D&D 5E Is "perception" even a good concept?

[Tony Vargas]

So, 1e magic resistance was p228 of the 1e DMG and was, indeed, +/- 5%, OSRIC had it right.

Surprise? OMGygax... p61-2.
I'm not even going to try...

Any other compact/efficient power tools you're mis'n from AD&D because the d20 version is just so klunky?

 

[Jester David]

Having played games without codified rules for awareness and detection, I sure do love Perception...

 

[KarinsDad]

Use of gotchas by the DM will tend to cause players to increase their defenses against them and that usually means pumping Perception and sometimes Insight maybe (or being extra paranoid and thorough). So if that is not something the DM wants to see, then getting away from using gotchas will definitely help.

Interesting. Other people talked about gotchas as things that could kill a PC outright whereas you did not.

From my perspective as a player, use of gotchas as you describe them is something I would like to often see. As I mentioned earlier, although I might not catch on to every single clue a DM drops, I tend to get a little bored when a DM drops clues about everything. Do you really give clues as to whether an NPC townsperson is actually an enemy spy? He's not a very good spy if you do.

I do think that gotchas such as a bunch of 10th level demons being discovered by a group of 5th level PCs is uncool, but my PC running towards a group of foes and he falls into a pit trap is just part and parcel of a dangerous delve environment. As a player, I need no clues by the DM that such a pit might exist.

It's kind of like the fudging discussions. I don't like a DM protecting my PC from my own decisions or from dice rolls. I wouldn't like DMs protecting my PC from the environment by giving me clues about every possible threat. Some threats, sure. Most or all, not so much. It's one thing to give clues about likely TPK scenarios. It's another to give clues so that every single player decision can be an informed one. Sometimes, players should just take chances without having enough information. IMO. Basically, it's about information balance. Too little is problematic and too much is problematic.

 

[iserith]

Interesting. Other people talked about gotchas as things that could kill a PC outright whereas you did not.

For something to be a gotcha, it needn't be deadly.

From my perspective as a player, use of gotchas as you describe them is something I would like to often see. As I mentioned earlier, although I might not catch on to every single clue a DM drops, I tend to get a little bored when a DM drops clues about everything. Do you really give clues as to whether an NPC townsperson is actually an enemy spy? He's not a very good spy if you do.

If you don't catch on to every single clue the DM drops, then you'll miss some and be surprised. Which seems to be exactly what you want.

As for the enemy spy, yes, I'll drop clues. You may or may not catch on. He's a good spy if you don't. He's not so good if you do. But that's not all that important. What's important is what you do with that information, if you figure it out. Or that if you don't figure it out and he gets the better of you, you can look back and facepalm about having overlooked the clues that were dropped by the DM. You'll know that I gave you a fair shot at figuring out and you simply failed.

Your comments in this post and others seem to indicate that the players will always catch on (or at least you will), but that's not true in my experience. Sometimes they will and they feel good about paying attention and acting to avoid randomness and bad outcomes. Other times they will feel good about being surprised by the sudden plot twist that wasn't just sprung on them but, in hindsight, was building for some time. There is no downside here.

I do think that gotchas such as a bunch of 10th level demons being discovered by a group of 5th level PCs is uncool, but my PC running towards a group of foes and he falls into a pit trap is just part and parcel of a dangerous delve environment. As a player, I need no clues by the DM that such a pit might exist.

I'll telegraph the pit trap. If you don't need the clues, then it shouldn't be a problem for you that I do that, right?

It's kind of like the fudging discussions. I don't like a DM protecting my PC from my own decisions or from dice rolls. I wouldn't like DMs protecting my PC from the environment by giving me clues about every possible threat. Some threats, sure. Most or all, not so much. It's one thing to give clues about likely TPK scenarios. It's another to give clues so that every single player decision can be an informed one. Sometimes, players should just take chances without having enough information. IMO. Basically, it's about information balance. Too little is problematic and too much is problematic.

Telegraphing, foreshadowing, and the like isn't about the DM protecting the character. It's about providing the players with enough information to make meaningful, informed decisions in fair challenges in order to reduce randomness and have control over their destinies. A great deal of experience in this regard has shown that they don't always make the best decisions even when informed. So there is your balance right there.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your comments in this post and others seem to indicate that the players will always catch on (or at least you will), but that's not true in my experience.

No. I won't catch on to all clues. Probably not even half. As a player, I don't necessarily hang onto every word of the DM and analyze it for hints. I'm too busy having fun making jokes and other Tom foolery. You might find me a disruptive player. And I will make mistakes. I make mistakes all of the time. On the other hand, I will rarely face palm like you have stated. If you were my DM and gave us some foreshadowing 3 weeks earlier, I won't remember it. I barely remember the highlights of a session from 3 weeks ago, let alone subtle foreshadowing. Even when the other players or you as DM talk about it, I'll probably just shrug. If it wasn't important enough at the time to take note of it, I won't remember it. All of the DM's hard work wasted on a player like me.

I'll telegraph the pit trap. If you don't need the clues, then it shouldn't be a problem for you that I do that, right?

