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

[iserith]

Yeah, I feel like I'm not articulating myself well, or others are misunderstanding my point.

Yes, RAW Perception and Investigation are different. No question.

My point was about Perception being an artifact of the rules and not (usually) clearly signifying something a character is DOING.

But if a DM, such as myself, tries to make Perception signify something that a character is DOING, and not just leave it as an artifact of play to discern whether or not a PC notices a trap/hidden monster, THAT'S when you start running up against the fuzzy boundary between Perception and Investigation. Because you start getting into senses, and it's a very fuzzy line from describing the senses in detail to "clues."

If I accept Perception as just an artifact of play, not signifying anything a PC is actually DOING, there's no problem. Perception and Investigation are clearly different.

It's only when I try to give Perception more significance / treat it as more than an artifact of play, that Perception vs. Investigation become an issue.

Does that make sense?

Not to me. A Wisdom (Perception) check or passive Wisdom (Perception) check most certainly does signify the the PC is actually doing something. No ability check can be called for unless the character is undertaking a task with an uncertain outcome. For example, when you're checking to see if a PC is surprised, it's the monster's Stealth against the PC's passive Perception. The task that the PC is attempting is something like "Keeping Watch." If the PC is not Keeping Watch, the outcome of the monster's task is certain success - the PC is automatically surprised.

 

[Lanefan]

They are constraining to designers, yes. 'Design Restraint' is a term I've tossed out a few times, in fact. It can be a good thing, in that it minimizes bloat and (needless) complexity, and makes the game easier to learn and more approachable. I imagine it being voluntary, but imposed design constraint would be the next best thing.

Why be so limiting, though?

If all you've got in your toolbox is a hammer, a saw and a screwdriver (and some wood, nails and screws to play with), what you're able to build can't help but be a) constrained to only what can be built with those tools, and b) less finished or polished in any case.

But if you've got those things plus a plane, a sander, a mitre saw, a drill (and some bits), a tape measure, a level, and a lathe then yes, you've got a bigger tool box (more like a tool shed, by now) but you've also greatly expanded your options as to not only what you can build but how fine the workmanship can be.

Same is true of rules design. If you limit yourself to three unified mechanics and then try to shoehorn everything into those then while you could probably build a playable game it'll lose a lot in both flexibility and realism. But if you've got ten mechanics you can much better pick and choose which one's right for which aspect of the game. It'll be more complex, sure, but it'll also play better.

It was pretty whack, though - look at how much bigger undead encounters needed to be to be challenging. In a feedback loop, that contributed to the 'must have a cleric!' trope and niche-protection.

What's wrong with niche protection? I see it as a good thing, that not everybody can do everything and thus you need a full party to cover all the bases.

And in later eds that got a perception bonus, so that wasn't lost, rather, there were fewer mechanics, enabling more character concepts.
(Damn, I'm arguing that 3.x was a tight, efficient system - more irony! - but, I guess it was, compared to 1e.)

No, it wasn't. The main difference between 3e and, say, 1e was that a lot of the complexity got shifted from the DM side to the player side, which I as a player completely don't want. Complexity is for the DM, and when I'm DMing I'll deal with it.

"More character concepts" just leads to more player-side complexity, more attempts to reflect everything with mechanics rather than just characterization, and more emphasis on the "build" rather than the play - none of which improve the game for me.

Lan-"for every job there's a tool"-efan

 

[KarinsDad]

Good example. This is why the 10' pole is a thing in D&D.

If you're a player, you don't want to roll the dice. I'll never understand players that are all "Can I roll a [whatever] check?" Pay attention. Establish a goal. Describe your approach to achieving that goal clearly and succinctly. "I want to run a pole along the ground in an effort to find and avoid pit traps." Great, brilliant. You automatically succeed at finding all the pit traps. You don't need to roll and that's what you want. Your decisions matter.

It's just unfortunate when the pole hits a tripwire for the deadfall.

(Well, for them.)

And here we differ.

Someone establishing a goal and describing approach is no guarantee of success. Search for pit traps. Use a 10' pole. To me, this could give the PC advantage on a check, it doesn't flat give him the autosuccess.

