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

[Swarmkeeper]

yes I get that... but the detail, the knowing what to say. that is a skill in and of itself. And 2 different DMs may have different things they like to hear or not hear, bias both active and passive... so knowing your DM is in and of itself an advantage.

the problem I want to avoid is once you figure out what skills rolls and checks you can talk your way into auto pass you just don't take those skills and stats and use them to pump things you can not talk around... leaveing a trap for the new player that did the reverse and has spent resources on things that don't need to be rolled if you know the right way to say it

You keep implying that this style of play is about "special words" or "convincing the DM". That is a gross misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

All that is required is for the player to tell the DM what their PC is doing in the scene. It is simply Part 2 of the How to Play cycle. It does not require special knowledge, it does not require flowery language. If the proposed action is something that would work because... reasons... the DM adjudicates with a "Yes, here's what happens." If the proposed action is something that could never work... "No". If there is uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, then the Ability Check mechanics come into play - rewarding characters who have high modifiers/proficiencies/buffs/whatever+ with a higher chance of success.

 

[Celebrim]

On this thing in particular, what I think @GMforPowergamers is suggesting is that the poor skill roll represents the clumsy, heavily armored paladin not fully closing the lid or something similar. If so, i don't really have a problem with that, assuming this was a hurried "oh crap!" moment where everyone scrambled for hiding places with seconds to spare.

I think there is obviously reasonable edge cases where we can make hide checks even when in theory you could potentially get to 100% cover. But I don't think you can use those edge cases to say, "In general, you aren't allowed to hide in or behind something unless you have the hide skill." At some point that becomes adversarial GMing.

This relates back to my DC 0 (or other low DC) sort of tests. Yes, if you have a clumsy Paladin with a massive armor check penalty, then maybe hiding in a chest is difficult, but here I'm more likely to test Escape Artist to see if you can fold up into the chest while wearing armor. Here it is obvious why the Kindergartner can do it with low skill, while the Paladin maybe can't. But at some point I'm going to stop making up reasons why a reasonable plan fails.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No one is perfect and the game is a conversation. A player asking for clarity should absolutely not be considered a failure of GMing. A player asking for clarification and the GM not providing it is a failure. That doesn't mean, though, that that clarification needs to come in the form a retrying an already failed check without a change in the characters actions or otherwise a change in circumstances.

Absolutely. If the player needs clarification, the DM should repeat what is in the scene. It shouldn't require a "second look around" to reveal what is already obvious though.

Take more time? That's not considered an out-of-bounds action in most RPGs I'm familiar with.

The DM has described the environment. A player saying "I take a second look around, just in case" reveals the same stuff.
Maybe we're talking past each other, though. Perhaps you mean the player wants their PC to take closer look at something in the scene. That's absolutely fine.

 

[Reynard]

You keep implying that this style of play is about "special words" or "convincing the DM". That is a gross misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

All that is required is for the player to tell the DM what their PC is doing in the scene. It is simply Part 2 of the How to Play cycle. It does not require special knowledge, it does not require flowery language. If the proposed action is something that would work because... reasons... the DM adjudicates with a "Yes, here's what happens." If the proposed actin is something that could never work... "No". If their is uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, then the Ability Check mechanics come into play - rewarding characters who have high modifiers/proficiencies/buffs/whatever+ with a higher chance of success.

What they are saying, though, is they have encountered GMs that do reward particular styles of action description and that is what they are trying to avoid. they don't want Fred to get a bonus because he is good at describing 3 dimensional spacial positioning.

I get where they are coming from. I work really had as a GM NOT to do that, but it can be difficult especially in social encounters. Charismatic, entertaining players are charismatic and entertaining. it takes discipline to NOT give them a bonus when their foul mouthed dumb barbarian is doing the talking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The DM has described the environment. A player saying "I take a second look around, just in case" reveals the same stuff.
Maybe we're talking past each other, though. Perhaps you mean the player wants their PC to take closer look at something in the scene. That's absolutely fine.

No, I'm talking about taking more time. There are things I might (and have) missed if I only spent ten seconds look around and listening for that I might not (and sometimes haven't) if I took the time to take a couple minutes. That doesn't have to translate into just make more rolls round after round; with one game I'm familiar with, it gives you another roll with a small bonus as you move progressively up a time frame (so if the initial roll took a minute, you'd get another after 5, then after 20, then after an hour).

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm 14 pages behind because this thread exploded, but I had a thought reading this.

Didn't you describe the room the players when they entered it? If them saying "I look around" is just getting a description of the room, what did you tell them when they entered the room?

This is where I get frustrated, and I know you are working on some old school play ideas and I could be misreading this, but if I have to specify "I look around" to get the basic room description, then I have to specify "I take a deep sniff of the air" to get a description of the smells in the room... I'm going to get kind of frustrated. Look, I get you don't want to have my character do ANYTHING without my consent, but my character is breathing and using their eyes, can we at least get the baseline stuff out of the way?

