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

[Jack Daniel]

You're post displayed one of the most toxic examples of DM behavior I have encountered in a while, which is saying a lot. And you stated you've actually done it at your table - so it's not a hypothetical, you actually put a player through it. It's sad you think that's funny.

Oh, no, not "toxic". Anything but a buzzword. Uncle.

 

[iserith]

I don't grant advantage or disadvantage based on how well someone describes a skill or ability check any more or less then I give advantage or disadvantage based on how well someone describes an attack roll.

Now you can take actions BEFORE this with as much or as little description as you like to try to get advantage... but over all I prefer that you rely on in character abilities and skills.

What are you referring to here with regard to "actions BEFORE this" to gain advantage?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What are you referring to here with regard to "actions BEFORE this" to gain advantage?

I mean there are spell you can cast, class/race features you can use, even the aide action as I pointed out before... I am sure I am missing something. Some equipment gives it (if I remember right a crow bar give advantage on str or str (athletics) checks to move or lift a heavy object... but I may be misremembering that)
I don't have a list available at the moment of things that grant advantage... in theory inspiration but we don't use that either at our tables

 

[iserith]

I mean there are spell you can cast, class/race features you can use, even the aide action as I pointed out before... I am sure I am missing something. Some equipment gives it (if I remember right a crow bar give advantage on str or str (athletics) checks to move or lift a heavy object... but I may be misremembering that)
I don't have a list available at the moment of things that grant advantage... in theory inspiration but we don't use that either at our tables

So let's say I was able to figure out an NPC's ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda, perhaps based on context clues from the DM during the interaction or a successful Wisdom (Insight) check or both. Could I then describe how I leverage that information with the NPC to gain advantage on a Charisma check to influence them?

 

[Maxperson]

I would bet that no matter what your style is, this is something we all have in common...

We all have players who at first be skeptical about our style and quickly enjoy it... if they don't they leave. there is a self fulfilling part of this too... we find new players and teach them our ways, we group with like minded players, and most important anyone trying can find fun in all the styles.

Now we should be able to discus the pro's and con's but we often end up in arguments.

I've encountered it once. I was invited to a game and when I got there it was a completely comedic game. That style of play isn't for me outside of one shots or very short multi-game campaigns. At the end of the night I politely let them know that it wasn't my preferred playstyle, thanked them for the invite and let them know that I would not be returning.

 

[Maxperson]

I honestly don't know how to get you to understand that positioning matters (among other things), and that players don't just throw dice without being asked to.

"I roll investigate" tells me nothing of what the person is really doing. I mean, if the player really wants me to play his guy and narrate having him rifle through the desk, look behind the paintings, under the rug, etc., I don't know why he's even playing the game. And he has no right to complain when a trap hits him as I walk him around the room investigating.

 

[Charlaquin]

and that is why I don't understand.

Persuading the king to help is perfectly clear to me
Perception seems clear that they want to use there senses (keen or dull) to notice things
Arcana seems clear to me they want to know if there character knows or could know something about arcane matters

But those don’t describe what the character is actually doing to accomplish those goals.

the very fact that most examples given give BOTH a skill name AND action that could do it makes me think that most times they do understand.

I don’t follow?

 

[iserith]

"I roll investigate" tells me nothing of what the person is really doing. I mean, if the player really wants me to play his guy and narrate having him rifle through the desk, look behind the paintings, under the rug, etc., I don't know why he's even playing the game. And he has no right to complain when a trap hits him as I walk him around the room investigating.

If you watch enough games, you can see this happen with some frequency in a lot of groups. The player doesn't do much to describe what they want to do, ceding that description to the DM. The DM, perhaps after the roll, describes what the character does and the result. The player then objects: "I wouldn't have had my character do that!" And that's often not even after something bad happens. It just happens because whatever the player is imagining in their head but failed to describe is not what the DM imagined and established. Had the player just described what they wanted to do so the DM didn't have to do that in the first place, this issue is avoided. The issue starts with the player, then is exacerbated by the DM who just accepts a vague action declaration.

