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

[Mishihari Lord]

I've always thought perception should be an ability score rather than a skill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What page was that on?

It's hidden way, way in the back of the 1e DMG, can't recall ATM if it was an actual glossary or something. I might just be able to check that when I get home...

Edit: Got impatient and looked up the OSRIC version, relevant quote: "This percentage is predicated on a caster of 11th level of experience, and should be varied by 5% upwards or downwards per experience level of the caster above or below 11th respectively." Not as messy as I remembered.

I don't doubt you. I pored over those books for 30 minutes looking for what to roll for surprise IIRC a d10 never found it in print though. The layout (if that is what you call it) was nigh indecipherable so I can understand not knowing that and mistaking the mechanic for a simple,one.

I retract my previous assertion.

My memory of the surprise rules is rolling a d6 on each side (or for each character, I'm honestly not sure), which was very similar to rolling initiative, so hopefully I'm not conflating those. There was an odd disconnect between notations like "is only surprised on a X" vs "Surprises on a X through X+n," which I don't recall being confused by in the past, so maybe there's a clear way to resolve the contradiction that I've just forgotten? I also vaguely recall extreme cases where the die type changed to d8, so you could have a better than 5 in 6 chance of achieving surprise, or less than 1 in 6 chance of being surprised...

Initiative, on a d10, OTOH, I recall vividly, from a Leomund's Tiny Hut article that included several such variants that were very popular in my area in the early 80s.

But any of those might be 20/400 hindsight...


On point, I don't have any trouble remembering how to roll initiative in d20. Perk of a unified resolution mechanic: easier to remember.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've always thought perception should be an ability score rather than a skill.

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.

 

[iserith]

I did not mean it to be insulting. But to be totally honest here, aren't all DMs making stuff up on the spur of the moment a LOT? The game goes off into so many directions, the players come up with so many different ideas that the DM really is telling a morphing story, one that is morphing at the table as the game is played. By whim, I mean that if I as DM decide on the fly today that there are Hill Giants in the nearby hills, there is no guarantee that if we started the game at 1 PM today instead of 2 PM today, that with that totally different change of start time, that an idea wouldn't have occurred to me (possibly triggered by something a player said) instead that there are no Hill Giants in the nearby hills because a historical event wiped them all out and if the PCs want to know more, they will have to do some investigating.

That is what I mean by whim. The "Say Yes" philosophy (or possibly better expressed as "Ignoring the Dice" DMG philosophy) espoused by 5E removes some types of whim by trying to get the DM to always say Yes. I like to remove some of that whim by rolling the dice. I think that both DMing styles are perfectly reasonable. In the DMG terms, it's leaning more towards the "Rolling with It" philosophy than "The Middle Path" philosophy.

My philosophy is that things don't exist until you establish them in some way. But once established, consistency with regard to what is established is key to creating the space for players to be able to act with agency. There really aren't hill giants in those hills until I say there are directly or begin to telegraph the same more subtly. I still wouldn't call the decision to include them or not to be whim though at least where I am concerned. I guess we can disagree on that term. It's not important.

With regard to the three methods detailed in the "Role of the Dice" section in the DMG, notably two of the approaches are said to have potential drawbacks. "The Middle Path" does not. So it's really no wonder why I go that route with this game system. It also appears to solve, in part, a lot of issues that people report with the game system. I just don't have the problems that we see reported day in and day out on the forums, such as the one that kicked off this thread where Perception appears to be an "obvious choice." That's only so because of how certain folks run their games. Which is why if I do have an issue where the game's a little wobbly, I look to what I'm doing first because that's probably where the problem originates.

And one of the reasons that I like rolling dice is because it shows fairness as a DM and it shows that no, the game world does not just revolve around the PCs. Their goals will not automatically eventually be successful just because they stated a goal and a reasonable approach to attain that goal, rather things may or may not work out as they envision. Some of the more fun gaming sessions occur because the players wanted to do A, but that way was blocked (maybe just by a random die roll), so they went off and did B instead. "When the DM shuts a door, he opens a window".