As a player, I don't really want to describe in minutia how I am accomplishing a given task. My PC has a skill set. He is better at some skills than others. He has some ability scores better than others. I state my goal, the dice decide if I was successful based on difficulty. I don't know how he picks a lock, he just does.

If I do explain in minutia, it might result in the DM giving me a +2 bonus, or advantage, or no change at all. It could even be negative:

DM: "Wait, what? You are putting the Goat carcass on your PC's head to try to impress the chief?" Roll persuasion at disadvantage.


On the tripwire example, again we seem to differ. The guy is searching. Yes, he stated pit traps because earlier in the adventuring day, the DM shouted "PIT TRAP!!!" by putting one on the board. But to me, the PC is searching.

He gets an ability check roll to find the tripwire precisely because he is searching. It might be at a -2 penalty because he is using a 10' pole (i.e. not using the proper approach in the DM's mind), on the other hand, a trap should target a specific point in space, so being 10 feet away for a given trap might give him advantage.

Even if he misses the roll, it could still effectively be the equivalent of an auto-success because he is out of range of the trap. He missed the roll, the trap went off, but nobody got hurt. If he had not been using the 10' pole, someone probably would have gotten hurt. If he had made the roll, he would not have triggered the trap, but he would have noticed the tripwire and the PCs might be able to use that trap later on by luring foes to this location.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not to me. A Wisdom (Perception) check or passive Wisdom (Perception) check most certainly does signify the the PC is actually doing something. No ability check can be called for unless the character is undertaking a task with an uncertain outcome. For example, when you're checking to see if a PC is surprised, it's the monster's Stealth against the PC's passive Perception. The task that the PC is attempting is something like "Keeping Watch." If the PC is not Keeping Watch, the outcome of the monster's task is certain success - the PC is automatically surprised.

Again, autofail.

I typically hate autofail (unless the task is impossible) and autosuccess (unless the task is super mundane).

I prefer Disadvantage when distracted and Advantage when focused on the task (like taking 10x the duration).

I like the player's declarations and the dice to decide, not just the player's declarations and the DM's whim at the time. Sure, DM's have whim's all of the time (I'll set the DC to 15, or I'll set the DC to 18), but at least by rolling dice, autofail and autosuccess become way less prevalent.

Just because a player makes a declaration doesn't mean that there should be a single approach that is always successful (shy of other issues like time crunch or wandering monsters or some such). This should only be true for relatively easy tasks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why be so limiting, though?

As I said, a unified core mechanic, even an indifferent one like d20 resolution, simplifies the game overall, makes it easier to learn, and more accessible. At a minimum.

If all you've got in your toolbox is a hammer, a saw and a screwdriver...

Remember, it's a 'constraint' on design, not on DMing not on play...

To use the toolbox analogy, it's not a constraint on the toolbox or the handyman, but on the engineers designing the tools. All the power tools must run on the same current, can use the same battery packs, the divers from the socket set fit the power drill, etc. You can put whatever other tools you want in the box, too, but to start with you have an efficient, fairly complete and versatile set with a minimum of waste and a decent price point.

What's wrong with niche protection? I see it as a good thing, that not everybody can do everything and thus you need a full party to cover all the bases.

Overt niche protection has been used, in D&D to make an otherwise weak (thief) or undesirable (cleric) class indispensable.
It works, in the sense of forced diversity, but it's arbitrary, clumsy and less than ideal, especially for whoever gets stuck playing the undesirable...

The main difference between 3e and, say, 1e was that a lot of the complexity got shifted from the DM side to the player side,

Not complexity, so much as choice, at least, if we compare core/core.
3e, by virtue of standardizing on the d20, making advancement more consistent, introducing CR, and so forth became more consistent and less complex - core, anyway. It then went crazy with class designs, spells, PrCs, item creation, templates, magic sub-systems, psionics, epic levels, feats and more spells, and became wildly bloated late 3.5, sure.

 

[iserith]

And here we differ.

Someone establishing a goal and describing approach is no guarantee of success.

It depends on the goal and approach relative to the context of the scene, wouldn't you say?

