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

[Charlaquin]

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.

I would also be very confused if I said that and was asked to make a check, and then was told I didn’t find anything. I’d be thinking “what did I miss?” and start trying other things like a trick lid or hidden markings or whatever. If I eventually found out there was a false bottom, I’d be pretty annoyed and wonder how my character could have missed it in the first place.

 

[Reynard]

I would also be very confused if I said that and was asked to make a check, and then was told I didn’t find anything. I’d be thinking “what did I miss?” and start trying other things like a trick lid or hidden markings or whatever. If I eventually found out there was a false bottom, I’d be pretty annoyed and wonder how my character could have missed it in the first place.

This is why I think that term "reasonable specificity" matters. I know GMs that would say "you didn't say you checked for hidden latches on the bottom!" or some such. They aren't generally fun to play with.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Sure it is possible. People look for things and miss them. The DC is what determines how well that false bottom is concealed.

Think of it like puzzle boxes. You know it is a puzzle box and it will open somehow, but you can't get it.

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.

Not at all. If they succeed, the find things, if they fail, they don't see anything that tips them off to the location of said secret door or trap or whatever.

Just saying "I make a perception check" isn't the same as tossing the room, which is a specific action.

Here's an example:

There is a bed in the room and the player rolls 20 for the check. Hidden under the mattress is a sack with some small gemstones. This could be narrated different ways but I might say something like this:

You see some edges of the blankets that look odd, maybe a different colored cloth at the edge.

I am not telling them what it might be, and if they would then say, "I check out the blankets", they will find the gemstones based on that 20 roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

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...

I’m curious. Imagine instead of a passive check, the DM just asked you to roll perception when you entered the room, and you rolled and got a total of 13. Would you then say “ok, I look again, more carefully?” and would you be similarly annoyed if the DM didn’t allow you to roll again?

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure it is possible. People look for things and miss them. The DC is what determines how well that false bottom is concealed.

Think of it like puzzle boxes. You know it is a puzzle box and it will open somehow, but you can't get it.

People fail to find things, yes, when they go about looking for them in the wrong way. We’re talking about a box with a false bottom, which the character has said they check the bottom of to see if it’s false. That would be like them describing the exact solution to the puzzle box and you still asking them to make a check because theoretically if they hadn’t input the correct solution it would release the mummy’s curse or whatever. Like, yeah, that would have happened if they had done it wrong, but they literally just described doing it right.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It could, but that's not how the game works by the rules. There's nothing wrong with that methodology. I don't like it, because I think it's the role of the player to say what they are doing.

as much as I respect, and once played as you do, I am not sure that the rules support or deny either of us without reading into them with our own preferences.

"My character uses persuasion" "My character uses stealth" and "my character uses his longsword" are declarations... you not likening it or wanting more details is fine, but the books are pretty silent on what level of detail is needed.

I will say when we want to just rush through something we find unfun we think the least said the better, cause it's faster. However no table I have ever been with is ever 100% always on the same page.

my first PF1 game I was a magus (oh boy did that class sing to me) and my best friends girlfriend (Now wife) was an alchemist based on dr jackal and mr Hyde... we had a ton of fun being 'smart but warrior' characters... but one night we were in a dungeon and the player playing the rogue started searching every door for traps, and it bogged game down and we both got super annoyed... when we open a door and came to a 100ft straight corridor and he started checking every 5ft she pushed passed him and walked to the end saying F the traps I will just trigger them... and she got to the door I said I followed behind and she slammed open the door and triggered an encounter where the two of us where 80ish feet away... so it was 2 rounds before others could get into the fight. and the rogue complained that we stole his thunder... BTW in the 5 or 6 rooms with 0 traps, and that hall had 0 traps and that door wasn't trapped.... so we felt he was just hogging game time. the part she complained about the most was that each time he would search it would NOT be "I search for traps" it would be "I carefully do X and Y and Z, and check for A and B and C" over and over again... he would change up some words here or there but a tape recorder with a random number generator could have doen the job

 

[Reynard]

Not at all. If they succeed, the find things, if they fail, they don't see anything that tips them off to the location of said secret door or trap or whatever.

