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

[Mannahnin]

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.

Exactly. If the player refuses to narrate their action, giving me only "I search the room; got a 15 on my roll" they leave it on me to say, "In searching the rolltop desk, when you open one of the drawers a cloud of yellow mold erupts", we've now got grounds for accusations of a gotcha: I "forced" them to do that by narrating their actions because they declined to.

Whereas if we have a dialogue and the player confirms more specifically what they were doing and how they were searching, we forestall any miscommunication or bad feelings.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

no

 

[iserith]

Exactly. If the player refuses to narrate their action, giving me only "I search the room; got a 15 on my roll" they leave it on me to say, "In searching the rolltop desk, when you open one of the drawers a cloud of yellow mold erupts", we've now got grounds for accusations of a gotcha because I "forced" them to do that by narrating their actions because they declined to.

Whereas if we have a dialogue and the player confirms more specifically what they were doing and how they were searching, we forestall any miscommunication or bad feelings.

Yes, and from a game flow perspective, it's just easier and quicker if the player describes what they want to do in a way where the DM doesn't need to ask for clarification. The player describes, DM narrates result, sometimes asking for a roll. If we now have to interject either DM questioning or player objections (or both) into this process over the course of a 4-hour session, that starts to look like some real time lost to what is essentially unnecessary back and forth. For someone like me who values things moving along quickly, this is something to look at.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t follow?

okay I see people in this thread say if someone said "I want to roll perception" i would tell them they need to do something to get the check... but not once is it "I didn't understand what they meant" the context of the example from way back... PC going to his room, was warned of danger, opens door DM describes he asks for perception and DM declines it without an action... but the DM know there is an assassin in the room hiding, so there IS a DC (the stealth of the assassin) and a potential check... so they know wht they want and what they want to use... but they ask for a description before they can roll

 

[Umbran]

"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.

And, we come around (or maybe back) to - are we testing the character, or the player?

 

[iserith]

no

Okay, do you use the social interaction rules in the DMG at all? That's basically how they work. I get some inside info on the NPC, then use it to my advantage to get what I want. For example, I made a Wisdom (Insight) check successfully and the DM tells me the NPC's bond - "I will try to live up to the example my ancestors set before me." I then turn around and remind the king that his ancestors were well known for their bravery and that's why he should back whatever plan I'm trying to push. I get advantage on that subsequent Charisma check, if there is one, because I used the king's bond for leverage.

 

[Maxperson]

And, we come around (or maybe back) to - are we testing the character, or the player?

I just need to know what the PC is doing with enough specificity to adjudicate something. "I investigate" really doesn't tell me enough. The test is for the character, but the player controls that character and needs to provide me enough information.

 

[Mort]

Exactly. If the player refuses to narrate their action, giving me only "I search the room; got a 15 on my roll" they leave it on me to say, "In searching the rolltop desk, when you open one of the drawers a cloud of yellow mold erupts", we've now got grounds for accusations of a gotcha because I "forced" them to do that by narrating their actions because they declined to.

Whereas if we have a dialogue and the player confirms more specifically what they were doing and how they were searching, we forestall any miscommunication or bad feelings.

Was the DC to not trigger the yellow mold above 15? If so, the player took a risk and got burned - them's the breaks.

If the DC WAS 15 or lower, but they got hit with the mold because they "weren't specific enough..." I don't like that. Better for the DM to ask the player to elaborate exactly what they are searching "There are lots of things in the room to search, can you be more specific as to what you are doing?"

Further, the players should know whether this is a test of "player" skill here. If no level of search skill (be it -1 or +17) will avoid the yellow mold, only the player dictating something that could avoid it (whatever that might be) - the players need to know it's that kind of challenge going in.

 

[Charlaquin]

okay I see people in this thread say if someone said "I want to roll perception" i would tell them they need to do something to get the check... but not once is it "I didn't understand what they meant" the context of the example from way back... PC going to his room, was warned of danger, opens door DM describes he asks for perception and DM declines it without an action... but the DM know there is an assassin in the room hiding, so there IS a DC (the stealth of the assassin) and a potential check... so they know wht they want and what they want to use... but they ask for a description before they can roll

But we’re asking for a description because it’s not clear to us what the player wants their character to do. I understand the player wants to make a perception check (still weird to me, as I would expect them to want to find any potential danger; a perception check is an unreliable means to that end), but it is not clear to me what the character actually does in the imaginary space. So, personally, I would explain to the player what I already understand, and what I still do not understand. Something along the lines of “I’m hearing that you want to find out if there’s anything else hidden in the room, and that you would like to apply your proficiency bonus for perception if a roll is necessary. I’m not clear what your character is doing to try to accomplish that goal.”

 

[Charlaquin]

And, we come around (or maybe back) to - are we testing the character, or the player?

Ideally both.