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

[Swarmkeeper]

this seems so weird to me... in real life I check for things, don't find them, then my fiancé looks and finds them (or vice versa) all the time.

A capable adventurer stating that they are looking for a false bottom - on a box that does, in fact, have a false bottom - is going to automatically find it at our table.

This is the strangest turn of all in the conversation. Our style is maligned as "gotcha" DMing b/c we require reasonable specificity in action declarations. Yet, in this example, when we're willing to give a player the thing automatically since they were reasonably specific about their goal and approach, it is also deemed wrong.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I see 0 reason not to roll (a hard check at that) to see if they notice it...

Yep, and if their passive perception wasn't sufficient, and later the say they are actively looking, I would allow a roll.

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.

People say they think there is a false bottom, but if it is cleverly concealed (DC 20+) they can easily miss it, even if they say they are doing what you want. So, for me, there is always a roll if there a consequence to failure.

In such cases where the DC is that high, but the player does a great job of the narrative, etc. I could even see granting advantage on the check. But, regardless, there would still be a roll at my table.

To be clear, nothing is wrong with NOT asking for a roll, just not how I would do it. I figured you wouldn't, but didn't want to just assume it.

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.

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

In many ways I agree. If positioning is more important in a particular scenario and I feel I need more info, I will ask the player for specifics.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@Charlaquin I like the way you do it (it's very old-school) and would enjoy playing that way, but I've played with many (probably hundreds) of players over the years that would probably be incapable of playing that way. You could teach some of them "better", but you'd drive many of them away. The style is great for a group that likes to play that way, but IME it winds up being a barrier to entry for many people if you insist on it.

I wind up with a mixture of approaches. Some players might engage more fully with the scenery (so to speak) and describe their actions more specifically (and I enjoy that) but some players might just say "I look around" and I have to do the "work" for them (at least in my head) of deciding what that looks like.

This allows more individuality in playstyles at my table.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It isn't a "how" because it doesn't describe your line of argument or rhetorical approach. I, as GM, have some idea of who the king is, what is important to him and what might move him.

me and the player can discuss it, but really it depends how important it is to the story. The thing is the question in my mind is 'does the character have the ability to convince him..." now if the player had played in this world twice before and knew from previous campaigns that this kings grandfather fought in the secret wars that doesn't help his current character. mean while if his character is an expert on noble history BUT the player doesn't know (or maybe just forgot, or maybe wasn't paying attention to details) about said brave grandfather it shouldn't make it harder in game.

all my group cares about is "Can the character convince" not 'as a player tell me how YOU think it would work'

 

[Chaosmancer]

Police & many others also have skills but they too need to take action in using those skills.

Spoiler: This is not the way to use those skills

View attachment 256774

And this has zero relevance to the question and appears to be nothing but a deflection.

So, let's try again. I have a skill for noticing things. What action can I take for noticing things, other than looking, since looking isn't allowed? What actions do police take to look for things that isn't looking? And I don't mean searching, I don't mean investigating and touching things and moving things. I literally mean seeing/looking/ect

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin I like the way you do it (it's very old-school) and would enjoy playing that way, but I've played with many (probably hundreds) of players over the years that would probably be incapable of playing that way. You could teach some of them "better", but you'd drive many of them away. The style is great for a group that likes to play that way, but IME it winds up being a barrier to entry for many people if you insist on it.

This hasn’t been my experience. Sometimes people are a little hesitant at first, but so far when I do this in real life, people warm up to it once they see how it actually works. YMMV.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Let's say your character enters the apartment of a known criminal who was brutally murdered and wants to look for clues. We will divide up the information the PC should get into "tiers" for ease of explanation.

