The first action isn’t non-viable, the results have just already been narrated. If they want different results, they need to try a different action.
But their goal was to get different results, and you are denying that goal. So their action failed.
You’re assuming I have specific clues in mind that I have placed specifically for the players to find. This is not the case.
Then why are they bothering to search for clues if there are no clues?
I don’t know why that has been your experience. It hasn’t been mine. I can tell you that I got the impression you might be skimming or something because you kept asking me when perception would come up in my games when I had already told you.
I frankly don't know why either. I know I can be a bit bullheaded and argumentative, but I approach every discussion completely honestly and openly. And yet every discussion ends up with me being accused of being nothing but a troll who never bothers to read anyone's posts, even after I spend literal hours typing up responses.
It is part of why I left the site for a few months, and was dreading coming back to ask for homebrew advice, because it always devolves into personal attacks.
The reason I kept asking you though, is because we have established the player wants to roll the dice to get a different result than what was narrated. They have attempted to take an action, and you have said that that action does not lead to a different result. And, the more I ask, the more it seems like you would never allow them to roll. The only thing I can begin to figure is, much like Reynard, you are utilizing perception when I would consider it investigation, and then I don't know when you would be utilizing investigation. And yes, I know you ask for the ability check, not the skill, but it is far easier to talk about this in terms of the skills because specific actions lead to specific ability checks. You don't allow people to use arcana when they shoulder charge a door, so it is easier to use the skill names when talking about actions that lead to rolls that might apply proficiency.
Literally any action they want, so long as it includes a clear and reasonably specific statement of goal (what they want to accomplish) and approach (what their character does to try to make that happen). I will then use my best judgment to determine if it succeeds, if it fails, or if a check is needed to figure that out, and if so, what kind of check would be applicable.
No, it absolutely does count, and I have already narrated the results of that action.
These statements appear contradictory to me. They can't take "literally any action they want" to get the roll because the action they want has already been narrated without a roll. So what else can they do?
You’re never going to be able to understand my perspective if you continue thinking of checks as a thing you do to get results. That’s not what checks are for at my table. You get results by describing actions you character performs in the narrative, and sometimes, if it’s not obvious whether the action your character performs would get the results you want or not, and if not getting the results you want would have a consequence, then a check is for figuring out if you suffer that consequence.
Again, if their goal is “find out if there’s danger” and their approach is “look around,” then I determine the results of that action by way of a passive Wisdom (Perception) check, and include those results in my description of the environment. If they want to try doing something else to try and find out if there’s anything else hidden in the environment, they are welcome to do so, but I need to know what the character is doing in order to assess whether or not what they’re doing could result in them finding out if anything else is hidden in the environment. This happens all the time, and I frequently call for Wisdom checks to resolve them (to which, yes, the player could add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies, such as perception, would help). I don’t know what else you want me to say.
But again, The perception proficiency is literally for noticing things. It is for seeing. It is for hearing. It is for smelling. If you have already accounted for everything they could see or hear, without having a roll, then they cannot use their abilities to detect things they have missed.
For an example, expecting that the goblin that ran away is preparing an ambush, the bard gives the fighter inspiration, so they can spot the goblin. They open the door, you describe the room. They don't see the goblin. But that's what they want to do, that's why the bard gave them inspiration, but they can't use Inspiration until they roll the dice. But if they walk into the room to start kicking crates or opening dressers, or taking any "action" other than looking around, then they are just going to trigger the ambush and not get to spot it before hand, which is again the goal. So, we have our fighter, who wants to use these abilities they have to spot an enemy before they are ambushed, and they don't want to enter the room before they spot the enemy. What can they do? If they just say they look for the goblin, you have already narrated that result and they can't find it. So what options do they have here?
Clearly you and I interpret the rules for ability checks differently if you think a failed check doesn’t necessarily have consequences. But, rather than arguing over our interpretations of the text, suffice it to say that at my table, it is the case that ability checks always have consequences. Indeed, at my table the fact that checks always have consequences is tautological, because if there was not a consequence, I would not have called for a check. If a PC’s action could succeed or fail to achieve the player’s goal, but failing to achieve that goal would have no consequence, then I would simply narrate success without calling for a check.
I do think that a failed check doesn't always have consequences, because many times consequences don't make sense for the check. Knowledge skills are literally thinking or remembering. I can't give consequences for "failing to know something" unless I want to give the players false information. Which is pointless, because then they have to try pretend they don't know they just learned something stupid. Perception checks are literally just seeing or hearing things. What consequences can I give for failing to hear? Same with insight.
Failure is the consequence many times. Just like I don't give consequences for missing an attack roll in combat. Missing was the consequence.
I have said no such thing. I’ve said “you did that, and I have told you the results. If you want different results, try a different action.”
There are no rolls without actions. If there’s a new roll, it must be a new action.
