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

[Chaosmancer]

This an excellent point so, in case it hasn’t been asked already, for those that advocate for letting players just declare “I use X skill on Y“ how do you know whether it qualifies for advantage or disadvantage when the approach is unknown?

It depends, but generally I don't give advantage and disadvantage very often.

For example, if I were to give advantage or disadvantage on perception, it wouldn't be because of how they described looking, it would be becuase of the environment. If they are in a heavy fog or a rainstorm, they are going to get disadvantage.

Also, I tend to forget that a crowbar gives advantage on strength checks.

But, before people accuse me of being unfair, my players use the help action and work together 95% of the time with all skill actions that I can't force them not to use the help action on (usually just perception, Stealth, insight and knowledge skills) so the vast majority of the time, they are rolling with advantage anyways.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've explained exactly why it matters at least three or four times (Charlaquin probably more), and Celebrim did in that very post, and you keep ignoring it.

Those four walls could have four (or just one!) complications.

could... not do. if one has one then you may need to know what one they climb I already said that but nothing in the set up had that... no traps, no poison ivy, no 'if you fall X' so with little to no consequences I would not waste time with asking for clarification... please if you want to know how my games run don't add gotchas.

if there was a diffrence, if it changed anything but the image I would have gotten more info... however I also would not set up that type of situation without forshadowing it.

The sheer wall might be too sheer and steep and have a too-high DC for the PC to climb it at all (unless he has a grappling hook, say). The ivy-covered wall might have poisonous ivy. The tree with the convenient-looking branch that could be climbed right over the wall might be a carnivorous tree. The fancy wall with all the carved decorations might conceal a trap.

and again they might be... but in the example they were not so it didn't matter.

You said that if those four walls were presented to the player, you'd assume (absent contrary instruction from the player) that they'd automatically make a check against whichever one was easiest/had the lowest DC.

correct

And if they told you they wanted to climb the sheer/steep/hardest-looking wall, you'd stop them and ask why they were making it harder on themselves.

correct, and I also said if they answered

The tree with the convenient-looking branch that could be climbed right over the wall might be a carnivorous tree. The fancy wall with all the carved decorations might conceal a trap.

I would tell them that is a good answer and have them roll at the higher DC...

This is exactly what Celebrim was talking about with you steering them. Taking away their autonomy.

so me asking "why that wall?" to be sure I understand is taking away their autonomy and bad
you asking "how do you climb the wall and what one" to be sure YOU understand is not?

it seems odd that the people who would have to ask my players LOTs of questions think it is bad if I ask 1 or 2 per month (when in YOUR game im not sure we could get through a single room description without you asking for clarification from some people I play with)

Giving them info implicitly.

but that information is only out of game. I trust my players not to take that information in game.

Heck sometimes when we break for food or drink or rest rooms (although not really now online) we used to jokeingly have 'cut scenes' that the player could see but the characters could not 100% with NPCs... sometimes main villains.

What if one (just one; doesn't have to be all four) of those hazards/problems were present in one of those walls? The player needs to tell you which wall he's climbing over, so you know whether he's going to interact with the hazard. Your described adjudication of the situation takes that choice out of his hands.

yes in the very specific situation I may need more info then they volunteer. At no point did I ever say that my way 100% never needed clarification I said no where near as often as your way.

 

[Maxperson]

i assume that they didn't sit down to a brand new game get a character approved by you and before you describe where the PCs start say "Can I use investigate?"

I don't say.

DM: "You open the door and in the room you see a chest."
Player: "I investigate."
DM: "Narrates investigating a chest."
DM: "And you see a bed."
Player: "I investigate!"
And so on.

I describe everything they see and THEN they tell me what they want to do, and "I investigate" tells me just about nothing. I would have to add to that declaration the PC investigating the bed, and then the chest, and then, and then, and then... So if I'm not supposed to add anything and just go with what they say, they need to tell me something sufficient to do that with.

 

[Celebrim]

if you mean 4 very different walls for no real reason... yes that would be an odd situation in one of my games... one that most likely would lead to investigation before climbing

Quite often investigation first in mine as well, but I notice the "no real reason" comment.

wait, you aren't suggesting that is how my open world work? the ones where I make dozens of maps (macro and micro) leave dozens of interesting things (to see to interact with to be plot hooks ext) at every major site in the world and 1 or 2 at the minor ones and still let my PCs make up there own stuff on top of this...

Interestingly enough, the game that I'm talking about where it felt like Theater were only the Drapes changed had the Sea of Fallen Stars in the Forgotten Realms mapped out down to a 1 mile grid for a significant portion of the Inner Sea and surrounding nations, and there was also a significant amount of PC created stuff as well (for example, my PC was a crime lord and I had made maps for all the buildings that I owned or had built). So while I am forced to believe you when you saw that you don't enjoy that sort of "everything happens on a stage game", the evidence you provide in no way contradicts or removes the possibility of what I was imagining. The DM probably had the most extensive world building notes I've ever seen, with stacks and stacks of 5" binders stuffed full of all the information either revised the FR canon or filled in the gaps in it. So yeah, loving world building doesn't preclude the possibility of running a game in the way I described.

However, if I were to assume you were running a game where fictional position really did come into play a lot, that leaves me again unable to imagine how you do that while taking only bare moves as action propositions. You've kind of hinted around that you basically hand wave around this by using your knowledge of the fiction to fill in the gaps charitably on behalf of the player, or negotiate with the player until they offer the proposition you want them to offer, while denying you do either. And at the same time you deny this, you express either no concern for fictional positioning and intent or frustration as to why anyone would think fictional positioning matters since it all comes down to a dice roll anyway.

omg... this got me laughing so hard. My players are so invested in the worlds I almost never have the most accurate or detailed trascript, and my narration has to be short and to the point cause my players will just steamroll over once they get something in there heads.