I guess you are missing my point. I wouldn't want clues every time there is a trap in the room. That's NOT fun (or at least for me). Like I mentioned earlier, if you are going to spoon feed the players with clues on every threat, you might as well just play their PCs for them.

Balance. Sometimes the DM does it. Sometimes the DM does not. If he does it all of the time, I might as well play Monopoly for all of the real decision making the DM is giving me. It feels artificial. PCs should not be psychic. Yes, you can couch it as the environment giving them information, but most PCs should not be Sherlock Holmes-like.

And btw, I'm glad this works at your table. Different styles for different groups. I have played in a few groups that I have quit after a few sessions because DMs did stuff or had house rules that were just too uncomfortable (sometimes other players were an issue, but usually these types of incompatibilities are driven by DMs).

Telegraphing, foreshadowing, and the like isn't about the DM protecting the character. It's about providing the players with enough information to make meaningful, informed decisions in fair challenges in order to reduce randomness and have control over their destinies. A great deal of experience in this regard has shown that they don't always make the best decisions even when informed. So there is your balance right there.

It might not be about protecting the characters, but it does seem to be a little bit about controlling the characters. Sure, they will make mistakes or not get every clue. But the clues you do often supply are a type of railroad on the adventure, possibly without you even realizing it. DMs have a HUGE amount of influence in a game and the more hints a DM gives, the more players are going to be inclined to follow the DM's lead. As a player, I don't want the DM giving too many hints because I will be outvoted at the table in decision making 10 times out of 10 by the 3 players who do want to always follow the DM's hints (even if they are misinterpreting them).

A DM should be impartial and him giving out too many hints, regardless of how they are couched, is the opposite of that.

And yes, I understand your POV. You just do not seem to understand mine. I want gotchas (not deadly ones, but challenging ones) a fair portion of the time because otherwise, the game is too predictable, or at least the portions of the game where I pick up on the DM clues. And even if I do not pick up on a clue, some other player might and again, it has the appearance that the DM is leading the party instead of the players.

Read the Instigating player on page 6 of the DMG.

 

[iserith]

You might find me a disruptive player.

Probably not.

I guess you are missing my point. I wouldn't want clues every time there is a trap in the room. That's NOT fun (or at least for me). Like I mentioned earlier, if you are going to spoon feed the players with clues on every threat, you might as well just play their PCs for them.

Balance. Sometimes the DM does it. Sometimes the DM does not. If he does it all of the time, I might as well play Monopoly for all of the real decision making the DM is giving me. It feels artificial. PCs should not be psychic. Yes, you can couch it as the environment giving them information, but most PCs should not be Sherlock Holmes-like.

And btw, I'm glad this works at your table. Different styles for different groups. I have played in a few groups that I have quit after a few sessions because DMs did stuff or had house rules that were just too uncomfortable (sometimes other players were an issue, but usually these types of incompatibilities are driven by DMs).

That's not balance. That's inconsistency. The balance you desire happens on the player side of the equation.

Further, I really don't know how you read what I'm saying and come away with the idea that I'm spoon feeding players or that there's no real decision-making in my games. Or that I treat the PCs as psychic or even Sherlock Holmes.

It rather seems like you're just lobbing various unfounded criticisms at what I'm suggesting is, in part, a solution to the Perception problem raised by the OP. I'm happy to knock those criticisms down all day long if that's what you want. I mean, now you're into saying it might be railroading:

It might not be about protecting the characters, but it does seem to be a little bit about controlling the characters. Sure, they will make mistakes or not get every clue. But the clues you do often supply are a type of railroad on the adventure, possibly without you even realizing it. DMs have a HUGE amount of influence in a game and the more hints a DM gives, the more players are going to be inclined to follow the DM's lead. As a player, I don't want the DM giving too many hints because I will be outvoted at the table in decision making 10 times out of 10 by the 3 players who do want to always follow the DM's hints (even if they are misinterpreting them).

Railroading is when you coerce players into a particular action they didn't want or subvert their choices to some other end than they intend. Giving them enough information so they can make informed decisions in the world and otherwise act with agency is not that.

A DM should be impartial and him giving out too many hints, regardless of how they are couched, is the opposite of that.

That is not so. The DM is advised to be impartial only with regard to the application of the rules (DMG, page 5). Telegraphing is about being partial towards fairness and agency.

And yes, I understand your POV. You just do not seem to understand mine. I want gotchas (not deadly ones, but challenging ones) a fair portion of the time because otherwise, the game is too predictable, or at least the portions of the game where I pick up on the DM clues. And even if I do not pick up on a clue, some other player might and again, it has the appearance that the DM is leading the party instead of the players.

Read the Instigating player on page 6 of the DMG.

Gotchas aren't challenges. Something is a challenge when you can make an informed decision to overcome it. That's not what a gotcha is. You get blindsided, and the inherent difficulty is only because you didn't have any clue it was coming. You're right in one respect though - why a player would want that is beyond me. The game is plenty unpredictable. Unless the DM is just not great at his or her role, which sadly isn't uncommon in my experience.