"I try to walk across the room by putting one foot in front of the other." Goal. Approach. If there is a no complicating factor, like say a pit trap in the way, are you going to grant success to that action as DM? Or are you calling for a Dexterity check? What about if I try to order a mug of ale by talking to the barmaid? Charisma check?

There's some interesting comments on this sort of thing in the DMG, page 237, "Using Ability Scores," which explains how to determine whether a check of some kind is called for. It might also be worth checking out page 236 for "Role of the Dice." I'm curious if you're an advocate of the "Rolling With It" method. I'm a "Middle Path" guy myself.

As a player, I don't really want to describe in minutia how I am accomplishing a given task. My PC has a skill set. He is better at some skills than others. He has some ability scores better than others. I state my goal, the dice decide if I was successful based on difficulty. I don't know how he picks a lock, he just does.

If I do explain in minutia, it might result in the DM giving me a +2 bonus, or advantage, or no change at all. It could even be negative:

DM: "Wait, what? You are putting the Goat carcass on your PC's head to try to impress the chief?" Roll persuasion at disadvantage.

Who exactly is advocating describing things "in minutia?" Not me certainly. I mean, you just quoted me recommending a player describe his or her approach "clearly and succinctly."

On the tripwire example, again we seem to differ. The guy is searching. Yes, he stated pit traps because earlier in the adventuring day, the DM shouted "PIT TRAP!!!" by putting one on the board. But to me, the PC is searching.

He gets an ability check roll to find the tripwire precisely because he is searching. It might be at a -2 penalty because he is using a 10' pole (i.e. not using the proper approach in the DM's mind), on the other hand, a trap should target a specific point in space, so being 10 feet away for a given trap might give him advantage.

Even if he misses the roll, it could still effectively be the equivalent of an auto-success because he is out of range of the trap. He missed the roll, the trap went off, but nobody got hurt. If he had not been using the 10' pole, someone probably would have gotten hurt. If he had made the roll, he would not have triggered the trap, but he would have noticed the tripwire and the PCs might be able to use that trap later on by luring foes to this location.

The comedic irony of the tripwire comment appears to have been lost on you.

 

[iserith]

Again, autofail.

I typically hate autofail (unless the task is impossible) and autosuccess (unless the task is super mundane).

I prefer Disadvantage when distracted and Advantage when focused on the task (like taking 10x the duration).

I like the player's declarations and the dice to decide, not just the player's declarations and the DM's whim at the time. Sure, DM's have whim's all of the time (I'll set the DC to 15, or I'll set the DC to 18), but at least by rolling dice, autofail and autosuccess become way less prevalent.

Just because a player makes a declaration doesn't mean that there should be a single approach that is always successful (shy of other issues like time crunch or wandering monsters or some such). This should only be true for relatively easy tasks.

Here's my basis for that ruling:

"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the
group travels are not focused on watching for danger.
These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom
(Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing
hidden threats. However, a character not watching for
danger can do one of the following activities instead, or
some other activity with the DM’s permission."

Basic Rules, page 65.

In my last post, I mentioned "The Middle Path." On that topic, the DMG says: "By balancing the dice against deciding on success, you can encourage the players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention in the game and immersing themselves in its world." Contrast that with going to the dice more often than not: "A drawback is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterization, always determine success."

So I go for the "Middle Path." If you make a decision to do something other than Keep Watch and you're not a ranger in favored terrain, you're automatically surprised. If you Keep Watch, then we'll go to the dice when Team Monster is trying to sneak up on the party. That's balancing the dice against deciding on success based on the player's decision.

 

[SkidAce]

Anecdote time: My favorite person was a guy named Evan. We played Champions, and he came to the table with a build that was a Strength drain, at range, with one of the perks that as he drained more strength the radius increased. He said something like (paraphrasing wildly, it's been 20 years):

"With 1d6 drain at radius, if I sit down for coffee in Times Square, (shows calculated density of population in Manhattan), I'll kill the entire East Coast in about four hours, and assuming this works on animals too, (whips out global mammal biomass estimates), the entire world in 45. At that point, my strength will be in the high 7 digits, and (composition of earth's crust, calculated with Champions object hit point and hardness values) I should be able to punch my way into the mantle with two, maybe three strikes tops."