Tier 1: The things the PC sees just because the PC has eyes. This will include questions and answers for clarification. No roll is needed and positioning aside from "in the room" doesn't really matter.
Tier 2: The "hidden" information that requires an active search. Maybe "hidden" means subtle, maybe it means small, maybe it means obscured and maybe it means actually intentionally concealed. In any case, it requires a Perception roll, and positioning matters to some degree. For example, as GM I would probe to find out if the PC is rifling through papers, opening drawers etc... This might impact the difficulty as well as be important for a role playing scene later when the Inquisitor confronts them for disturbing the scene before the officials could get there. or whatever.
Tier 3: The process of connecting the visual clues and other uses of the Investigation skill. Positioning hee is similar to Perception for similar reasons.

Some players will be very specific -- sometimes too specific -- in their descriptions of where they look, and some players will be vague and may need some prodding. Since I agree that the player does not need to have the same skills as the character to be effective, I wouldn't force them to describe every action, but I would want to get a sense of positioning and general process (hence the probing questions).

But this is the fundamental disagreement.

Tier 1 is the perception skill
Tier 2 is the Investigation skill

I understand the book says "connecting clues" is part of investigation, but again, you are also advised to use Investigation to look through documents, there is a magic item that improves investigation by acting like a magnifying glass. Additionally, think about how we use perception vs stealth. You never (or at least I never) have people roll perception to go and rustle the bushes to find hidden creatures. You roll to see if you see them or hear them. It is all Tier 1 information.

To me, you have made Investigation some weird skill that will never be used (because connecting the dots is something the players do, not the characters) and turned perception into investigation.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

For context, this mini-rant is based on an event from my Iron Gods 5E conversion campaign last night, but goes beyond that. I am starting an OSE game soon with another group of folks and I expect similar issues there.

"I make a perception check" is not a valid action declaration in any version of D&D. One does not "make a perception check." One looks around, or stops and waits and listens at the door, or moves very carefully and slowly down the corridor while testing each flagstone, or runs their fingers along the edges of the old desk, or carefully pulls one book off the shelf after another. There is no "perception check" in the fiction of the game world. Stop doing that. Tell me what you DO.

I have had this argument with players constantly, and every time remind them that they need to explain what they are doing, how they are "making a perception" check. For a couple of them, itis just ingrained 3.x habits that they are working to shake. But for a couple others they just can't seem to grok that "I make a perception check" is not an actual thing.

::sigh:: /end rant

So I am getting back to where I will dm some again vs just playing.

It’s been a few days of thinking…how can I make this more memorable and fantastic for the players. This time it will include my kids.

I want to teach them to tell me what to do. Then I will ask for a check. “I think there is something here. I want to look the furniture.” Or “Something seems wrong. I want to watch for a while quietly listening for monsters!”

THEN I want to call for a roll. Why?

It’s much more immersive to me. It’s not perfect but I want to focus on adventure and not just mechanics. Skilled play? Maybe some. But more so assisting in seeing through the eyes of an adventurer.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This hasn’t been my experience. Sometimes people are a little hesitant at first, but so far when I do this in real life, people warm up to it once they see how it actually works. YMMV.

Have you not had any players that you have to constantly nudge to be more descriptive? I feel like it would be like pulling teeth with some of the people I've played with.

 

[Charlaquin]

me and the player can discuss it, but really it depends how important it is to the story.

So, this is a key difference between our approaches. You have a story to which things may or may not be important. I don’t; the story emerges only in retrospect as we play. Nobody at the table, not even I, know(s) whether or not something is important to the story before it has even happened, because we are still in the middle of creating the story.

The thing is the question in my mind is 'does the character have the ability to convince him..." now if the player had played in this world twice before and knew from previous campaigns that this kings grandfather fought in the secret wars that doesn't help his current character. mean while if his character is an expert on noble history BUT the player doesn't know (or maybe just forgot, or maybe wasn't paying attention to details) about said brave grandfather it shouldn't make it harder in game.

all my group cares about is "Can the character convince" not 'as a player tell me how YOU think it would work'

Interesting distinction. I would say for me the focus is on does the character convince the king, not can the character convince the king. Because, yes, theoretically it’s always possible to convince the king, with the right line of argument. But does the character convince him? I can’t know without knowing what their line of argument is. I could make something up, but I see that as the player’s place, not the DM’s