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

[GMforPowergamers]

While I understand your rant, I don't really think it's fair.

::begin counter-rant::

A lot of people play in terms of expressing mechanics and systems, not just giving narratives. The general statement "I make a perception check" is just another way of saying "I look around and see what I see, hear what I hear, and so forth, to see if anything strikes me as odd or out of place." There is no need to declare that statement over and over again when they don't want something specific IMO. Now, if they want something specific, maybe explain that to them?

When describing an attack, you might say "I attack the chimera" but then are you going be nit-picky and say, "With what?" to which the player will respond, "Duh, with my longsword!" And then you continue, "How with your longsword?" And the player gets up and vents their frustration on you insisting that they expound on every action they want their character to take when their intent is obvious. You don't have to say, "I attack the chimera by swinging my longsword in a wide arc hoping to lob off one of its head."

However, players understand if you are attacking for a specific purpose, "I want to knock the guard prone," you have to state that is the intent of your attack. But IMO it is just as valid to say, "I want to take the Attack action and use my attack to try to knock the guard prone."

Now, back to the perception issue. With such a broad, non-specific action I am only going to reveal superficial information based on their ability check result. IF the player wants to be more specific, then that is great, and I will gear the results towards their specific action, such as "I look for a hidden latch in the bookcase".

Anyway, it really depends on the player IME. Some love to be descriptive in what they are doing, others prefer mechanic/system expressions. I often see it more in newer players, but even veterans can "short-hand" their actions from time to time. I explain to players that the more general their statements, the more general the response. If they want specifics, get specific.

::end counter-rant::

Finally, you can just stare at them blankly when they make such a statement as "I make a perception check" and wait for them to elaborate.

QFT

this so much this

"I attack the chimera" but then are you going be nit-picky and say, "With what?" to which the player will respond, "Duh, with my longsword!" And then you continue, "How with your longsword?" And the player gets up and vents their frustration on you

 

[Reynard]

Let's go back for a minute to the example of the paladin and the rogue who want to hide when the ogre is about to enter the room.

Depending on how and where the characters hide, a roll may or may not be necessary, and there will be different risks and benefits.

If the paladin (heavy armor, disadvantage, low dex) tries to hide somewhere that needs a roll, he's going to have bad odds. The opposite for the rogue. Character skill matters.

However certain player-declared actions may obviate the need for a roll. If either player declares that their character is going to hide in the closet and close the door, being completely out of LOS, they probably won't need a Stealth check at all. That's good! OTOH, if they want to observe what the ogre does in the room, they've got no chance. Downside. If they want to listen to what the ogre's doing, maybe they can learn something, but again, that door's going to be in the way obstructing the effort.

The rogue, with their good check, may want to instead stay in the room. Hide under the table or behind the cloak rack or someplace. Where they have to make a roll, but they're right there easily able to spy on the ogre, and more easily jump out and make a surprise attack if they want to.

If the player is not clear on what furniture is there, where their character could possibly hide, etc., then certainly the DM should be free with that info. The player can make an informed decision, and the DM can then adjudicate the situation easily, reveal any dangers without the player feeling like there was a "gotcha" or they were forced to harm themselves (maybe it turns out that there's a venomous snake in the closet!), and call for any rolls needed.

Exactly.

On that snake: that is one place where game with "play to find out" rules are sort of interesting in a different way. In that sort of paradigm, a bad roll doesn't necessarily mean the character flubbed the attempt, it might mean that when they went into the pantry they were swarmed by tonight's dinner: a bowl full of vipers!

 

[Celebrim]

That’s definitely not how I would rule it. At my table, tying your shoes would just be an action declaration. One that would rarely if ever have a reasonable chance of failure or meaningful stakes, and therefore rarely if ever requires a check. But either way, I can’t imagine most players asking to make a check to do it. Because what you want isn’t really to make a check; what you want is what you imagine the results of a successful check will be. So tell me what that is and how your character tries to make it happen. The worst thing that could happen is you have to make the check you were asking me to make.

I don't think you described any differences in our thought processes.

At my table, tying your shoes would just be an action declaration.

At my table, as I said, it is an action declaration that rarely or if ever has meaningful stakes, and therefore I would only require the check on the rare occasions that it did have meaningful stakes (time pressure, risk of danger if your shoes are untied, etc.).

If I did call for a check, the DC would be in D&D terms 0. Only players with penalties on the underlying attribute would risk failure, and even then only a small percentage of the time.

Finally, players at my table do not ask for skill checks normally. They do things and then if a skill check is necessary in my opinion to succeed at it, I ask for a skill check. So players that said things like, "I use my use rope skill to tie my shoes" or "I use my climb skill to climb the wall" would be told that at best that is redundant and at worst they are offering adjudication in the form of a proposition which is hostile/dysfunctional play IMO. About the only time a player should ever at my table request a skill is in the form of, "Can I use Y skill instead?", when we are dealing with some rules edge case where it is not clear what skill should actually apply. Sometimes there is more than one way of doing things, and I'm open to that.

That all said, years ago when my kids were young I ran SIPS campaigns, and in SIPS, "You need to make a Hands check to tie your shoes correctly." is totally a thing, where a roll of 1 could lead to a Consequence and a challenging scene.