However to be fair, using this approach might lead players to optimize their PCs a bit. As an example, they sometimes purposely take skills that match up with their ability scores, rather than taking skills that they think would be fun for their PC concept. Or alternatively, they take skills that they think will be needed by their PC (or used a lot by the DM), but ones that their ability score do not match up with. Neither of these reasons for skill selection derive directly from the history and background of the PC, rather the skill selections dictate changes to the background (or they influence the background after the fact).

I'm not so sure that rolling the dice really is fair in all cases, nor do I think that narrating automatic success and failure without the dice being involved demonstrates somehow that the world revolves around the PCs. It just means that the players have some control over the outcomes based on the efficacy of their decisions in the face of what the DM has described - and that's what players should want. Randomness is not their friend. Which also goes to explain why players optimize in the manner you describe. Because if you're going to end up rolling more often than not, you may as well jack that bonus up as high as possible in as many skills as possible.

That sounds like a lot of work. Whew!

It also isn't required to be a good DM. Both styles, in fact thousands of styles, are all ok. There is no "one good style" including the style suggestions in the DMG or here on the forum.

As both a DM and a player, my criteria leans more towards having fun, but not at the expense of not having a plausible and consistent game world. A random great idea by a player does not mean a good idea for the campaign setting. This means that the DM shouldn't necessarily give in to player desires. The more a DM gives in to "the player's natural desire to avoid randomness wherever possible by having control over outcomes", the more he is making that player's choices not about what can the PC do, but more what the player can get away with (to some extent). People are people. None of us are totally altruistic and many of us are more competitive than we care to admit, so when given the opportunity, many of us will take advantage of a system or a DM. It's in our nature. Again, I'm not trying to say this in an insulting way (but I suck at sometimes expressing my ideas). I'm saying that boundaries are often good and saying No is sometimes ok. As a DM, I just let the dice tell the players No for me sometimes. And sometimes the dice say yes, so if it is something I am not ready for or something that I prefer not happen, I just suck it up. But I just say No (not out loud, but in a variety of other ways) when I really do not want the campaign heading off into some undesirable direction.

Somehow I get the impression that you think I don't say "No" or words to that effect. I have no qualms about saying a character has failed to achieve their goal based on the stated approach and the situation as described without any dice rolling.

Yes. I used to try to play that way. "Stop asking me questions, tell me where your PC is going and what your PC is doing". This is a DM style preference which is why I used the goat example. My group currently consists of 4 players in their mid to late 50s and 3 players in their early to late 20s. I have not played these older players for 25 years while living elsewhere and as a group, they acquired a lot of gaming habits that were different than mine. So when I moved back 5 years ago, I spent the first few years trying to get them to adjust their playing style somewhat towards mine. And some aspects of it was like pulling teeth. So, I decided that wasn't fun for the players or the DM, so I adjusted my DMing style to match the players, not the other way around. And guess what? It's still fun. It's a lot of fun.

Note: Course, I'm not DM at the moment and probably won't be again for at least another year or more, so I now have time to think more about these types of concepts.

I'll take it a step further and say that asking questions of the DM is often tantamount to cheating. It's playing it safe - a question isn't an action and carries with it no possibility of failure and any consequences arising from that failure. So rather than play the game, the player steps out of the game and has a conversation with the DM who is usually more than willing to answer questions all night long (because what DM doesn't want to talk about their world?!). It's brilliant, right? And almost nobody seems to notice what the players are actually doing. That said, it could also be a sign that the DM isn't adequately performing Step 1 - DM describes the environment. So that's something to watch in my view.

As I think it would. However, your style (from what I understand) means that some player HAS to be standing guard, some player HAS to be searching for secret doors, some player HAS to be searching for traps, etc. for them to minimize the gotchas. Each or most players HAVE to be telling you their PCs' goals. In other words, if no player explicitly declares that they are standing guard, then the party will have a much higher chance of being surprised if a monster shows up. My style is that I just assume that the PCs are doing SOP delving actions and if I need to know if someone is doing something specific, I might ask each player what his/her PC is doing. Generally, that is not an issue because a few players speak up and tell me what they are doing. I have to actually go out of my way to try to get the spotlight to shine on some of the other players who are more content to go with the flow by sometimes asking them what they are doing. The downside of this approach might be that if nobody states that they are standing guard and I am assuming SOP, then I go back to the Perception roll to determine if they are surprised if a monster shows up. I don't necessarily know which PC is actually doing it, so everyone gets to roll.