He tabled that one with a grin, and introduced a character that merely out-shined the rest of us.

I love Champions.

 

[Lanefan]

As I said, a unified core mechanic, even an indifferent one like d20 resolution, simplifies the game overall, makes it easier to learn, and more accessible. At a minimum.
Remember, it's a 'constraint' on design, not on DMing not on play...

Well, yes it is a constraint on DMing in that it makes us kitbashers either a) have to do a lot more work to un-shoehorn everything before we can bash on it, or b) accept a system that isn't going to give us what we want in a game...which will probably be different for everyone. And it's a constraint on play in that the players are stuck with using a less-than-perfect system.

To use the toolbox analogy, it's not a constraint on the toolbox or the handyman, but on the engineers designing the tool. All the power took run on the same current, can use the same battery packs, the divers from the socket set for the power drill, etc. You can put whatever other tools you want in the box, too, but to start with you have an efficient, fairly complete and versatile set with a minimum of waste and a decent price point.

This falls apart when, where your old power drill was small and compact and neatly fit into the tight spaces you sometimes had to use it, the new one with the larger cheaper standardized battery pack is now too big for what you need. The constraint on the engineers has knocked-on to the end user, defeating the whole purpose.

Overt niche protection has been used, in D&D to make an otherwise weak (thief) or undesirable (cleric) class indispensable.

I'll argue with you as long as I have to about Clerics being undesirable. Clerics rock!

3e, by virtue of standardizing on the d20, making advancement more consistent, introducing CR, and so forth became more consistent and less complex - core, anyway.

Provided you played the game the way the designers wanted you to - 4 players, 1 character per player, 1-20 in two years or so. Deviate greatly from this and its warts really showed - believe me. Earlier editions would forgive much more deviation for much longer.

It then went crazy with class designs, spells, PrCs, item creation, templates, magic sub-systems, psionics, epic levels, feats and spells, and became wildly bloated in late 3.5, sure.

Gads, given all the 3rd-party stuff it was bloated by 2004. It just got worse from there.

Lanefan

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's my basis for that ruling:

"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the
group travels are not focused on watching for danger.
These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom
(Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing
hidden threats. However, a character not watching for
danger can do one of the following activities instead, or
some other activity with the DM’s permission."

Basic Rules, page 65.

In my last post, I mentioned "The Middle Path." On that topic, the DMG says: "By balancing the dice against deciding on success, you can encourage the players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention in the game and immersing themselves in its world." Contrast that with going to the dice more often than not: "A drawback is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterization, always determine success."

So I go for the "Middle Path." If you make a decision to do something other than Keep Watch and you're not a ranger in favored terrain, you're automatically surprised. If you Keep Watch, then we'll go to the dice when Team Monster is trying to sneak up on the party. That's balancing the dice against deciding on success based on the player's decision.

That's cool. You play by your interpretation of what is written. It's just not the style I prefer. And just because the game designers explained their reasoning a bit on this does not mean that I think it is a better system.

Like I said, I hate autofail and autosuccess and 5E (and to a lesser extent 4E) heads more and more in this direction.

The concept of "just say Yes" is not a concept that I endorse. Sometimes Yes, sometimes No. As DM, I prefer to often let the dice decide this and not my whims.


As an example, we use a "High is good for the party" roll. As DM, I might ask a random player (or the player asking a question) to give me a HIGFTP roll.

Say a player asks: "Are there any goats in this town?"

I don't force the player to actually walk up to a townsperson and ask his question "in character". I don't bother to have them roleplay with townsfolk such a trivial and mundane question. Yes, if I did so, this might result in some "on the fly" inspiration on my part to impart more info, but meh. It's not on my list of fun roleplaying events. I also don't "just say Yes".

I set a DC. Say, 8. They roll the dice with no modifiers. If they get 8 or higher, they find at least one goat, maybe an entire herd. If they make the roll, or if I already knew there were goats in the town and did not ask for a roll, then I would say "You ask around and find out about a corral full of them on the east side of town".


I view a lot of the non-combat rules as guidelines. Like a buffet, I pick and choose what I like.