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

[GMforPowergamers]

It doesn’t tell me what they want to convince him of (or convince him to do? Again, unclear), or what the character does to try to convince him of (or to do) it, which is information I need to assess if it can work or not.

I mean if you assume just in this thread with no context... sure, but actions declaired on the 34 session of the campaign after 2 sessions planing getting info and making it to the king, and the whole session leading to it most likely will give you the context.

I determine if a check is even needed, and if so, what the DC should be, based on what they say. So that’s kind of similar.

this is again something I disagree with...

2 characters one with a +12 and the other with a +1...

the one with the +12 doesn't know what to say and bumbles through something bad he shouldn't say so the DM sets that DC at 30... he rolls a 16 (28 still godly) and fails
then the one with +1 states the perfect argument, says all the right word and the DM says "Okay you got it"

I would be pissed "He would need to roll a 27 just to tie me on a d20"

ESEPCIALLY if this started with me asking for the skill and being told to say something first "So I got punished for not knowing what to say when I told you I the player didn't knwo what to say but my character should"

Alright, you do you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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. So your choices will have an impact. Maybe you will get advantage, or disadvantage, because you hit the right, or wrong, chord. These are things you, as the player, should have some hint about from the context of play leading up to this interaction with the king.

Again, I am not looking for a soliloquy, and you as player can ask for help from your fellow PCs or ask me to remind you of facts you have encountered or things you might have heard, but I still need to know the direction of your attempt. It matters.

I agree with you a little, but not completely.

I do often ask players for a little bit of detail on how they are approaching the conversation (Though, I'll accept it in incredibly small amounts. Saying "I don't know, honor and glory and stuff" is perfectly fine)

But I will actually not penalize them if they say the wrong thing, unless they have good reason to know that is the wrong thing, and I have stepped out of the narration role to remind them that they know it is the wrong thing to say. Many people who play are socially awkward and not good with words, but they may be trying to lean on something they saw in a movie once. However, penalizing them for something like "I appeal to his love for his children" and then not reminding them "the king's children are dead and bringing up those painful memories won't help" is kind of a jerk move.

And the part I enjoy about doing that, is often I'll have someone rejoinder and say "Oh, okay, but what if I spun it like-" and then they give even more detail, sometimes something that works.


But I think the biggest difference is that Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are conversation skills, not actions. They aren't trying to move in the scene or to discover information, they are injecting information into the scene, and so I need to know the content of that information being injected. But perception, insight and knowledge skills aren't injecting information into the scene, they are skills for discovering information.

 

[iserith]

I don't understand this at all.

If a container has a false bottom, the whole POINT is that that false bottom might be hard to discover - it could very easily be made difficult to find.

So I find it completely inappropriate that someone with a -1 investigation has the same chance to find the false bottom as someone with a +13 investigation - so long as they use the same words.

Or worse yet, if the PLAYER (of the -1 investigation PC) knows what kind of descriptions the DM likes, they could have a significantly better chance of finding the bottom.

This appears to boil down to your individual expectations regarding the efficacy of false bottoms in a fantasy setting. Reasonable people can disagree on how effective they are and neither would be wrong. In your setting, they are at least effective enough to potentially fool someone who pokes around at them. In Charlaquin's, not so much.

If by some reason the attempt by the character has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, then the character with the -1 Investigation will tend to do worse than the +13 Investigation. But not all the time due to that fickle d20.

In these discussions, it's easy - particularly when this example or that is trotted out to muddle things - to fall into the trap of "how" this works rather than examine "why" it's beneficial. For that I refer to DMG, page 236-237. In games that rely more on the dice than the "Middle Path" describes, "roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success." As well, "By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

Based on my experience, I would say the DMG is 100% correct on this part. And despite all the hand-wringing upthread about players being unable or unwilling to do this, I can say at least in the many games I've run with hundreds of players, every single one has risen to the occasion (some faster than others).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So certain characters are not allowed to check the bottom of a box? At what point do you, as DM, tell the player "your character wouldn't do that"? At what point can the party burn the troll?

never... at least not in 20 years have I said any such thing.
I didn't say they can't check (nor would I) I said they may check and not find what is there... aka they get a roll

so lets say the -1 character looks and rolls a 2 (so modified to a 1) it doesn't matter how they look they miss it (and with that bad a check they might miss a VERY easy to find latch) However... if the DC was 14 (pretty common number I use for this kind of thing) they CAN still find it on a 15-20.