My players probably take the perception skill more than other groups because they want to avoid the gotchas. But, both play styles are fine (and yes, the goat example was purposely silly to highlight the playstyle differences). And to be fair, I am lazy as a DM and probably play the Roll the Dice play style a bit more because it is faster and easier and keeps the adventure moving. There isn't a 10 minute roleplaying session with the innkeeper as often (that being interesting to 2 players, but the other 4 players might get a bit bored if the conversation does not concern their PCs), we just cut to the chase and move on. I have 2 players who could care less about what the adventure is, they just want to get to it right away (and the in town prep work is a necessary evil to them ).

I think assuming the actions of the characters is effectively stealing from the players. The DM already controls two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game (Steps 1 and 3). Assuming or describing the actions of the characters is encroaching on the player's role in that conversation (Step 2) in my view. I don't think this is a good idea.

Yes, in my game, you have to tell me what you're doing. You don't have to be doing any particular thing. There are also no "gotchas," because I am telegraphing threats all the time. Clues are embedded in the description of the environment. Events and hazards are foreshadowed. If you are paying attention and engaging with the environment, you will have every opportunity to avoid undesirable outcomes if you play well. If you aren't paying attention or you arrive at an erroneous conclusion or take a silly action, you will probably pay for it. But you will be able to look back and say "You know what - I was warned." It's only a gotcha when there was no telegraphing, foreshadowing, or warning.

On the topic of surprise, that's another issue that contributes to players taking Perception a lot. There just isn't a lot of surprise in my games. Only some monsters are going to be natural lurkers in my view and, if the players are paying attention as to how the dungeon reacts to them, they'll know when surprise is more likely (such as having alerted the monsters to their presence and given them time to prepare). They can change their plans accordingly to avoid the outcomes they don't want. Suddenly it's now too dangerous to put three characters on tasks other than Keeping Watch, so let's all stay on guard until the threat passes, for example. Or have characters with low passive Perception score Work Together with others to make sure their heavy hitters aren't surprised, provided the former are in the position where being surprised isn't going to be a big deal for them (such as if they are in the back rank). And so on.

 

[cheeseguy]

Like most of the skill consolidation, I think it's great. It doesn't punish players who want their characters to be good at something general by forcing them to select more skills just to "notice things."

Also, it doesn't stop people from being creative with it if they want to. Just because your Perception modifier is +4, doesn't mean it has to be a +4 for all purposes. Want your character to be like Radar from M*A*S*H (for the young'uns: Radar wore glasses but could hear helicopters coming earlier than anyone else in the camp)? Sure, you can take a penalty to your vision and off set it with a bonus to your hearing.

Same thing with other skills. Are you from a mountainous area and can't swim? Take disadvantage on your Athletics checks to swim and get advantage on your checks to climb.

Exactly, if they build a good character then let them use that character to its fullest. Maybe come around with different ways to counter it every now and then but let it flourish. As for M*A*S*H... I loved that show growing up. Hawkeye was my reasoning for being a medic, which by the way, would be interesting to make a character based around him...

Sent from my Z963VL using EN World mobile app

 

[KarinsDad]

I think assuming the actions of the characters is effectively stealing from the players. The DM already controls two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game (Steps 1 and 3). Assuming or describing the actions of the characters is encroaching on the player's role in that conversation (Step 2) in my view. I don't think this is a good idea.

I don't assume most actions, I just assume basic SOP actions. I assume that PCs look up, to the sides, around pillars, etc. when delving. I don't necessarily foreshadow clues that there might be a monster hanging out in the rafters. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.


Change of topic: This is one of the issues that I have had with D&D for a while (3E had this issue, but at least there was ways to purchase other skills later on). The PC Wizard has been watching the PC Rogue walk carefully around corners, or watched the PC Barbarian intimidate prisoners, or saw the Ranger glance around the room for hidden dangers over and over and over again.

