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

[Chaosmancer]

Not if you stop trying to think of it in terms of “what do I have to say to get the DM to let me use Skill X?” and start thinking of it in terms of “what do I want to accomplish and what do I do to try and accomplish it?”

Sometimes that works "I want to use rope to prevent the goblin from escaping" and sometimes that doesn't "I want to learn the information I don't know that is important."

I can't tell you what I do to accomplish the goal of finding the thing I don't know is there, I don't know it is there to give you an example. I also can't do more than say "I think real hard" if I am trying to see if my character has a specific bit of lore or knowledge, because there is no action I can take to "know random trivia"

I agree with the point that the DM needs to understand the goal. But if you just walk in the room and the players want to roll perception... you know the goal. Just like if you've finished an NPC telling an unbelievable story, and the player asks "Can I roll insight?" I can't possibly tell you what action you could take to figure out if the NPC is holding anything back or lying to you, because any "action" wouldn't be insight. Insight isn't an active process, but I can tell you exactly what the goal of the roll is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Additionally, I have seen some conversation about hiding spots guaranteeing success. A particular example was the Paladin hiding in a pantry, and auto-succeeding because they are completely concealed. However, I can say with a lot of certainty, that isn't how the rules work. Because if you are invisible, you are completely concealed, yet you are not hidden until you make a stealth check. And blindsense stills "sees" you because you cannot be hidden if they have a "clear line of sight" to you.

yeah again I can hear him breathing could be enough... but more likely I hear the plates hitting the door

 

[iserith]

okay...

what do I want to accomplish: My character was warned of danger and I want to check out the room to make sure it is safe
What do I do to try and accomplish it: I look for danger...

the problem is "How do you look?" "I don't know...need some help here, my character has skills can I fall back on those"

When my nephew was little, he would tell me we need to look under the bed and in the closet for monsters.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I have been seeing a lot of clarification as the thread moved on, but I think it also highlights the reasons why the players may absolutely say "I make a perception check."

If I tell the DM "I look around the room" I am describing only part of what a perception check is. I have described what my character is doing, but there are suddenly holes. For example, is my character also listening? Right now I am typing this post, but I also can hear Brooklyn-99 playing in the other room. They are having some scene going on, the captain is talking. I wasn't "actively" listening to it, I just heard it because the room is quiet.

Additionally, quite a few people have said that "I look around the room" isn't enough to even trigger a visual perception check. Because they already did look around the room. And in fact, they must declare an even more specific set of actions, such as "I look in the shadowy corners" or "I look for the cup", which again, leads straight into the question. Since they didn't say they are looking for the scrape marks on the floor, do they not even have a chance of seeing them?

And so the player is declaring an action that covers their bases. They are rolling perception, to engage four or five of their senses, to attempt to find something out of the ordinary. This is the safe option, because they don't only want the the visual information, they want the auditory and olfactory information as well. They don't only want to look for hidden enemies, but also secret doors, hidden treasure, and clues to what is further in the dungeon. But rather than list off everything individually, they are making a declaration that sums all of that action into a single sentence.

And frankly, other than limiting my visual information to "I am looking for only X" I don't know how else to make looking an action, other than to say "I look"

To be clear, what some of us are saying is: a player saying "I look around the room" has already been covered by the DM describing the environment (Step 1 of the 5e play loop). If the DM is doing their job in describing the environment, anything obvious should be revealed in that step, including sounds and smells (and, I suppose, possibly feels and tastes, although I'm not going to assume the PCs are touching or tasting anything dangerous when I'm first describing a new scene).

Now that the DM has described the scene, let's move to step 2 of the 5e play loop: what would you like your PC to do, player?

///////////////////////////////////////

Additionally, I have seen some conversation about hiding spots guaranteeing success. A particular example was the Paladin hiding in a pantry, and auto-succeeding because they are completely concealed. However, I can say with a lot of certainty, that isn't how the rules work. Because if you are invisible, you are completely concealed, yet you are not hidden until you make a stealth check. And blindsense stills "sees" you because you cannot be hidden if they have a "clear line of sight" to you.

