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

[GMforPowergamers]

Old habbits die hard. You can lead a gamer to mountain dew, but you cant make em drink.

I hate mountain dew and always have (Yup my gamer cred is on the line) and many years ago I got a diabetic diagnosis and I quite drinking soda 90% of the time (I went like 3 or 4 years with 0 soda). for other health related reasons I no longer drink coffee and (again diabetic) I have cut my choclet intake to a small fraction of what it once was.

More then once I have sat at a new table since and been offered soda, and politely decline. I often bring my own water but will occasionally ask for it.

I know it's a turn a phrase 'lead a horse to water but can't make them drink' but in this case it is kind of the same thing... I don't WANT to drink the water (soda...mountain dew) so after a while I would think you would stop leading me there... just accept I am not going to want the mountain dew.

 

[payn]

I hate mountain dew and always have (Yup my gamer cred is on the line) and many years ago I got a diabetic diagnosis and I quite drinking soda 90% of the time (I went like 3 or 4 years with 0 soda). for other health related reasons I no longer drink coffee and (again diabetic) I have cut my choclet intake to a small fraction of what it once was.

More then once I have sat at a new table since and been offered soda, and politely decline. I often bring my own water but will occasionally ask for it.

I know it's a turn a phrase 'lead a horse to water but can't make them drink' but in this case it is kind of the same thing... I don't WANT to drink the water (soda...mountain dew) so after a while I would think you would stop leading me there... just accept I am not going to want the mountain dew.

If you dont want to drink dew, or cant, I think you need to be open about that with the GM. Of course, I also think the GM also needs to say this is a find dew and drink it sort of experience as well.

 

[iserith]

Something I've noticed over the years with players asking to make or outright stating they are making an ability check is that they tend to come from games where the DM's answer to most things was "No" unless there's a roll. So they learn to simply go to the roll because anything else is likely to result in them not getting what they want. At least with the dice, they have a chance.

When they get into a game like mine, they soon realize that I'm generally going to say "Yes" to whatever it is they are doing at least as often as I have them roll, and that if they roll and fail, it's going to sting. They then do what they can do avoid rolling which encourages them to really think about their environment and how they interact with it. This increases player engagement in my experience and helps the emergent story reveal itself easier.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the key difference in people’s perspective on this is that some see a successful ability check as needed to get something done, whereas others see the ability check as a chance to avoid failing. In my opinion, success should, in a sense, be the default state. If a player says their character does something, they do it. In some cases, what the player says their character does isn’t actually possible, in which case it just doesn’t work. And in some cases, it’s unclear if the character doing what the player said they do would actually accomplish their goal. In those cases, an ability check should be required, unless failing to accomplish their goal doesn’t have a meaningful consequence anyway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

you said you would not give a perception check for someone who tried to declare they actively looked

I did?

yes

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.

what can I see is a declaration of intent... you said

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.

looking is actively doing something... not passive.

so I walk into a room and my passive perception is 13, but the assassin hiding has a stealth of 17... I don't see her. (if my passive was 17 or higher she would just be part of the description in what I assume would be a comical fashion 'and you see an persons trying to hide but not doing so well') I say "I look around" and you don't say 'then roll perceptions' (or maybe you roll in secret if that's your thing) but I have a +3 if the die comes up 14+ i should see the hiding woman...

 

[Charlaquin]

Something I've noticed over the years with players asking to make or outright stating they are making an ability check is that they tend to come from games where the DM's answer to most things was "No" unless there's a roll. So they learn to simply go to the roll because anything else is likely to result in them not getting what they want. At least with the dice, they have a chance.

When they get into a game like mine, they soon realize that I'm generally going to say "Yes" to whatever it is they are doing at least as often as I have them roll, and that if they roll and fail, it's going to sting. They then do what they can do avoid rolling which encourages them to really think about their environment and how they interact with it. This increases player engagement in my experience and helps the emergent story reveal itself easier.

Which is kinda what @Umbran was saying. In your game, there is a noticeable reward for describing a character action with reasonable specificity.

 

[Charlaquin]

yes

what can I see is a declaration of intent... you said

looking is actively doing something... not passive.

so I walk into a room and my passive perception is 13, but the assassin hiding has a stealth of 17... I don't see her. (if my passive was 17 or higher she would just be part of the description in what I assume would be a comical fashion 'and you see an persons trying to hide but not doing so well') I say "I look around" and you don't say 'then roll perceptions' (or maybe you roll in secret if that's your thing) but I have a +3 if the die comes up 14+ i should see the hiding woman...