But yet, this PC is just as clueless (and technically even moreso because as PCs go higher in level, DCs tend to also climb) then when he started out at level 1. At level 1, his Perception is +1. At level 20, his Perception is +1. After watching many NPCs interrogated and standing there listening to how the Bard sets up a shopkeeper to get a better deal on purchases, he is still as lame 5 years later at these tasks as he was at level 1. He learns absolutely nothing about these other skills.

Nor do the other PCs learn anything about Arcana or History. After listening to hundreds of tales around the campfire, they know no more about History than they did 5 years earlier. I don't think that 5E emulates gained knowledge and experience at all.

I have not made houserule changes for skills, but I have added half proficiency bonuses to non-proficient saves. Why? Because after having survived Dragon breathe a half dozen or more times, the PC Bard should have seen how the Rogue avoids some of that damage over and over again and should be at least a little bit more experienced doing it. The Cleric should have been able to tell the other PCs how to keep harmful mental influences out of their minds by chanting to their god during battle, etc.

PCs should be able to learn minor save and skill techniques from other PCs through natural interactions. The game doesn't emulate that part of real life. People learn a lot of skills not by training, but by necessity, by trying and failing or succeeding. Which is why I like skill learning computer games like Skyrim. If I use a skill a lot, I get better at it and I learn from experience. I wish there was an easy way to incorporate that into 5E.

Yes, in my game, you have to tell me what you're doing. You don't have to be doing any particular thing. There are also no "gotchas," because I am telegraphing threats all the time. Clues are embedded in the description of the environment. Events and hazards are foreshadowed. If you are paying attention and engaging with the environment, you will have every opportunity to avoid undesirable outcomes if you play well. If you aren't paying attention or you arrive at an erroneous conclusion or take a silly action, you will probably pay for it. But you will be able to look back and say "You know what - I was warned." It's only a gotcha when there was no telegraphing, foreshadowing, or warning.

Interesting. I actually had a DM that was this way a few decades back and I actually sat at his table bored.

He spoonfed the players with all kinds of warnings and clues and I sat there thinking "Thanks Captain Obvious" (I didn't actually think those specific words as that is more of a current meme). The game had little thrill because unexpected stuff rarely happened.

It seems to be a game style of "pay attention and react to my hints, or be punished".

The best part of suspense movies is the action and plot twists and turns, not the expected stuff.


What is worse than a DM who hands out too many clues (not saying that you do that) is a DM who hands out clues that are too obscure or extremely hard to figure out ahead of time. That often results in a lot of wasted game time as players try to figure out some obscure puzzle or riddle or some such. The DM might even think that he is being transparent with his clues and the players are sitting there clueless.

On the topic of surprise, that's another issue that contributes to players taking Perception a lot. There just isn't a lot of surprise in my games. Only some monsters are going to be natural lurkers in my view and, if the players are paying attention as to how the dungeon reacts to them, they'll know when surprise is more likely (such as having alerted the monsters to their presence and given them time to prepare). They can change their plans accordingly to avoid the outcomes they don't want. Suddenly it's now too dangerous to put three characters on tasks other than Keeping Watch, so let's all stay on guard until the threat passes, for example. Or have characters with low passive Perception score Work Together with others to make sure their heavy hitters aren't surprised, provided the former are in the position where being surprised isn't going to be a big deal for them (such as if they are in the back rank). And so on.

I prefer a game with a lot of surprises (and not just what type of monster du jour we are fighting). Having a pretty good idea of what is coming really is boring to me. I suspect that many players might prefer a balance between the two extremes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the party Fighter rushing across the room to fight foes and he falls into a hidden pit trap on the way. It's part of the CR of the encounter. Sure, give him a semi-difficult in the heat of battle perception roll (after he moves his miniature over those squares, if he makes the perception roll, the miniature can be moved back, no hints ahead of time before the player moves the miniature, determine player intent first and not by asking him). If he doesn't make the roll, oh well. No foreshadowing. No clues. Just bad luck because he moved his miniature over the wrong square or groups of squares. I don't want the DM foreshadowing this by saying "You notice that none of the enemies are coming across the room at you". OMG that's so annoying. I can see that for myself. The DM putting an explanation point on it just means that he wants the PCs to be as knowledgeable as him. Why doesn't the DM just play my PC for me?