Just saying "I make a perception check" isn't the same as tossing the room, which is a specific action.

Here's an example:

There is a bed in the room and the player rolls 20 for the check. Hidden under the mattress is a sack with some small gemstones. This could be narrated different ways but I might say something like this:

You see some edges of the blankets that look odd, maybe a different colored cloth at the edge.

I am not telling them what it might be, and if they would then say, "I check out the blankets", they will find the gemstones based on that 20 roll.

Upthread you said

Doesn't the result of the roll sort of decide how well you search, for example?

If a player says, "I make a perception check" (I assume their position in the scenario is already established) that is very vague and (as I said upthread) I generally interpret that to mean the character is looking around and so I give them general information.

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???

In such a case, "just looking around" with such a good roll, could easily mean the PC spots the crack in the wall that leads to the secret door being discovered.

Which I iterpreted as including actions in the narrative result. That's my mistake.

I still think it is insufficient information, though. Positioning matters, at the very least. D&D is full of pit traps, cloakers, spheres of annihilation and mimics.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Fair enough. I just find it an easy way to adjudicate what is going on when the player doesn't want to offer the specifics you are looking for.

I would wonder why.

it's strange... I see both having there place and ease of use, I don't think either really is always a great fit.

 

[Reynard]

it's strange... I see both having there place and ease of use, I don't think either really is always a great fit.

You have explained your reasoning and I get it, but I wouldn't say it is a common reasoning.

And really this is a lot of posts arguing about the simple question of asking a player clarify what their PC is doing in the fiction just a tiny bit, enough so I know where you are standing and whether you touched anything.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, this is a pretty common way I see DMs resolve actions. The player asks to make a check, or states what they want to accomplish but not what their character does to try and accomplish it and the DM calls for a check. Then based on the results of the check, the DM comes up with a narrative explanation for what the character must have done to achieve that outcome.

yeah someone up thread asked me if I did that... I don't see a reason to add details no one cares about most times. "I check for traps" "traps?" holding up a d20, and "I carefully check the door for contact poison's, hidden needles, pullies mechanisms and wires" all work in my game and I will match the energy as best I can as a DM "you find one" "yup" "'as you are checking you come across a thin wire connecting the door knob and something in the frame"

I don't normally add to the player. Some times this leads to some time latter 2 of us (sometimes 2 players sometimes 1 player 1 DM) having discussed a more detailed thought and we saw it differently in our minds.

I don’t care for this approach because it leaves the in-fiction action ambiguous until after its success or failure is determined, and it usually requires the DM to be the one to decide what the character did, which I see as an overstepping of their role.

except again it isn't needed.
in the perception example lets use 3 different rooms that the PC says "Can I use perception" as they open the door

room 1 has a hidden pit trap in the center under the rug
room 2 has a hidden assassin in the shadows
room 3 has a secret false brick with treasure behind it.

I let the player roll the skill (even though you would not)
"Looking more closely you see the rug is sagging a slight bit, it looks like a pit trap" or "no even looking carefully you don't see the HUGE danger...the tarrasque hit behind the table leg perfectly" then laugh
"as you study the room closer for a second you see a form hiddden in the shadows... she's cute, but she has a knife... so you know just your type" or "sorry, you missed all 17 mimics...good luck"
"as you look there is something on the wall, you think a trigger or false brick" or "Oh boy you are as perseptive as a deaf bat... you got nothing"

now you may notice I didn't give him any action he didn't take in any... but I was more then a bit sarcastic on each fail

I have occasionally seen the player actually suggest a narrative explanation for the result of their check, but even then they usually look to the DM for confirmation that their description is valid, and often the DM will add their own narrative detail. This is, for example, how Matt Mercer does it.

I dislike a lot of online streamed games because of the DM adding descriptions to the players actions... sometimes even changing the action.

Personally, I prefer the player to give the narrative explanation first, then decide if a roll is even necessary based on that narrative explanation. In this setup, the roll doesn’t determine how well you did; if you say you do it, you do it, and the check is used to determine if any potential consequences of what you did occur.

I still don't see the difference between a detailed explanation of what they do or just giving a skill name or feature name and intent