choice of specialization and the specific character may matter as much as raw skill. A cleric may have an advantage with people inclined to trust the Church, but in other contexts may be regarded as a threat merely by affiliation. Some situations reward a careful touch; others reward directness, menace, or a specific kind of social permission.
The primary investigator may declare a topic or goal — for social investigations, a specific piece of information they are probing for; for material investigations, a specific type of clue they are searching for. If a prior investigation has established a particular tell-tale mark or a named item of interest, declaring it when conducting the search increases the odds of finding it if it is present.
The Secondary Investigator
If a secondary investigator is nominated, they declare which specialization they are using and disclose their specialization rank and governing attribute to the GM.
The GM then decides whether the approach would meaningfully contribute — and this judgment is contextual rather than purely mechanical. The right question is not only whether the secondary’s bonus is large enough, but whether their tactic works with the primary’s in this specific situation.
A patient persuasion supported by a second warm and disarming presence can amplify naturally. An interrogation where one investigator plays the threatening role and the other the reasonable one is a classic pairing that works precisely because the contrast serves the goal. A secondary who tries to read deception in a subject who genuinely has nothing to hide brings nothing useful regardless of their Insight rank. And a secondary whose approach actively cuts against the primary’s — a show of aggression behind a careful trust-building approach, for instance — may do more harm than good.
Generally, a combined bonus of +4 or more in a sound complementary tactic is sufficient for the GM to approve the aid, though a smaller bonus from a particularly apt approach may earn approval, and a larger bonus from a tactic that adds nothing to the situation will not. Creative contributions that do not map neatly to a skill check — a character whose presence, performance, or behavior creates a condition that helps the primary — are also at the GM’s discretion to recognize as aid.
If approved, the secondary investigator may aid the investigation: after the primary makes their check and all bonuses are applied, the secondary may reroll any of the check’s dice — not merely 1s and 2s as with a standard bonus, but any die the secondary chooses.
Expertise in Investigation
If any additional party member — beyond the nominated secondary — has particular expertise that would naturally draw out a clue or rumor in context, the GM may call for an on-the-spot check. A character with blacksmithing knowledge might spot a telling mark on a weapon; a character fluent in arcane lore might catch a fleeting reference in conversation. If that check succeeds against a difficulty set by the GM, that party member may also aid the investigation with a reroll.
If the primary or secondary investigator would have been the expert, the GM may allow additional bonuses to the primary check instead.
Resolving an Investigation Check
Once the primary investigator makes their check and any secondary or additional party members have aided as permitted, the GM rolls the difficulty pool. Both the number of successes and the critical dice are interpreted by the GM.
Most non-combat skill checks attend primarily to the successes of the pool dice and largely set aside the qualitative results of the critical dice except on a hard critical. Investigation checks consider both:
- Successes above 1 indicate the party finds information quickly, uncovers multiple clues, or obtains more detail than a baseline result would provide
- A critical, or a critical die result significantly higher than the difficulty dice, indicates the party is able to target the specific topic or goal they declared at the outset
The GM selects a rumor or clue from their lists — either hand-picking the most relevant piece of information or rolling randomly, depending on how the dice are interpreted — and describes what the characters discover and how.
On failure: A failed check does not always mean silence. Depending on the situation, the GM may have the characters come away with nothing useful, with a plausible-seeming piece of misdirection, or a rumor that is only partially true. The investigation system determines what the characters learn; it does not guarantee that what they learn is accurate or what it means.
It is worth noting that the tactic of a social investigation may have consequences beyond the check itself. Intimidation may work in a particular context but incur hostility or grudges. Deception may serve in the moment but catch up with the party later. The GM should track these social consequences as appropriate to the situation.
Subtle Investigations
Sometimes the party may choose to blend in and avoid appearing to be investigating at all. Direct questioning can yield direct answers when posed correctly, but being noticed asking about certain subjects can be dangerous — and some information only surfaces to those who seem to belong in the environment rather than those who are obviously looking for something.
If the primary investigator wishes to conduct a subtle investigation, they must declare this before the check begins and make a focused Deception check, with their chosen investigative specialization as a bonus modifier. This check is made unopposed; the GM notes the result privately. Should any parties be present who would take interest or exception to the inquiry, this result is used by the GM to determine whether the investigation attracted attention. The players may not learn whether anyone noticed.
The GM may specify that the subtle approach takes additional time. Rather than approaching the subject directly, the investigator must strike up natural-seeming conversations, play cards, or otherwise draw out information circuitously — increasing the time required without necessarily improving the result.
Generally, the GM will add +1D to the difficulty of a subtle social investigation, particularly if the subject is a memorable or sensitive one. If the subject is innocuous — which dock a specific ship is moored at, when a regular last visited the bar — no additional difficulty or attention may be warranted, and the only cost is time.
The Rumor and Clue List
The preparation — or improvisation — required of the GM is an understanding of what the investigation check could yield. The simplest approach is to maintain at all times a general rumor list for each location: interesting things the people there would want to talk about, which may or may not be relevant to the current mystery. For each specific mystery, each distinct location should have an additional mystery rumor list covering what could be learned about the matter at hand — including directions to a person or place that might yield further information.
The GM should note any conditions or situational requirements relevant to specific clues and rumors:
- Will a particular rumor only surface if someone in the party has relevant knowledge?
- Will a piece of information always come up freely, with a successful check merely yielding additional context or speed?
- Will something only emerge if the party asks specifically about a named person, or if prior clues have pointed them in the right direction?
Notes of this kind allow the GM to randomize which rumors are presented on a standard success, and to hand-select the most relevant piece of information when a critical or high critical die result warrants it. The GM may encounter the same rumors across different contexts as the investigation develops, or cross them off as they are uncovered to keep things moving.
For material investigations, the GM should distinguish between three tiers of clue:
- Things that will be observed if any time at all is taken in the location
- Things that are possible on a successful check, either randomized or targeted by the declared goal
- Things only noticeable with skilled aid from party members, or with prior information already in hand
Clues may be misleading. Rumors may be false or only partially true. The investigation system determines what the characters learn; it does not guarantee accuracy.
Dividing and Conquering
The conventional wisdom in tabletop roleplaying is to never split the party — but in investigation, splitting is often the correct tactical choice and one the system is designed to support. It may take an hour to canvas the taproom, but the market stalls outside may yield entirely different information. With the investigation system, dividing into separate teams does not require extended parallel roleplay at the table: each team simply declares their topic, nominates their investigators, chooses their approach, and makes their checks. Considerable narrative ground can be covered in a short span of actual play time, with no part of the table sitting idle while another group roleplays at length.
There are two situational disadvantages worth considering:
- Skills that would aid one investigation may be in the other group, limiting options for secondary investigator contributions or expertise checks
- A split party is more vulnerable if the situation shifts from conversation to confrontation, or if an outside threat intervenes while the groups are separated
Re-attempting Investigations
Most investigations are resolved once per location or time period. If the party misses something, they may find it elsewhere as the investigation develops. The GM may permit reinvestigation under specific circumstances:
- An external clue has shifted the declared goal for a material investigation, warranting a fresh search with new purpose
- Returning to the same social environment with a different topic, or on a different day as the story progresses, may surface different information from what was previously available
The GM should signal when further investigation will be unproductive — “you have a feeling you aren’t going to find more here” or “you’ve gone over as much as you can until morning” — as a cue to move play forward rather than spin wheels on a fruitless check. Similarly, “you can try, but you’ve already worked them over” signals that a clue may still exist but the difficulty will be higher and the party should weigh whether it is worth the time.