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

[Chaosmancer]

that is the part that bugs me the most...

"hey our group does it this way and it works great" is perfect, even if it isn't how I run it...

BUT back to the rant (and many here and in similar threads) when people say something akin to "Man I hate that my players DON'T do it the way I like, and I am trying to teach them to do it my way" that bugs me... it shows me that there is a disconnect that will cause people to leave the hobby over not doing things 'the right way' tm

Or the people saying "I will train them to play better" which I've seen more than once in this thread

 

[Chaosmancer]

@chaosma player can't just ask for a new roll. They have to do something different or change the situation.

They didn't get a roll in the first place, it was a passive check. So, can they ask for a first roll?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

yet not once when I say "I don't know how to describe the skill/ability/feature my character has" you have yet to say "Oh here let me help you"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

That's fair, if you like it that way.

I don't get to pick my players most of the time (I run games at my store & teach people to play). I will certainly work on teaching them how to do it "better" but in the mean-time, it's best (IMO) just to let them do what they do and move along.

I have my after-hours group, too, and they have a variety of style preferences, as well. They're my friends, I'd hate to tell one of them (I can think of one who's preferences skew the furthest) that he doesn't get to play with us because we can find someone who fits our table-style better. Ouch.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or the people saying "I will train them to play better" which I've seen more than once in this thread

better is so weird...

I don't think anyone that plays my way plays better then yours (although tbf my way allows for both at same table) but you seem to think that YOUR way is the better one...

 

[Chaosmancer]

The mass effect wheel is absolutely one hundred percent relevant as an example if the GM refuses to fill out the options for you. Put your own actions in it to start PHB pg6 "2. The players describe what they want to do." & relay your choice to the GM so the GM can progress to step3. Looking has already been done & repeating looking is a waste of everyone's time

So, you demand I take an action. I take an action, and you tell me it has been done (passively, no roll) and that I am wasting everyone's time.

Yet, clearly, I have an action and intent that I have described, so why do I not get a chance to use that action? Can anyone ever actively look in your game, or is passive perception the only thing that matters?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

nevermind

 

[iserith]

yet not once when I say "I don't know how to describe the skill/ability/feature my character has" you have yet to say "Oh here let me help you"

I did actually. Twice.

But ultimately, I believe in your ability to figure that out for yourself. If you can engage in a conversation over the last 653 posts and if my nephew can describe looking under beds and in closets to check for monsters, then you can surely describe a simple statement of goal and approach. I know you can do it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't get to pick my players most of the time (I run games at my store & teach people to play).

I do hope that if any DM in this thread that had a very strong choice one way or another was going to run a newbie game at a store they would be more flexible then we are being here.

I will certainly work on teaching them how to do it "better" but in the mean-time, it's best (IMO) just to let them do what they do and move along.

ironicly the thing that I have found that has gotten people to open up and try to explain what and how was to let them know if they say something dumb once or twice it wont sink there chance of success.

I have my after-hours group, too, and they have a variety of style preferences, as well. They're my friends, I'd hate to tell one of them (I can think of one who's preferences skew the furthest) that he doesn't get to play with us because we can find someone who fits our table-style better. Ouch.

yeah... that just ouch

 

[Charlaquin]

But their goal was to get different results, and you are denying that goal. So their action failed.

Ok, let me ask you the same question I asked @GMforPowergamers earlier. If instead of a passive check, I had asked you to roll a perception check, and you got a 10 on the die (so same result as a passive check), would you then say “I want a different result. I look again?” And if I said “sorry, you got the result you got. If you want a different result you’re going to have to try something else,” would you have the same objections to that ruling?

Then why are they bothering to search for clues if there are no clues?

I don’t know, ask the hypothetical players.

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.

Sorry that has been your experience.

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.

Yes, I am. I said so several pages back.

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.

Actually, I don’t ask. Player says “I try to break the door open by shoulder charging it,” I say “that’ll require a DC 10 strength check, and trigger a roll of the tension pool.” They roll a die and tell me a number. Did they add their proficiency bonus for Athletics? For Arcana? For their ukulele proficiency? Did they add their proficiency bonus at all? Did they actually add their strength bonus, or did they add another, higher number instead? Did they even add any numbers together, or did they just tell me 17 because they thought I would believe it? I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and I don’t really care to look into it. I trust that my friends are playing in good faith unless given a very good reason to suspect otherwise.

