D&D General "I make a perception check."

[Jer]

I thought I was clear in my OP that that is what I do and the problem is after years some players STILL open with "I make a perception check."

Nope, I read your rant completely differently

Anyway - that's an individual player problem - who knows what goes on in the mind of individual players sometimes. I thought you were saying this is your entire group doing that and that's something a DM can solve with time and patience. But there are going to be individuals who you just can't change and you have to learn to let it slide off of you like water on a duck's back because otherwise it'll just be frustration forever.

 

[Tutara]

also I would hate to know all of that info requiring 3 skills and/or 3 checks... that is just too much time at table.

I guess this is just a difference in play style. All the tables I play/GM at consider investigating, learning lore and gathering information to be a core part of gameplay, rather than something that might take 'too much time'. We also like that the scholarly Bard will gain different information with History than the esoteric Warlock will with Arcana, or the pious Cleric will with Religion.

 

[billd91]

"I make a perception check" is not a valid action declaration in any version of D&D. One does not "make a perception check." One looks around, or stops and waits and listens at the door, or moves very carefully and slowly down the corridor while testing each flagstone, or runs their fingers along the edges of the old desk, or carefully pulls one book off the shelf after another. There is no "perception check" in the fiction of the game world. Stop doing that. Tell me what you DO.

Players (and GMs, honestly) are going to form mental shortcuts when taking the long way around does not matter. If the vast majority of "I look around" action declarations end in the exact same mechanical resolution, you are teaching them that the declaration is not material. If you are always going to just call for a Perception check anyway, why not both of you just cut to the chase?

There are valuable things going on with both of these rants, as it were.
1) Having your players say what their PCs are doing is a bit more immersive and gives the DM a chance to determine what stuff is freely observable, not observable, and uncertain - which is when the perception check is of use. I think these are worthy goals.
2) But players generally do think they're being helpful in shortcutting to the mechanics rather than drawing things out and that's not just a 3e-ism, or even a 4e-ism. That's been around as long as RPGs have been around and had checks for things that players knew about.

If you want things to be more immersive and players describing what their PCs do without the shortcuts, keep emphasizing it patiently because you all know damn well that players are as stubborn in their ways as DMs are in complaining about them.

 

[billd91]

You should already know that. That's what passive perception is for.

Not the only way that happens. You can make an active perception check as well. Then you get the whole d20 range which means you get a 50% chance of exceeding your passive check (barring observation feat).

 

[Reynard]

why? if something is hidden with a stealth of 17 and I 'look around' and you don't give me a chance to see the stealth creature I would be even MORE mad then the 'word games' that I am not a fan of...

what WOULD trigger that perception check? "I look for hidden enemies"?

This is specifically what passive perception is for (in 5E at least).

 

[Blue]

Emphasis mine.

Not to quibble, but "I look around" shouldn't trigger a perception check. it should provide all the information someone would gain from looking around, without a roll.

Why?

Legitimately, the only reason to make a roll is if there is uncertainty. If there is uncertainty, the DM needs to resolve it in order to do their job as being a window to the world and describing it to the players.

When my kids would hide to scare me, I'd often notice them walking into a room - but not all the time. There was uncertainty. But I do nothing specific to search for them when I entered into the room.

Sure, there are things you can't perceive without specific actions. "I look around" won't tell you anything about the taste of something in a cup. The action is important. But things you can spot looking around - if there is any uncertainty the DM is literally doing it wrong not to resolve the uncertainty (perhaps with passive perception, but in some way) and describe what can be seen. But since the character is actively doing something, an actual perception check is more appropriate than passive perception at that point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think there are degrees of that old school play. I certainly agree and wouldn't want to have to ask my players to describe the correct puzzle, place, item, etc. to progress, but even general descriptions of their activities can usually be sufficient. You do, however, need to give solid descriptions of what players are seeing.

We've found that its been much easier to adjudicate, and to play in.

I hate hate hate that style of old school play.

I will even say I will no longer tolerate it. I played in a 3.5 campaign with a DM still in 1e mindset. (I was new to the group) we had to search a room he asked for details so I said "I go to check the closet" he has me roll search and that was my jam I was a rogue with maxed out search... I rolled super high like in the 30s and got "You find nothing" while another player checked the bed and another the desk... BUT the one that checked the desk then said "I go to the closest and take the bar off and look to see if it's hallow and if there is anything in it" and then he got a low double digit search check... and found a portable hole full of treasure. I was pissed a little that a 12 or so beat like a 35 but I tried to ignore it until the player said "I remember the DM did this a few campaigns ago...always check"
I then pointed out I was trying to use in game skill, and that my character was an expert in searching for hidden things but I was not... and the other player was useing out of game knowladge about his friend the DM... but i was told "D&D is as much a test of the player as it is the character"

I NEVER want to play a test of me instead of a test of what my character can do again

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What were Cleopatra's religious practices like?

since all I know about her is that she is actually not egyptian and she may or may not have killed her self with poison and/or a snake I have no clue... but this is a GREAT example...cause I have two friends I can ask...

Joe was a theology major (duel major but still) and Matt was a History major with a specialty in Egypt and Africa (I don't know why those get listed separate). Odds of Joe knowing is VERY low even though I would say he would have prof in Religion. Odds of Matt knowing are pretty high even though he almost assuredly would be prof in history not religion.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, the behavior is being specific about their actions in the fictional play space. The reward is information, sometimes gated behind a roll but not always or even usually.

You didn't answer the question - Do you make it obvious that it matters? Do you give advantage or disadvantage on the roll, or the like?

At the moment it sounds like the description is a simple gate - "You must give a description to get a response". But if the description does not clearly influence the response in a way the players can perceive, they have no reason to be interested in the description. Putting thought or effort into it does not seem to have a payoff. And that the players perceive the difference is terribly important. If it is secret or opaque, again, there's not a lot of point, to them.

They are not gong to engage with it if it is simply a checkbox item you have placed there "just because".

You mention upthread about traps and such - fine, let us discuss that. How often do those things happen?

 

[Reynard]

Why?

Legitimately, the only reason to make a roll is if there is uncertainty. If there is uncertainty, the DM needs to resolve it in order to do their job as being a window to the world and describing it to the players.

When my kids would hide to scare me, I'd often notice them walking into a room - but not all the time. There was uncertainty. But I do nothing specific to search for them when I entered into the room.

Sure, there are things you can't perceive without specific actions. "I look around" won't tell you anything about the taste of something in a cup. The action is important. But things you can spot looking around - if there is any uncertainty the DM is literally doing it wrong not to resolve the uncertainty (perhaps with passive perception, but in some way) and describe what can be seen. But since the character is actively doing something, an actual perception check is more appropriate than passive perception at that point.

Emphasis min. Yes, that. "What you can see" includes the result of a passive check.

In regards to the "whole range of the d20" @billd91 talked about, there is nothing wrong with walking into a room, looking around and upon perceiving there are dark corners or places to hide deciding to actively search for hidden enemies. That is an action, and it has consequences.