 

[Mannahnin]

Agreed. And as pointed out earlier in the thread, actually telling the DM what your character is doing allows them to adjudicate the action better and any risks.

If from the doorway my character can't see the assassin hiding in the alcove to my left, then what I declare next makes a big difference. If I say "I want to make a perception check" that's unhelpful to the DM. If I say "I toss my torch into the middle of the room to try to light the place up better" then the DM knows I still can't see the assassin because he's not in LOS. But maybe the assassin will react in some way to that torch. If I say "I move into the middle of the room and look in all directions" I may just AUTOMATICALLY see the assassin because I now have direct LOS into the alcove where he was hidden.

OTOH, say there was no assassin, but instead a pit trap concealed under the rug in the middle of the room. If I threw my torch onto the rug, there's a good chance I just revealed the trap! Whereas if I instead walked into the middle of the room and looked in all directions, I've walked into the trap!

If I just want to roll dice and expect the DM to explain what's actually happening in the fiction, am I going to be happy if I roll low in the second situation, and he interprets that as me walking right into the trap?

If I know there's a safe hidden behind a painting on the wall, and my player says "I check behind the painting" there's no roll needed. Similarly, if I know there's a trap on the painting, and my player says "I check behind the painting" I now know they've actually interacted with the painting and may have triggered the trap.

We can also discuss shorthand and abstractions and come to agreement, say something like...

Players: "We want to search this room thoroughly from top to bottom."
DM: "Ok, it's a well-furnished room with a fair amount of junk in it; if you want to go through all the junk, inspect the furniture and walls for hollow spaces, etc. that's going to involve touching everything, and will take about thirty minutes. If anything is dangerous to touch, I'll randomize which one of you was searching it. Is that ok?"
Players: "Yes, that's fine. Except none of us want to touch that demon statue you described earlier, and Mig the Mage is going to wait out in the hall on watch while we do it; he's low on HP."
DM: "Ok, fair enough. Since there are only three of you searching instead of four, we'll call it forty minutes, cool?"
Players: "Cool."

And then the DM calls for any rolls or automatically reveals anything he thinks would automatically be found with that kind of search.

It was back in the example of the pit trap... here we go


"I've walked into the trap" seems to indicate that is the end of it, especially since the next line was "if I roll low in the second situation, and he interprets that as me walking right into the trap?"

Now, maybe we could argue that the save might still be triggered, but the context includes the player wanting to try and detect traps, but since their declared action of walking into the center of the room triggers the trap, they have no chance to detect the trap they were specifically looking for.

Of course I would allow a saving throw if you walked into the trap.

I've just finished catching up on the thread after the weekend, and this is one of many examples of you projecting bad faith play onto your interlocutor.

I noticed a couple of people have similarly distorted my example of the assassin in the alcove to turn it into some gotcha scenario where an evil viking hat DM is looking for an opportunity to stab a poor PC in the back if they don't say the magic words, rather than an example of a situation where a character can automatically see a previously completely hidden foe if they move into the right position. If they simply participate in play by describing what their character does or attempts to do, thereby giving the DM enough information to picture the scene and adjudicate their actions.

I read with a bit of frustration and bemusement the exchange where Celebrim gave examples of four garden walls, each with likely different difficulties to climb, but also potential hidden hazards, and @GMforPowergamers seemed to breeze completely past the point of the player owning his character's decision about which wall to try. I disagree with how Celebrim uses the word Railroading (I subscribe to a purely pejorative definition), but he's completely correct that if I as the DM simply let the player roll athletics and then narrate him climbing over the easiest wall, I've taken control out of the hands of the player, and implicitly communicated that there were no hazards on any of the walls.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@Egon Spengler @Mort have made posts getting personal- a no-no ‘round these parts- with different motivations. Please, if someone attacks YOU or you see someone attacking another poster instead of merely their posts, REPORT IT, don’t engage. Engaging just escalates tensions in the thread.

Right now, I’m just putting everyone on notice to stop. If I see more of this in here…