I'm sure lots of us know why DMs would want gotchas though. And a DM who wants gotchas couldn't very well be consistent if he or she wasn't also a player who said he or she wanted them...

As to Instigating Players, the DMG tells us how to engage them: Allow them to affect their surroundings. (Check.) Include things in your adventures to tempt them. (Check.) Let their actions put the characters in a tight spot. (Check.) Include encounters with NPCs who are as feisty and unpredictable as they are. (Check.)

It honestly seems like you'd have absolutely no problem with the way I present my game if you were sitting at the table. But still you keep criticizing the solutions I propose because it seems like you wouldn't want to run your game that way, even if it's obvious this is a potential solution to the Perception problem.

 

[Lanefan]

Railroading is when you coerce players into a particular action they didn't want or subvert their choices to some other end than they intend. Giving them enough information so they can make informed decisions in the world and otherwise act with agency is not that.

Though the information you give, even if complete, give can still subvert their choices depending on how it's presented/worded.

That is not so. The DM is advised to be impartial only with regard to the application of the rules (DMG, page 5). Telegraphing is about being partial towards fairness and agency.

If there's something that could be telegraphed and-or the characters slow down long enough to look for it, then sure. Otherwise, telegraphing is about being partial toward the PCs instead of neutral.

I'm sure lots of us know why DMs would want gotchas though. And a DM who wants gotchas couldn't very well be consistent if he or she wasn't also a player who said he or she wanted them...

As both player and DM I see them as simply part of the game, and of the game world - which is, in the end, out to kill you.

Lanefan

 

[KarinsDad]

Gotchas aren't challenges. Something is a challenge when you can make an informed decision to overcome it. That's not what a gotcha is. You get blindsided, and the inherent difficulty is only because you didn't have any clue it was coming.

Actually, the game is more fun with your definition of gotchas and those sometimes being in the game. IMO. The occasional pit trap that nobody has a clue about and there was no warning for is just one such simple example.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You don't seem to understand my POV and I sure as heck see your POV more as the DM being controlling or overindulgent than the DM being consistent. Yes, he is being consistent, but in a repetitive sort of way. If it were most of the time, fine. But all of the time? It's kind of like a DM who never puts traps in his games, or never has an encounter CR higher than medium.

Getting back to the thread, in the adjudicating system that you are discussing, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to take perception or insight at all. If one PC in the group has those, great. Otherwise, it's all still good. The DM has your back, at least if you hang on his every word.

And I am not trying to be too critical of your system here (even though it probably seems that way), I just find it uncomfortable as a DMing style. I cannot even understand why a player would want every threat telegraphed. It basically doesn't make sense. And I did mention that I once had a DM who did throw out a ton of clues and I didn't like it.

I am all for foreshadowing and giving some hints in the game. But as a player, I just don't want every single threat telegraphed. I want to be in the dark at times. Shy of obvious stuff in the environment, hints should be primarily handed out when the players take actions that leads to them earning those hints. A reward for being cautious or taking their time. A reward for them asking around town about the farmer and not just dropping a hint that he is an enemy spy because he is a threat. Risk and reward. The PCs make good decisions and THEN they get the reward of getting hints. Not the other way around: the DM just hands out hints so that the players can always make informed decisions.

I'm glad this works for you, but it feels uncomfortable to me. Course, a player who comes to the game solely to be a thespian (and hence often the center of attention) is uncomfortable to me as well. We all have things that bug us. Good luck with your game.


Edit: One other thing about this. Why bother to take divination spells like Find Traps (or at least take them as often) if the DM is going to always telegraph information about threats? The PCs already have a built in Find Traps called the DM.

 

[schnee]

And that is another way in which it could be re-balanced. Instead of everyone taking it because it's obviously the best skill and other skills are much less useful by comparison, you make it compete against the other ability scores which are actually useful.

Perception is mostly trained.

Soldiers don't have amazing ability to see movement in tough situations based solely on what they're born with. It's something that is a skill, obtained over time, through practice.

It's influenced by your natural acuity, that's why - for example - some people make great snipers and some don't. Being able to acquire the target and know when the right time to take the shot is very very hard, and you need BOTH the training and the natural talent to be the best. People who don't excel at both fail out.

So, IMO it's modeled accurately enough the way it is. It's just a new mechanic, and like all new mechanics, everyone loves to argue and second-guess and gripe.

 

[iserith]

Though the information you give, even if complete, give can still subvert their choices depending on how it's presented/worded.

Nope. As long as a player is freely making choices and the DM isn't subverting those choices, then no railroading is happening. That is such an overused term in this hobby. Folks seem to think it applies to way more than it does.

If there's something that could be telegraphed and-or the characters slow down long enough to look for it, then sure. Otherwise, telegraphing is about being partial toward the PCs instead of neutral.

As both player and DM I see them as simply part of the game, and of the game world - which is, in the end, out to kill you.

Lanefan

By your own definition, you're being partial to the game world then and therefore not impartial either. Fine, as far as I'm concerned. Impartiality of the DM is only required of the DM with regard to the application of rules.