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?

I don’t have secret set of options they’re allowed to take in mind. They just have to try something and I will adjudicate the results as best I can based on my understanding of the rules and my own judgment.

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.

I no longer care to argue with you about when I call for Wisdom checks. If it helps the conversation run more smoothly, just assume that I house rule that what you would consider a perception check is always passive, and what you consider an investigation check is handled with perception. You’ll be close enough for government work.

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?

I mean, this is a pretty tough situation for these hypothetical characters. The goblin must have rolled pretty well on its Dexterity (Stealth) check to have beaten their passive perception. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of much they can do to find it without entering the room. Does their light source fill the whole space? If not maybe they could try tossing it in. If it does, maybe they need to revise their strategy. They can’t find the goblin without going into the room but maybe they can avoid getting ambushed some other way. Maybe try to lure the goblin out instead. Maybe toss something else in to make a noise?

I do think that a failed check doesn't always have consequences, because many times consequences don't make sense for the check.

I understand that’s how you rule. What I just told you is that at my table, if consequences don’t make sense for the action, then there is no check. It just succeeds. Whether you think that’s what the rules say or not is irrelevant to this discussion, just understand that it is how I rule, and assume it’s a houserule if you have to.

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.

The DMG suggests progress combined with a setback as a potential consequence for a failed roll, which is how I think of knowledge checks. If you fail the roll, I’ll still tell you something interesting about the subject that your character remembers (another reason I need to know where you’re trying to remember it from, because that will inform what I tell you about the subject on a failure), it just won’t be the thing you were hoping to remember (another reason I need to know what that is).

Failure is the consequence many times. Just like I don't give consequences for missing an attack roll in combat. Missing was the consequence.

In combat the consequence of any failed action is the opportunity cost. You used up your action and accomplished nothing. This is part of why I find 10-minute dungeon turns (and 4-hour overland travel turns) super useful, because they lend a similar opportunity cost for failure to most actions.

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.

See my question near the beginning of this post.

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.

Just… try something that you would think of as investigation. Move around the room, move objects around, look inside of, behind, and under things. Interact with the shared fictional space we are playing in. Or if you can’t think of anything and/or don’t want to risk trying anything, then accept that sometimes you will just miss stuff. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

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.

And you are more than welcome to that opinion, and to run your own games in accordance with that. Me, I am 100% ok with players missing telegraphs sometimes, in fact I expect it. It’s just a normal part of the game for me, just like how sometimes I don’t notice the pressure plate in a legacy dungeon in Elden Ring. That’s just how it goes sometimes.

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.

Ok, so this kind of thing is, I think, why you sometimes get accused of not reading people’s posts. In response to me saying repeatedly that I don’t know if the idol is important or not, you say, “well if it’s so unimportant, why not just tell the players that?” Like… literally, I just said like four times, I don’t know if it’s important.

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.

Maybe you would know it doesn’t matter if you put an idol into your game. That’s not how I prep or run games though.

When you first gave this example, you seemed to be indicating that this idol was some sort of clue to a deeper plot.

I don’t prep plots. That was an assumption you brought to the table.

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.

Ok, well do you understand now?

But passive skills aren't meant to prevent active use of skills, which is exactly what is happening here.

I don’t think there’s any value to be had in discussing what the rules are “meant to do.” I interpret the rules differently than you do; if you have to conceptualize it as me houseruling, then so be it.

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.

I mean, I know what’s in the room. I know what’s plain to see and what’s hidden, and how it’s hidden. It’s not up to me what among that is or isn’t important. The players will make it important, or they won’t.

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.

By doing what? I've asked for examples again and again and again. Can I get some?

Interact with stuff. “I search through the desk for anything that looks out of place.” “I cast my light on the wall and scour it for irregularities.” Whatever. Just simple statements of what you hope to achieve and what your character does to try and achieve it. I will use my imagination and my understanding of the rules to decide how to resolve the action. Sometimes that will require a dice roll, sometimes it won’t.

EDIT FOR TRANSPARENCY: In an earlier version of this post I claimed @GMforPowergamers had ignored a question I had posed to them. That was incorrect, I just hadn’t yet seen their answer when I was writing the post. I edited the post to correct the misinformation, and I apologize for any confusion or frustration it may have caused.