“Passive” checks in 5e are used to represent the character performing an action repeatedly over time. In other words, your character was already looking around, and didn’t notice the assassin; that’s what the passive perception check was for. To find her, you would need to try something else, possibly something more specific than looking around.

 

[Umbran]

I know it's a turn a phrase 'lead a horse to water but can't make them drink' but in this case it is kind of the same thing... I don't WANT to drink the water (soda...mountain dew) so after a while I would think you would stop leading me there... just accept I am not going to want the mountain dew.

And, that shows us there's a space for coming to understanding there...

"Why don't you do the Dew?"
"Well, I'm not a fan of the taste, and what's more, I'm diabetic. The stuff's really not good for me."
"Oh, geeze, I didn't realize that - and here I am offering you wads of sugar all the time. Sorry about that! Is there something else I can offer you? Maybe I can make sure it is on hand next time..."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Something I've noticed over the years with players asking to make or outright stating they are making an ability check is that they tend to come from games where the DM's answer to most things was "No" unless there's a roll. So they learn to simply go to the roll because anything else is likely to result in them not getting what they want. At least with the dice, they have a chance.

I have not noticed that... infact what I have found is almost (but not exactly) the reverse.

players that don't ask for rolls or call skills are used to DMs (or GMS if not from D&D) that hide auto successes behind real world information or player skill...

I also find that it is FAR easier to get a player that is used to having to 'figure it out in game not out of game' to play a variety of characters with different abilities (shy people playing out going bards or warlocks as the face of the party)... and the best part is once they realize if they say something wrong but there character would know better, I find they open up to TRY to say things more...

When they get into a game like mine, they soon realize that I'm generally going to say "Yes" to whatever it is they are doing at least as often as I have them roll, and that if they roll and fail, it's going to sting. They then do what they can do avoid rolling which encourages them to really think about their environment and how they interact with it. This increases player engagement in my experience and helps the emergent story reveal itself easier.

see this is what I mean (and I don't even think you mean it the way it comes off) but

hey then do what they can do avoid rolling

is the opposite of what I want from an RPG. because yea there are 100 times you should auto succeed or auto fail (I even make it MORE oftent PCs trained in something don't need to roll) but it should (IMO) ALWAYS be about the character skill and rarely or never the players...
having a -1 persuasion and having a +17 persuasion should mean something even when not rolling... that is how good (or bad) your character is about persuading... just like having a -1 to hit is very different then a +17 to hit. It doesn't matter if out of game I can make the ultimate argument of logic that everyone would agree to...my character can't he has a -1, and it doesn't matter that you can't frame an argument to save your life, your character can they have a +17...

just like it doesn't matter that I have no idea how to swing a sword, or how to pierce full plate let alone a dragon. If I describe it as "I attack" and have a +17... it doesn't matter if you have trained in martial arts for 50 years and can describe perfectly how to slide your blade into the weak spot of the armor... you have a -1.


so yeah avoiding rolling is great, I do it alot just based on the numbers on the sheet. But not becuse someone said the write words.

 

[Reynard]

yes

what can I see is a declaration of intent... you said

looking is actively doing something... not passive.

so I walk into a room and my passive perception is 13, but the assassin hiding has a stealth of 17... I don't see her. (if my passive was 17 or higher she would just be part of the description in what I assume would be a comical fashion 'and you see an persons trying to hide but not doing so well') I say "I look around" and you don't say 'then roll perceptions' (or maybe you roll in secret if that's your thing) but I have a +3 if the die comes up 14+ i should see the hiding woman...

I think we are misunderstanding one another. Let me try and clarify my end:

You walk into a room in which there is a hidden assassin. I check my notes, and see that your passive perception does not beat the assassin's stealth check. I describe the room to you, including some dark corners and other places to hide. You say "I make a perception check." I stop you and say, "What do you do?" You say, "I look around." I say, "You see the room (repeat description)." You say," I want to peer into the darkness; I don't trust those shadows." THAT is when I say, "Make a perception check," because you actively did a thing that changes the state from when you walked in.

As a side note and equally important, the assassin watches you actively peering into the shadows. This is a thing that will likely cause a response from the assassin. That's why you need to state what you are doing.

If you said, "I don't trust those shadows. I am going to discretely make my way over the fire and poke the logs hoping to illuminate the room a little more." That is a different set of actions with a different potential outcome. That is why I need to know what your character is actually physically doing in the world.