And then, if I ask for perception, clearly I'm going to be expecting to go beyond the baseline, and perception isn't touching, that's investigation, so you shouldn't need to worry about triggering any traps on the player. But, unless you've explained it in the upcoming 14 pages, I'd want to know what you think qualifies for a visual and olfactory perception check. Because, I can immediately see a problem if you have the system set up so they have to declare "I examine the room for treasure" but then you don't allow them to roll perception for hidden creatures, because "you didn't say you were looking for that", because that just seems to encourage making a checklist of standard questions to ask for every room.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What they are saying, though, is they have encountered GMs that do reward particular styles of action description and that is what they are trying to avoid. they don't want Fred to get a bonus because he is good at describing 3 dimensional spacial positioning.

I get where they are coming from. I work really had as a GM NOT to do that, but it can be difficult especially in social encounters. Charismatic, entertaining players are charismatic and entertaining. it takes discipline to NOT give them a bonus when their foul mouthed dumb barbarian is doing the talking.

Yup. There's a certain element of "learning to play the GM" which I think people are in too big a hurry to write off, and as you say, it becomes more profound when you move into intellectual tasks, and more yet when you move into social ones.

 

[Cruentus]

No one is perfect and the game is a conversation. A player asking for clarity should absolutely not be considered a failure of GMing. A player asking for clarification and the GM not providing it is a failure. That doesn't mean, though, that that clarification needs to come in the form a retrying an already failed check without a change in the characters actions or otherwise a change in circumstances.

I agree, but I'm also on the fence as a player and a DM about the second. How would I know I failed the check?

In OSE/Basic, they usually recommend the DM roll the secret doors or find trap, or whatever roll, because the player wouldn't know if there were or weren't any (i.e. they wouldn't know they had failed).

What we usually see is player facing dice, because somewhere it was decided that its unfair if the player doesn't roll the dice, and now if I fail the roll, I "know" I failed. So then do I look again? I should, because I failed the roll. I'll keep looking (and rolling) until I succeed, then if the DM says "you find nothing", then I know its true. That seems a bit absurd of a play loop, even if the extra search time is tracked and might cause greater risk.

There has to be some crossing of player experience, character skill, and GM adjudication for all of the examples here. It can't just be hyper focusing on a skill and trying to use that in all circumstances. That definitely doesn't work. And there is no magic sauce for interacting with a world, you just do whatever you think you might do in a similar circumstance. It doesn't have to be elaborate or clever, just some sort of interaction. I mean, even in the DND Intro, the example of the player/DM interaction is:

Dungeon Master (DM): After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.
Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.
Amy (playing Riva): The drawbridge looks precarious? I want to see how sturdy it is. Do I think we can cross it, or is it going to collapse under our weight?

Not "I roll perception", just a simple statement of what they intend to do. THEN they get to the mechanics... that is all I'm asking for.

 

[Reynard]

I'm 14 pages behind because this thread exploded, but I had a thought reading this.

Didn't you describe the room the players when they entered it? If them saying "I look around" is just getting a description of the room, what did you tell them when they entered the room?

This is where I get frustrated, and I know you are working on some old school play ideas and I could be misreading this, but if I have to specify "I look around" to get the basic room description, then I have to specify "I take a deep sniff of the air" to get a description of the smells in the room... I'm going to get kind of frustrated. Look, I get you don't want to have my character do ANYTHING without my consent, but my character is breathing and using their eyes, can we at least get the baseline stuff out of the way?

And then, if I ask for perception, clearly I'm going to be expecting to go beyond the baseline, and perception isn't touching, that's investigation, so you shouldn't need to worry about triggering any traps on the player. But, unless you've explained it in the upcoming 14 pages, I'd want to know what you think qualifies for a visual and olfactory perception check. Because, I can immediately see a problem if you have the system set up so they have to declare "I examine the room for treasure" but then you don't allow them to roll perception for hidden creatures, because "you didn't say you were looking for that", because that just seems to encourage making a checklist of standard questions to ask for every room.

There has been A LOT of clarification in the thread since this post you quoted, so I will make it short:

You describe what you do and how you do it. I respond with information, and maybe require a roll. Generally speaking, things that are easily perceived don't require a roll and things that are hidden might, depending on how you detailed your actions.

Moreover, the WHOLE thing (for me) is based simply on this: players cannot just throw dice and say they made a perception roll. That is not how the game works.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree, but I'm also on the fence as a player and a DM about the second. How would I know I failed the check?

Well, that's the separate question of whether some rolls should be secret or not. I'm absolutely of the opinion that if the success or failure of something is not obvious, it either should be rolled secretly, or delayed until the point in the sequence when its success or failure would be obvious (note: this does not apply in some kinds of games where the player is explicitly expected to draw a strong line between what they know and what the character does.)