Yes, which insures that most actions do have a consequence for failure, since most actions take time, or could attract attention.
I’m not going to make them use up time for an action they literally already performed. The exchange of “I look around for danger,” “you were already doing that, I included the results in my narration” takes up (a very small amount of) real-life time, but it doesn’t take up time in the fiction.
You have yet to give me an action other than the one I keep telling you I would resolve via a passive Wisdom (Perception) check.
They do want different results than your narration. That's what they are trying to achieve. Saying "you did that and I told you the results" is effectively the same as saying "no, try something else" because in both cases you are not telling them new information, they are failing their goal, and you are asking for a different action than the only action they can think of.
And yes, I haven't given you a different action, because I can't think of another action that would let me see something other than looking with my eyes. That's how seeing works. If you need a different action, tell me what other actions than looking will allow me to see something.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point.
Some players aren't going to be good at picking up telegraphing and clues in the environment. There are a multitude of very good reasons for that. So, they may ask for a check to allow them to narrow in on those telegraphed clues. And that is fine in my opinion.
If you don’t know what to ask about, then move on. I’ve never had a player in real life have this much trouble coming up with a simple goal. “I want to know if this figure has any religious significance, so I think back to my time studying at Candlekeep.” Or whatever! It’s really not that hard.
I don’t know if it’s important or not. It’s there. The players can make of it what they will. Maybe it will be very important. Maybe they’ll toss it in a sack and hoc it as soon as they get back to town. That’s not up to me to decide.
I don’t know if they know more than I told them. To figure that out, I need to know what else they’re curious about, and where they imagine their character may know about it from.
I don’t know if I’be told them everything relevant. It isn’t up to me what is or isn’t relevant to them. If they want to know something, they have to tell me. If they can’t think of anything else they want to know, then evidently there’s nothing else that’s relevant to them.
I have no such intent. Whether or not they ask more specific questions is entirely up to them. I have no horse in that race.
There is no “right question” to ask, and no clue to tip them off to what the non-existent “right question” is. If they have questions, they should ask them. If they don’t, we should move on.
So, to me, this is all bonkers. If this idol is literally so unimportant that it has no significance to anything, then when the players ask to roll, just tell them the idol is set dressing. If they had any questions about the goddess it represents or something, I wouldn't even bother asking them how they might know the information, I'd just tell them. Because it literally doesn't matter.
When you first gave this example, you seemed to be indicating that this idol was some sort of clue to a deeper plot. Hence references to whether or not it was desecrated, which indicate a clue to something else. But now you are telling me you literally have no idea why this idol even exists, it was basically just from a random chart and means nothing. But if this is how you handle knowledge skill proficiencies... again, I'm just not sure what the point of them is. It feels like "I studied in a temple" is good enough to get all the possible information about any religious items they find, and so they will never need to roll religion to see if they know something. (Yes, again, I know you would ask them to roll an intelligence ability check and they would ask if their religion proficiency would apply, I understand the cycle) Which simply isn't how I've ever seen the game played, and wasn't what I was understanding from you when this line of inquiry started.
The action declared works perfectly fine. You seem to want the action to have a different result. But it doesn’t work that way. Your action had the result that it had, sorry if you didn’t like it. Maybe try something else if you want a different result.
But passive skills aren't meant to prevent active use of skills, which is exactly what is happening here.
What does being better at coming up with actions have to do with it? I don’t have an action in mind because it’s not my job to, and in fact, having an action already in mind is exactly what leads to the kinds of gotcha gameplay you seem to be so averse to. When I’m a player, I can and do come up with actions just fine. It actually works great, even in games where the DM is fine with players asking for checks, I tend to achieve automatic success much more often than other players do, because I ask to get results instead of asking for a chance to fail.
How do you telegraph things in the room if you have no plan for what is important in the room? To my mind, you can't. Which means you have to know what is in the room that is notable. Unless you are doing full quantum DMing where you don't know if there is a trap on the chest until they try and open it, fail, and the trap is the result of that failure.
But if you don't do that, and you know what is in the room, then you should be able to figure out some actions that would discover that information. This doesn't prevent you from being surprised with a "oh, that would work" but it does give you a baseline from which you can have this discussion. Instead, you just keep repeating that you have no idea what actions are even possible, because knowing that the players want to spot something they missed doesn't give you any information on what actions they are taking.
Good thing passive scores aren’t the only way to interact with proficiencies in my game then?
Except that every perception, insight and knowledge skill proficiency seems to be HEAVILY reliant on just the passive scores, and I have yet to figure out how I would actively roll those in your game, except for asking very specific questions, which may or may not give me any important information.
They absolutely can take actions that lead to me calling for a Wisdom check. My players do so all the time.
By doing what? I've asked for examples again and again and again. Can I get some?