 

[Mannahnin]

but you don't like that my action declaration doesn't meet some standard of yours... "Look around isn't enough"

Less "look around isn't enough" than "You're already looking around. Here's what you see."

"Do you want to do something more? Like move somewhere else in the room for a different perspective, or interact with any of the objects I described?"

Once you tell me if your character is interacting with something, or moving some place, I can now give you more info, and reveal any dangers associated with that thing, without it being "I make a perception check to try to find any traps. I rolled a 2." "Ok, you move into the room, walk onto the rug and fall in the pit."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s not a matter of “describing huge [whatever] checks.” It’s a matter of paying attention to the description of the environment and describing actions you think are likely to lead to accomplishing your goals.

except it takes all character skill out of the equastion...

a person who has played with you knows you and can manipulate there word right but there character has a -1 and disadvantage if the skill is rolled can auto succeed because OUT of game the PLAYER has the right skill

a newbie at the same table on the same night first time playing no idea what to say or how to do anything but with a character that if you roll would have +17 and advantage can auto fail or just be frustrated with the DM asking "How do you do it?" becuse they lack a skill out of game there character has in game.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, though JC’s ruling on passive perception pretty direct contradicts what the PHB says on the matter and if extended to other passive abilities would functionally mean every character has reliable talent (an 11th level rogue feature!) Even if limited only to perception that’s pretty bonkers.

It feels like it makes sense if one were never using the two for the same thing (the actual roll is always a follow up [detailed search] to do something more in depth than the passive would [pro-forma search?] be getting at).

In any case, this one doesn't grate on me as much as the ruling that see invisible effects only deals with one of the two bullets under the invisibility condition (iirc).

 

[Reynard]

except it takes all character skill out of the equastion...

a person who has played with you knows you and can manipulate there word right but there character has a -1 and disadvantage if the skill is rolled can auto succeed because OUT of game the PLAYER has the right skill

a newbie at the same table on the same night first time playing no idea what to say or how to do anything but with a character that if you roll would have +17 and advantage can auto fail or just be frustrated with the DM asking "How do you do it?" becuse they lack a skill out of game there character has in game.

I don't think you are quite grasping what @Charlaquin is doing as GM. They are assessing the need for a skill check based ona description of action in the world. They aren't measuring the DC based on how good you are at playing word games. i don't think they particularly care how clever you are, just that you say what your character is doing in enough detail to adjudicate the action.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right, the DM determines whether the other creature sees you or not. And to make that determination, it’s important for them to know how you try to hide. If you put a box over your head, that’s probably going to fail.

so a player who played the metal gear games and when pressed for how he hides says "Oh I know I will take a box and hide in it...I did that in the video game" is going to fail...

I would rather teach the player to try and roll then "if you say something we don't like you auto fail" caus that teaches "its not worth trying if your not sure:"

 

[Mannahnin]

Right, the DM determines whether the other creature sees you or not. And to make that determination, it’s important for them to know how you try to hide. If you put a box over your head, that’s probably going to fail. If you stand behind the curtains, that might succeed or fail, so a check is probably in order. There might be a case where, based on how you hid, the DM determines the other creature has no reasonable chance of finding you.

so a player who played the metal gear games and when pressed for how he hides says "Oh I know I will take a box and hide in it...I did that in the video game" is going to fail...

Charlaquin wrote "if you put a box over your head." Not "If you hide your whole body under a box."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, look, it's the old "Mental skills are exactly the same as physical skills" fallacy this time in the form of, "It's metagaming to use your skills as a player!"

yup that's it summed up perfectly

6 stats 3 physical 2 mental 1 1/3mental 1/3physica and 1/3 socail

all 6 are the same
X number of skills... some physical some mental some social and some a mix... all the same

that sums up my argument perfectly.

Except that it isn't. Because no one says that a player with 20 years experience at D&D should just forget everything he knows about good combat tactics and pretend he is a complete noob and split the party, place unarmed characters on the front line, failure to focus fire down targets, waste multiple actions trying to gain small advantages, leave gaps in the line for enemies to exploit, give up the high ground and so forth.

I mean I have actually heard that argument before (although it isn't what I am arguing at all)

as I said there are things we just can not do. I can't make someone be good at tactics, nor can I make someone be bad at tactics... what I can do is when they make a super good or super bad at something character have them roll to show off how good/bad they are even if in real life they know there ways around it.

we can never have 100% character skill 0% player skill... I just want to get as close as I can.

It is not only impossible to separate the player's mental abilities from the character's mental abilities, it's not even desirable. Because even if you could separate them such the character is only being role-played on the basis of the character's own mental abilities, then the player would then be reduced to an observer of the character and not a participant in the game. You would no longer have a role playing game: you'd have a role playing simulation.

this is so backwards... getting to use out of game knowledge to benefit that your character that doesn't have it seems almost like cheating (there is an argument about what is and isn't metagaming I don't want to have)

where do YOU @Celebrim draw the line... can I google the chemical way to make old timey gunpowder then have my character with no training or knowledge make it by just saying what I do?

what about someone that knows how and where to hide (the example of this thread) can someone that has no ability to hide in character benfit purely by out of character knowladge?