There seems to be this tension in some posts here (not just yours) about what other characters can do better or worse. Is this not a game where you cheer on the success of your fellow party members? Or is this some other social issue where there is spotlight hogging? Because the latter is not curable by rolling dice for ability checks.

yes we DO cheer... in fact what we found is that by doing it our way it allows for someone without the skill out of game to be better IN THE GAME then the person who is very skilled out of game but has none in game.

so the real life stage magician playing a person without his out of game skills not only will cheer but may even give out of game suggestions as to "Oh you would know you can check X Y and Z" then the whole table cheers when the character that should know it uses that and does it...

I don't understand why people think us working together and with character over player skill makes it LESS team work...

Which is your way of indirectly saying we're engaged in a badwrongfun style of play? You literally believe our style drives people from the hobby? Just... wow.

yes... the ONLY bad wrong thing is trying to force others to do things your way. 100% saying "Man I hate my players don't have fun my way" is wrong... it might be the only wrong way to have fun.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

While I don't care even the slightest if people leave the hobby, your concern here seems very overblown. There is no "right way" to do this stuff. There are preferences, based perhaps in the rules themselves, that groups have and people are welcome to play with others who share those preferences.

Yeah, but there's another way that allows for the most people to play: Don't hold so tightly to your preferences that people have to adopt them to play. I have plenty of "preferences" that I don't get to see a lot of because my players have different preferences. They have different preferences from each other, too! I try to fit it all in. It's a bit of a juggling act, but it's an inclusive way to play.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why is your DM in the example including lots of content you don't appear to enjoy interacting with? That doesn't seem like a smart move on their part.

it depends... sometimes it's they miss read the room, sometimes it's because they (like you) think if they push what THEY want it will teach us to like what they do, and sometimes it because they designed something foreshadowed it and WE totallyy miss read the DM and went to the trap dungeon instead of the monster one...

I would hope by that point the DM would give up and modfiy but not all do

 

[Reynard]

But I think the biggest difference is that Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are conversation skills, not actions. They aren't trying to move in the scene or to discover information, they are injecting information into the scene, and so I need to know the content of that information being injected. But perception, insight and knowledge skills aren't injecting information into the scene, they are skills for discovering information.

That is an interesting way to look at it, but I don't see how it changes the amount of information I as GM need in order to adjudicate the outcome.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, but there's another way that allows for the most people to play: Don't hold so tightly to your preferences that people have to adopt them to play. I have plenty of "preferences" that I don't get to see a lot of because my players have different preferences. They have different preferences from each other, too! I try to fit it all in. It's a bit of a juggling act, but it's an inclusive way to play.

I prefer to play with people who have the same preferences. The game experience runs a lot better that way in my experience. Given the amount of players in the hobby, particularly online, this has never been an issue. There are tables for the people who want to utter a single word and hold up a die, too. It's just not at my table.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't rant as that implies having emotions about something I find pretty silly in this case.

this thread you are in started with the OP on a self named rant.

I do advocate, however, and I fully expect and enjoy people disagreeing with me. They are the whetstone that make my arguments sharper.

 

[iserith]

it depends... sometimes it's they miss read the room, sometimes it's because they (like you) think if they push what THEY want it will teach us to like what they do, and sometimes it because they designed something foreshadowed it and WE totallyy miss read the DM and went to the trap dungeon instead of the monster one...

I would hope by that point the DM would give up and modfiy but not all do

Excuse me, but I don't "push what I want" on people I play with. They want what I want, too. That's part of the discussion of Session Zero or, in the case of a one-shot, very clearly written table rules that tells them what they're signing up for. If they can't or won't buy into that, they don't have to play.

You may have played with some real ogres for DMs in your day, but buddy, that ain't me.