I think a big part of the problem here is you have no idea what I'm talking about, as this response really doesn't address the claim I made. You use the words "transcript" and "narration" in your response in ways that don't seem appropriate to the context. By transcript I mean that if you had someone watching your game and typing down everything that happened in the imaginary space ("the game world"), then the produced product would be the transcript. Notice that the transcript would not have moves like, "I roll Perception" or "I do 12 damage in it" in it, because that doesn't happen in the imaginary space. Now it would have everything that happened in the imaginary space but which which wasn't said by either a PC or an NPC, and that part of the transcript is "the narration".

So if I had your transcript of play, what would be in it? Like if you have an action proposition like "I roll diplomacy" what ends up in the transcript and who says it? Does nothing end up in the transcript? Does something like, "You say, "Yadda yadda yadda to the bartender" and he says, "Since you're such a good customer I'll tell you. A few days ago there was this group of dwarves in the bar..." What exactly does your transcript of play look like? Because so much of your game seems to occur entirely in the meta that I can't imagine it and every time I try to you say that I'm getting it wrong.

no one is taking player agency

Then you are going to have to refine some of your former answers.

 

[iserith]

I don't say.

DM: "You open the door and in the room you see a chest."
Player: "I investigate."
DM: "Narrates investigating a chest."
DM: "And you see a bed."
Player: "I investigate!"
And so on.

I describe everything they see and THEN they tell me what they want to do, and "I investigate" tells me just about nothing. I would have to add to that declaration the PC investigating the bed, and then the chest, and then, and then, and then... So if I'm not supposed to add anything and just go with what they say, they need to tell me something sufficient to do that with.

Foolish - you should toll the dead before investigating a chest.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't say.

DM: "You open the door and in the room you see a chest."
Player: "I investigate."
DM: "Narrates investigating a chest."
DM: "And you see a bed."
Player: "I investigate!"
And so on.

I describe everything they see and THEN they tell me what they want to do, and "I investigate" tells me just about nothing. I would have to add to that declaration the PC investigating the bed, and then the chest, and then, and then, and then... So if I'm not supposed to add anything and just go with what they say, they need to tell me something sufficient to do that with.

You see the problem here clearly. He's describing a transcript that is almost entirely produced by the DM while saying that the players have agency and yet at the same time answering "No" to every question that would give the players agency. If his description is accurate, he allows the players to roll the dice for him while he plays the game almost entirely by himself with very little player input. Since he clearly doesn't think that's the game he's playing, something is missing from his description.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

The player only needs to convey enough detail to avoid arguments over a quantum actionand allow the gm to decide how to adjudicate the action, nobody is being tested. For example

• Alice: I go around giving the room a cursory once over to see if anything stands out to me.
• Bob: I want to d a few minutes really going through everything in the room to see what stands out to me.

Alice is planning it safe prioritizing keeping her distance & being quick, she's less likely to spring a trap or trigger a wandering encounter but going to have a higher DC than bob. Bob is prioritizing finding things even if that means making noise that might be heard or interacting with things that might be dangerous to interact with... He's almost guaranteed to somehow interact with any traps & has higher chances of triggering a wandering encounter but has a lower DC to find stuff & might not even need to roll because he's being so through.

It's possible to have a single action described in different ways with very different results like that & leaving it to the gm only encourages "wait I wouldn't have done that protests now that the results of doing it are exposed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Read the example again. Pick one of the hazards. Or all four!

Which hazard did you pick? Keep that in mind. Ok, when the player tells you he climbs over a wall, how do you know whether or not he encounters the hazard you picked?

He has to tell you which wall.

and again (like a broken record) in the very rare case I do have to ask (of course that requires the following to all line up... I described a detailed obstacle, the player didn't feel like giving a major description, I had pre set a trap or something, and I am not willing to hand wave past the trap that the Player showed he wasn't intrested it)

 

[Reynard]

I actually had quite a lengthy debate because I said earlier (I don't blame you if you missed it) that in a perfect world it would be 100% character and 0% player skill in my mind.... but that is impossible, so I do everything I can to minimize player skill input and maximize character skill...

I wonder if there are other games or other versions of D&D that would support you in this? Although it sounds like you and your group have figured it out, so it probably isn't worth the effort.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would say faster pace and less objections make any game better. But then not everyone values those things.

my games rune fastish (when we aren't jokeing around or talking about movies or books) I just don't see how excepting short hand and table jargon would make anything take a noticable more amount of time

"Please say it right" is not a very good way to think about this in my view. "Please say what you're doing and trying to accomplish" is what we're asking for. "I want to make a Perception check to search the room" doesn't give me enough detail. All it tells me is that you think there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure for some reason, since that's the only time the DM calls for a check.

again I disagree with your entire paragraph...

I believe it is Celebrim who says you are taking agency away from players, not me. I have said that by ceding the description of what the character wants to do to the DM is giving the DM more power than is intended by the game's rules, which is correct, but the player ceding something and the DM taking something away are not the same thing. Whether or not the player or the DM in that situation cares to any great degree is another matter still.

okay so explain this...

if my player says he wants to use perception. I know out of game as the DM there is something hidden and it has a DC that he could make with a perception check, and I let him roll adding no additional actions or information then just tell him what he sees... what did I take on? what 'extra power'?