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

[Charlaquin]

but does your determination of if there is a chance take the character skill into account? does the same declaration (as detailed or not) have the exact same 'chance of failure' i the roll would be at +17 as if it is at -1?

A +17 has a 90% lower chance of failure than a -1 does… if there’s a chance of failure at all. Either character’s player can potentially avoid there being a chance of failure, depending on what their goal is and what approach they take to try and accomplish it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Interesting. I think I understand. I'm glad it works for you.

that is actually the most useful thing about enworld... learning and understanding other styles...

Yours is far from teh worst I have ever heard, but it is more toward word games then I would like

 

[Charlaquin]

so I can just ask at your table "Um I don't know how to describe _________ but I want to roll _____ or use it without a roll what do I say?"

You can do what you like, I’m not your mom.

the same reason that describing a perfect attack doesn't guarantee a hit (although I bet players would describe there attacks more if they did)

You can only decide your own character’s actions, so no matter how you describe an attack, you can’t decide that your target doesn’t dodge it or parry it or otherwise manage to avoid it. That’s why an attack roll is generally necessary.

 

[Reynard]

that is actually the most useful thing about enworld... learning and understanding other styles...

Yours is far from teh worst I have ever heard, but it is more toward word games then I would like

I wouldn't describe my style as playing word games, just looking for clarity on what is happening in the world space of the game.

Style change over time, and oscillate back and forth. For a while I went anti-immersion and decided it was more important to know what the player wanted than what was happening in the fiction. I have since swung back. Sometimes I am more pro-character sheet, but right now I am less so. It will change again, I am sure.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A +17 has a 90% lower chance of failure than a -1 does… if there’s a chance of failure at all. Either character’s player can potentially avoid their being a chance of failure, depending on what their goal is and what approach they take to try and accomplish it.

this seems so backwards to me.

if I run a rogue for 20 levels (say 2ish years) and have gotten real good at describing my huge stealth and huge search for trap checks, then we start a new campaign I start a 1st level wizard I the player get to port that out of game skill to a new character?!? that seems to be the opposite of role playing.

I tried wargameing many years ago... and in my second or third battle (after spending way too much time and money on an army) I saw enemy forces but did not engage them even though I had 'over the horizon' attacks because they were not in line of sight of my forces... after the game the other player told me that was a mistake it might be why I lost. When I explained why i didn't use it until the enemy was visable he told me war games are more like board games then roleplaying games...do things out of character if they are the best way to win...
I don't war game anymore

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You can do what you like, I’m not your mom.

your not?!?!?!

You can only decide your own character’s actions, so no matter how you describe an attack, you can’t decide that your target doesn’t dodge it or parry it or otherwise manage to avoid it. That’s why an attack roll is generally necessary.

but I also can only describe how I try to hide not if you see me or not... there is nothing about an attack roll that doesn't translate to stealth/perception

 

[Charlaquin]

I've become a fan of asking them how much time they're willing to spend doing the search. It feels like if you have a few minutes that the specificity is more important than having as long as it takes.

That wouldn’t work for me because I use 10-minute “dungeon turns” (though I don’t call them that).

 

[Charlaquin]

oh big pet peeve of mine here... you don't have an avatar in my games, and I don't want to play one with an Avatar (unless we are using deities and demigods) I want to be playing the character that is in the world, not me playing it

Eh, whether you’re playing a self-insert or a detailed character who you see as significantly different than yourself, I would still call it an avatar. Your Skyrim character and Nathan Drake are both equally game avatars. But, if the word choice bothers you, just pretend I wrote “character strength” instead. It doesn’t make any difference to the overall meaning of my post.

 

[billd91]

this seems so backwards to me.

Well, that paladin could make it impossible for the ogre cook to notice him... pretty much by not being in the room. Otherwise, I just can't see any attempt to hide being a certainty.

I tried wargameing many years ago... and in my second or third battle (after spending way too much time and money on an army) I saw enemy forces but did not engage them even though I had 'over the horizon' attacks because they were not in line of sight of my forces... after the game the other player told me that was a mistake it might be why I lost. When I explained why i didn't use it until the enemy was visable he told me war games are more like board games then roleplaying games...do things out of character if they are the best way to win...
I don't war game anymore

Aside: I think you ultimately had a bit of a disconnect in that wargame. Just because the enemy isn't in LOS, doesn't mean you can't detect them and their general presence. Armies are noisy and, in the kind of distances that make up most miniature wargame setups like for Warhammer, the opposing forces really should have a very good idea where the enemies are. In a lot of traditional wargames, hidden placement is a benefit that costs or only applies to special spaces/units. Not typically a whole army.
In the real world, artillery has been firing over hills and at units out of direct LOS for a long time and armies have been detected on the move by the sounds of their engines and dust clouds long before they're seen.

 

[Reynard]

Well, that paladin could make it impossible for the ogre cook to notice him... pretty much by not being in the room.

Like the pantry!

In the real world, artillery has been firing over hills and at units out of direct LOS for a long time and armies have been detected on the move by the sounds of their engines and dust clouds long before they're seen.

Even more OT: Some of my favorite art in the world are scout sketches from the pre-camera era. These were actually used to target artillery and sometimes send air balloon bombardiers. The 19th century was wild.