A high degree of concealment is required to even make a stealth roll, and rewarding a character with a low stealth while penalizing a character with a high stealth, based on decisions that have nothing to do with how good their characters can hide, seems counter-intuitive. It makes it seem like the skills shouldn't even be a thing, because they aren't what is determining my success and failure. The skills are there because they should drive success and failure, and it is a balancing act, between player engagement in the narrative and the character's skills, but auto-passes end up being dangerous the more often they can happen because the player knows how the DM designs.

Disagree. A DM can certainly make a ruling that a PC who decides to close themselves in a pantry and stay quiet is now hidden. No roll is required by the rules. I mean, it could be a cramped pantry and the paladin might be bulky... so perhaps a roll could be appropriate if knocking over jars is a possibility. It really is up to the DM to adjudicate as they see fit according to the scene. And it's not penalizing another character if they choose a less concealed spot to hide in than the pantry - its simply adjudicating the circumstances.

 

[Maxperson]

No it doesn't. Per SRD.

​

There is no difference in the effort involved between an active and passive check. They are just different tools.

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

It's right there. You just quoted it. If the DM wants to be secret, he just takes the average roll of a task done over time. It can't be average if there aren't numbers 1-20 involved with that task.

 

[Shiroiken]

right so if the DM asks why and the player says "to be sure I looked real good..."

"You feel confident you found everything."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can't tell you what I do to accomplish the goal of finding the thing I don't know is there, I don't know it is there to give you an example. I also can't do more than say "I think real hard" if I am trying to see if my character has a specific bit of lore or knowledge, because there is no action I can take to "know random trivia"

sometimes it can be as simple as "I don't get it mr DM... we have looked at all the clues and we have no idea what is going on, can I make an Int check for some help"

I agree with the point that the DM needs to understand the goal. But if you just walk in the room and the players want to roll perception... you know the goal. Just like if you've finished an NPC telling an unbelievable story, and the player asks "Can I roll insight?" I can't possibly tell you what action you could take to figure out if the NPC is holding anything back or lying to you, because any "action" wouldn't be insight. Insight isn't an active process, but I can tell you exactly what the goal of the roll is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"You feel confident you found everything."

if you don't let me roll then attack me with a hidden threat I am going to ask why I couldn't get a chance to see them

 

[Chaosmancer]

To be clear, what some of us are saying is: a player saying "I look around the room" has already been covered by the DM describing the environment (Step 1 of the 5e play loop). If the DM is doing their job in describing the environment, anything obvious should be revealed in that step, including sounds and smells (and, I suppose, possibly feels and tastes, although I'm not going to assume the PCs are touching or tasting anything dangerous when I'm first describing a new scene).

Now that the DM has described the scene, let's move to step 2 of the 5e play loop: what would you like your PC to do, player?

I want to see the things that were hidden when you described the room.

Disagree. A DM can certainly make a ruling that a PC who decides to close themselves in a pantry and stay quiet is now hidden. No roll is required by the rules. I mean, it could be a cramped pantry and the paladin might be bulky... so perhaps a roll could be appropriate if knocking over jars is a possibility. It really is up to the DM to adjudicate as they see fit according to the scene. And it's not penalizing another character if they choose a less concealed spot to hide in than the pantry - its simply adjudicating the circumstances.

But, per the rules, if I cast Invisibility, I am not hidden. RAW is that I need a stealth roll. So why is hiding in the pantry and being quiet better than invisibility? Especially since it is so easy to find the ways it fails compared to standing still and invisible in the room.