And foreshadowing something in such detail that the dumbest person at the table gets it might mean that the smartest person at the table might lose interest.

I was once in a game where I cast a fire spell and scorched some plants during a battle. The DM had me roll some type of perception roll and told me "that plant smells sweet" or some such. We were marooned on a "semi-desert island" with few supplies. Weeks later when the PCs were no longer on the island, the DM told us that he couldn't believe that nobody at the table had picked up on his clue that this particular type of plant could be used for food (if it smelled good, it probably tasted good). Sometimes, all of the players are the dumbest persons at the table.


I'm not saying to never foreshadow or give hints, I just think that the DM should be circumspect about it. Gotchas are totally fine and in fact, are part of the fun of the game for some players. Some of my best gaming memories are of bad stuff happening to my or other PCs because of unexpected stuff. Nobody remembers all of the wins. But everyone remembers when the rocks fell on the Rogue's head when he tried to steal the gems. The unexpected stuff is a lot of what makes campaigns memorable.

 

[Lanefan]

My memory of the surprise rules is rolling a d6 on each side (or for each character, I'm honestly not sure),

For each side. The default was usually that a group was surprised on 1-2/d6, but many creatures, some classes, and a few races modified that. Except Monks, of course, who had their own unique surprise system built around a level-based d% roll.

which was very similar to rolling initiative, so hopefully I'm not conflating those.

1e RAW initiative, when dug into to any depth at all, is rather a steaming pile of mess. But yes, at its core it's built around a d6 roll.

There was an odd disconnect between notations like "is only surprised on a X" vs "Surprises on a X through X+n," which I don't recall being confused by in the past, so maybe there's a clear way to resolve the contradiction that I've just forgotten? I also vaguely recall extreme cases where the die type changed to d8, so you could have a better than 5 in 6 chance of achieving surprise, or less than 1 in 6 chance of being surprised...

"is only surprised on..." is when you're being surprised by something; "surprises on..." is when you're trying to surprise something else.

On point, I don't have any trouble remembering how to roll initiative in d20. Perk of a unified resolution mechanic: easier to remember.

d20 initiative has its own set of headaches, to the point where even 5e's lead designer does it differently...

Lan-"there's some very easy ways to both simplify and improve initiative over both the 1e model and the d20 model"-efan

 

[iserith]

I don't assume most actions, I just assume basic SOP actions. I assume that PCs look up, to the sides, around pillars, etc. when delving. I don't necessarily foreshadow clues that there might be a monster hanging out in the rafters. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.

I always do. Because gotchas aren't challenges. What follows the gotcha, such as a combat, might be a challenge, but my goal is to maximize as much as possible the players' abilities to make meaningful decisions and that requires good, succinct description of the environment and a game system that has reasonable trade-offs.

Change of topic: This is one of the issues that I have had with D&D for a while (3E had this issue, but at least there was ways to purchase other skills later on). The PC Wizard has been watching the PC Rogue walk carefully around corners, or watched the PC Barbarian intimidate prisoners, or saw the Ranger glance around the room for hidden dangers over and over and over again.

But yet, this PC is just as clueless (and technically even moreso because as PCs go higher in level, DCs tend to also climb) then when he started out at level 1. At level 1, his Perception is +1. At level 20, his Perception is +1. After watching many NPCs interrogated and standing there listening to how the Bard sets up a shopkeeper to get a better deal on purchases, he is still as lame 5 years later at these tasks as he was at level 1. He learns absolutely nothing about these other skills.

Nor do the other PCs learn anything about Arcana or History. After listening to hundreds of tales around the campfire, they know no more about History than they did 5 years earlier. I don't think that 5E emulates gained knowledge and experience at all.

I have not made houserule changes for skills, but I have added half proficiency bonuses to non-proficient saves. Why? Because after having survived Dragon breathe a half dozen or more times, the PC Bard should have seen how the Rogue avoids some of that damage over and over again and should be at least a little bit more experienced doing it. The Cleric should have been able to tell the other PCs how to keep harmful mental influences out of their minds by chanting to their god during battle, etc.

