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

[billd91]

Literally nobody is saying that. Everyone on the side of "say what you do" in this discussion has used some form of the phrase "reasonable specificity" and it is a bad faith argument to suggest otherwise.

The more this thread goes on, the more it sure does look like people are arguing that. And the less reasonable the specificity seems to get.

 

[Reynard]

.... if you (the player remembers the king has a brave ancestor) but "I try to convince the king", "I diplomancy" and "dude, I want that king to listen to us" all get the point across.

These would each get a "how?" from me as GM. You don't have to speak in character, you don't have to recite every bit of lore, but you do have to answer that simple question in order to be allowed to make the roll (if necessary), because I, the GM, can't adjudicate without the answer to that question.

 

[Reynard]

The more this thread goes on, the more it sure does look like people are arguing that. And the less reasonable the specificity seems to get.

I think that's because people are trying to drill down in their explanations, using ever more precise examples to try and get their point across. It's a spiral downward that ends nowhere good, but here we are.

 

[Charlaquin]

sure it is... just like I could have "Use my rogue skill in picking locks" or "Use my characters skill with ____ tool kit"

Those do not convey any in-fiction activity.

now "remind the king of his ancestors bravery is great.... if you (the player remembers the king has a brave ancestor) but "I try to convince the king"

Either of these statements is incomplete without the other. “I try to convince the king” is a goal, but doesn’t tell me what the character is doing in the fiction. “I remind the king of his ancestor’s bravery” tells me what the character is doing in the fiction, but not why. I need both of those things to properly adjudicate an action.

, "I diplomancy" and "dude, I want that king to listen to us" all get the point across.

“I diplomacy” isn’t even a sentence, and conveys neither of the two pieces of information I require. “I want that king to listen to us” is a goal, but doesn’t tell me what the character is doing to try and achieve it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it is important to note that this isn't about narrative or story or immersion, at least not for me. It's primarily about having enough information to adjudicate the situation, and a little bit about player agency.

Yes, same.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, that wouldn’t require a roll from me.

See, even if the player was that specific, it would require a roll from me because the consequence of failure (not finding what was hidden).

Interesting. If it works, it works, but that feels kind of board gamey to me.

Yep, it works well enough and moves things along IME. To each their own, of course.

Also, I can imagine plenty of circumstances where failures lead to harsh consequences-- setting off a trap or bumbling into an ambush -- and players countering with "I didn't say I was doing THAT." Better to have it reasonably clear beforehand, IMO

This is where the information gained becomes the agency. If they player asked to make a perception check and succeeds, I will tell them what they discover (secret door or trap, for example), but that doesn't mean they set it off or figured out how to open it, etc.

Again, just making a perception check is just the surface, and helps the player decide what to do next IME.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, even if the player was that specific, it would require a roll from me because the consequence of failure (not finding what was hidden).

A consequence for failure requires a possibility of failure. If the box has a false bottom, and you check the box for a false bottom… you can’t really fail at that. Sure, hypothetically if you did fail at it, that would be consequential, but there’s no reasonable chance of that happening.

 

[Reynard]

Again, just making a perception check is just the surface, and helps the player decide what to do next IME.

It sounds to me like you aren't treating successes and failures the same? If they succeed on the search roll you tell them how they tossed the room, but if they don't you don't narrate their character having done anything? That feels off to me.

 

[Reynard]

A consequence for failure requires a possibility of failure. If the box has a false bottom, and you check the box for a false bottom… you can’t really fail at that. Sure, hypothetical if you did fail at it, that would be consequential, but there’s no reasonable chance of that happening.

If I was a player and I said I was checking for a false bottom and was told there wasn't one and then there was one, I would be very irritated.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Now, suppose they roll a total of 25. Inside the room, you have a secret door with DC 20. Can't the roll justify that whatever the character was actually doing while "perceiving" resulted in them finding the secret door???

this is the part that drives me nuts

a DM made a room with a secret a PC may or may not find.
the DM has a set DC of XX (we are calling it 20, that's high in one of my games but not unheard of)
the player has a relativity low passive perception of 13 so they open the door and the DM describes the room with out saying anything about the secret.
the player already used player skill in some way by saying they wanted to actively look. (BTW one of those ways that player skill is mitigated and minimized is the passive score, if they had a wis 20 and +3 prof and the alert feat that would be a passive of 23 and the player would not have to actively look just walk in ot the room... maybe it is observant not alert that gives the +5 i have to check now)
the player relayed they want to make a perception check and that they want to look carefully... I see 0 reason not to roll (a hard check at that) to see if they notice it...


(((BTW I once played in a game as a druid with a godyl 23 wis and trained in perception so my passive was 19 then up to 21 at one point... but we had another PC that had the slightly less godly 21 wis, and was a rouge (i think it is called inquisitor or investigator or something) based on sherlock homes and he had expertise and the +5 feat... so his passive was 23-30 at those same levels. every room we walked into the DM would have fun describe 3 time once for 4 pcs, then he would say I got all that PLUS and always had at least 1 thing sometimes 2 or 3, then he would tell the rogue player he saw all that plus 2 or 3 more things... and like I mean just open door everyone gets room description, I get a secret door and a trap, the rogue got all that plus a hidden mimic and a small bit of blood... it was hecka fun, and I promise you he (the rogue) multi times just called investigation, insight, and perception skills with no fluff just 'my character sees things i don't even know to ask for'))))