 

[Celebrim]

no ... just no
trying to say you have some handed down on high truth that proves a diffrent way of playing wrong is not helping at all

We're starting to get on the same page. So I am not suggesting your way of playing is wrong. (At least not yet. I reserve the right to do so once I figure everything out.) I haven't even figured out exactly what your process of play is, and that process of play is only likely to be wrong if it doesn't actually fit the aesthetics of play of your players. For example, you're strongly trending with your description toward a process of play that doesn't prioritize Challenge as an aesthetic of play at all (even more suggested by the fact you describe yourself as Lenient), and that's fine - unless you have players that would really enjoy Challenge more often and your table style is denying them that.

great. I don't care what amount of detail the player gives I care how well they can climb (and if it matters)

So what do you mean by that? For example, if the player says, "I have a grappling hook. Can I throw that to the top of the wall and use the rope to gain some advantage?", do you respond, "No. I don't care how much detail you give. I only care how well your character can climb."? Because I'd guess what you actually mean is only, "I don't care how well you the player know how to climb, and I'm not going to give your character an advantage in climbing if you do."

yes but if someone asked to climb the sheer blank surface it would trigger (what I say all the time) "wait what, why?"

That's another form of railroading. You are rejecting player propositions if you don't think that they are good propositions. Rejecting propositions is a form of taking away player agency. You may well have good reasons for doing that such as keeping the game going, but that is railroading.

As for the answer to your question, because the ivy could be poisonous, the tree could be carnivorous, and the carved stone wall with its projections could be hiding traps. But you, by answering, "Wait what, why?" have just given me a huge amount of information about the scene out of character that I will now use to metagame.

no but I would only set the DC for the easiest unless a player gave me a good reason to try a harder one.

So in absence of specificity, you are deciding for the player what they do? Again, taking abstract propositions and making them concrete using knowledge the character couldn't have is another form of railroading. You decided which wall the player climbed on their behalf rather than asking the player for some more specific proposition so that you wouldn't have to decide that as a GM (thereby playing their character for them). Again, I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, I just want you to be aware of what you are doing.

yes... some choices cann grant advantage. off the top of my head 'aid another' and in some games I play in (but not ever ones I run) flanking.

No the fact that flanking can't give advantage in your game is really interesting. Like that is not only a process of play, but a house you seem to have adopted to reduce the role of player skill in the game. I think it really interesting that the only choice you seem to be happy with granting an advantage is a Move (aid other).

again... in the situation were there is an easy way and a hard way and someone says they want to take the hard way I will ask out of game why and if they are sure, then let them take the harder route... I will defualt to the easy route if not.

Again, railroading. I don't mean that pejoratively. I mean that as an exacting description of what you are doing. See my essay for times when railroading is a good process of play, and I leave it up to the GM to decide how much they want to lean into those techniques.

I am not looking for prefect 100% character... I just want to maximize the amount of character and minimize the amount of player.

And this is the statement you made that I think indicates we are starting to meet in the middle. As long as you are talking about quantities of character versus player skill, that's a valid discussion. As soon as you start saying you perfectly 100% want to take player skill out of the game, it's at that point you are stating an impossibility. But if you only mean, "I want player skill to matter as little as is practical", then I understand you.

and it isn't railroading (but it is sometimes helping players remember lore or facts or mechanics)

And again, if you are quarreling with the player proposition for reasons of outcome, it's a form of railroading. I'm mostly interested at this point in whether you know you are railroading and accept that as a valid play style because you enjoy the benefits of it more than you enjoy the lost aesthetics of play implied by that

neither of us will stop the player from trying if they want... but we will warn "this is what you would know"

Which is fine, and I cite this of an example where railroading a player can be justified. But the truth is, it's very hard to separate "This is what your character would know" from telling the player what to do. At some point the player is going to start metagaming you as a GM hard having learned you have that quirk, looking for the thing you are giving approval for. Or to put it another way, they'll start trying to figure out what you think will work based on all the out game information you are leaking to them the player, and they'll just do that. After all, if there are rails, the best move is often to just sit back and enjoy the ride.