PCs should be able to learn minor save and skill techniques from other PCs through natural interactions. The game doesn't emulate that part of real life. People learn a lot of skills not by training, but by necessity, by trying and failing or succeeding. Which is why I like skill learning computer games like Skyrim. If I use a skill a lot, I get better at it and I learn from experience. I wish there was an easy way to incorporate that into 5E.

I don't really prioritize the game system being a model for the physics of the real world or fantasy world. Down that path lay a lot of dissatisfaction with the system. At least in D&D. Other game systems might do a better job. It's never been a concern of mine.

Interesting. I actually had a DM that was this way a few decades back and I actually sat at his table bored.

He spoonfed the players with all kinds of warnings and clues and I sat there thinking "Thanks Captain Obvious" (I didn't actually think those specific words as that is more of a current meme). The game had little thrill because unexpected stuff rarely happened.

It seems to be a game style of "pay attention and react to my hints, or be punished".

The best part of suspense movies is the action and plot twists and turns, not the expected stuff.

What is worse than a DM who hands out too many clues (not saying that you do that) is a DM who hands out clues that are too obscure or extremely hard to figure out ahead of time. That often results in a lot of wasted game time as players try to figure out some obscure puzzle or riddle or some such. The DM might even think that he is being transparent with his clues and the players are sitting there clueless.

All classic DM problems. Like most problems in this game in my experience.

I prefer a game with a lot of surprises (and not just what type of monster du jour we are fighting). Having a pretty good idea of what is coming really is boring to me. I suspect that many players might prefer a balance between the two extremes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the party Fighter rushing across the room to fight foes and he falls into a hidden pit trap on the way. It's part of the CR of the encounter. Sure, give him a semi-difficult in the heat of battle perception roll (after he moves his miniature over those squares, if he makes the perception roll, the miniature can be moved back, no hints ahead of time before the player moves the miniature, determine player intent first and not by asking him). If he doesn't make the roll, oh well. No foreshadowing. No clues. Just bad luck because he moved his miniature over the wrong square or groups of squares. I don't want the DM foreshadowing this by saying "You notice that none of the enemies are coming across the room at you". OMG that's so annoying. I can see that for myself. The DM putting an explanation point on it just means that he wants the PCs to be as knowledgeable as him. Why doesn't the DM just play my PC for me?

And foreshadowing something in such detail that the dumbest person at the table gets it might mean that the smartest person at the table might lose interest.

I was once in a game where I cast a fire spell and scorched some plants during a battle. The DM had me roll some type of perception roll and told me "that plant smells sweet" or some such. We were marooned on a "semi-desert island" with few supplies. Weeks later when the PCs were no longer on the island, the DM told us that he couldn't believe that nobody at the table had picked up on his clue that this particular type of plant could be used for food (if it smelled good, it probably tasted good). Sometimes, all of the players are the dumbest persons at the table.

I'm not saying to never foreshadow or give hints, I just think that the DM should be circumspect about it. Gotchas are totally fine and in fact, are part of the fun of the game for some players. Some of my best gaming memories are of bad stuff happening to my or other PCs because of unexpected stuff. Nobody remembers all of the wins. But everyone remembers when the rocks fell on the Rogue's head when he tried to steal the gems. The unexpected stuff is a lot of what makes campaigns memorable.

It's possible to have surprises without having gotchas.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"is only surprised on..." is when you're being surprised by something; "surprises on..." is when you're trying to surprise something else.

Right, so "surprises on a 5" tries to sneak up on "surprised on a 1" ... I don't remember how that was resolved?

1e RAW initiative, when dug into to any depth at all, is rather a steaming pile of mess. But yes, at its core it's built around a d6 roll.

I thought so. I can't even remember if you wanted high or low. I vaguely remember you could tie.
But the key difference was that you rolled it every round. So you could lose initiative one round, win it the next, and act twice in a row.

d20 initiative has its own set of headaches, to the point where even 5e's lead designer does it differently...

Cyclical initiative has issues that traditional initiative doesn't, and vice-versa, independent of the resolution method used to determine who won initiative.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's possible to have surprises without having gotchas.

It's possible that we might just not be understanding terminology here.

What's your definition of a gotcha?