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

[Maxperson]

I don't follow... are you now saying that you would tell your players that there is a concealed door behind a tapestry?
But you wouldn't tell them that there is a concealed door behind a bookcase? They need search behind a bookcase but not behind a tapestry?

I think he's saying that he doesn't get why people should have to say that they look behind the tapestry rather than just roll to find it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think he's saying that he doesn't get why people should have to say that they look behind the tapestry rather than just roll to find it.

Ah, yes, "Roll to find it" makes sense in the context of @GMforPowergamers playstyle. As opposed to declare an action to discover it for free.

What would happen if the roll indicated they failed to find the concealed door behind the tapestry and then that same player (or another player) in your game, @GMforPowergamers, said they wanted to check out the tapestry more closely or, even, stated they wanted to look behind it?

EDIT: for succinctness since Max cleared something up for me

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, yes, "Roll to find it" makes sense in the context of @GMforPowergamers playstyle. As opposed to declare an action to discover it for free.

What would happen if the roll indicated they failed to find the concealed door behind the tapestry and then that same player (or another player) in your game, @GMforPowergamers, said they wanted to check out the tapestry more closely or, even, stated they wanted to look behind it? Or do players not state things like that in your games?

I'm pretty sure he said that they do, but he just doesn't feel like it's necessary. "I search" is sufficient for him and he would have the player roll.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The difference between Secret Doors and Concealed Doors may be less codified in the D&D rules today than when I was a kid (I can still remember the different mapping symbols for them) EDIT: apparently not. Max has quoted the 5E DMG now. A secret door is built to not be seen, and generally has some hidden way of opening it, which you have to search for. A concealed door typically has some sort of physical obstruction blocking people from seeing it, like being hidden behind a book case, or a curtain.

Max used a specific word for a specific reason, and you substituted a different word.

the fact that I used the wrong word (obviously not understanding) wasn't the issue but being told again and again that i was lying and stealing agency...

this scenario presented needed the following to line up:
an easy to find door or passage with a single item blocking line of sight
it being worthy of game time enough to have the scene take time
and
a single specific detail that if the PCs didn't say... you know I'm not sure what happens if no one looks behind the book case?

For the same reason that (e.g.) focusing fire gives you an advantage in combat?

um okay I will bite... why is that?

This is a game. Part of playing it is making decisions and adopting strategies which improve your odds of success.

it is a roleplaying game so the decisions and strategies (IMO) should be based on what your character knows and how your character thinks not out of game knowledge skill or ability...

(and plese no don't say "You can't be 100% prefect 100% of the time something will slip through because I am sick of that argument almost as much as I am sick of being accused of stealing player agency)

Whether that's taking out the enemy healer first, or researching what kind of food and wine the foreign envoy likes best, so you can make him really happy at the welcome feast before asking his help, or checking behind the curtains and under the rugs when you're searching a room to find a hidden door or compartment.

well that is a long list of very different type of role playing... all of witch have happened over the years, I have never in recent memory made an AC lower or given an attack roll advantage for good tactics and I have never given a lower DC to find something for a detailed search.

That kind of decision making is much more compelling, engaging, and fun for me than the part of the game where I take a feat to increase my character's skill bonus so I roll higher on a check.

and I prefer when I take that feat to try to play smarter to show I am getting better at something

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That was crystal clear from concealed door and the concealed door rules. If you reveal it, it's clear as day. I explicitly brought up plain as day after you said you would call for a roll, because I couldn't understand why you would call for a roll to see a concealed door after it had been revealed.

because I can not remember a time (although I admit I may just not be remembering) where the answer was 'tell the DM the right furniture I move' and I instant find the door... the scene would most likely play out with passive perceptions in my games.

Many NPCs are just normal folks, not super BBEG bond villains who have the resources and know how to expertly craft secret doors.

again why I would not dedicate time to it if it was just move 1 item and then open to anyone. I am sorry I missunderstood your example (but notice unlike everyone that accuses me of taking player agency when you tell me I am wrong I apologize for the misunderstanding)

Sometimes they just push a dresser with a mirror on top in front of the door. I design my maps with the creators in mind. The old miser on top of the hill isn't going to pay for a secret door, he's just going to try and conceal it somehow.

I mean the old miser on the top of a hill doesn't sound like someone I would put a lot of effort into fleshing out unless the players spent time looking into or talking to him

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd like you to try to keep track of our conversation rather than substituting bits of what other people wrote and acting like I said them.

I don't understand... we skip conversations all the time in games.

SOmetimes at my table we will have a year or two pass over the course of a game night... and sometimes inbetween games. We don't track every conversation.

acting like I said them.

doesn't come up because if the players were not interested in details before it is rare for them to BOTH want to go back and get those details AND still no provide them... in fact i am at aloss to even make a fictional example of play were a player uses a skill roll to skip the dialog of a scene but then wants to play out knowing what they said... can you give an example?

I have consistently talked primarily about physical actions, where the character's position and movements (like which wall they climb over, or where they stand while a potentially hazardous object is interacted with) matter for my adjudication of any potential dangers.

yes you have, and I did admit some small fraction of a time when I would need more detail then "can I arcana this" or "Can I hide" but those are outliers..

I'm not talking about what the PC is saying in game. I'm talking about where they stand and move and what objects they touch, which you've made clear sometimes you have to decide, because the player doesn't and you're cool with that.

never once did I decide for someone... not once. please show me where I did.

 

[Chaosmancer]

so I sometimes talk about an early 5e game where I had a PC assassin (and like 2 other multi class rogues) and we had a whole spy vs spy thing going with multi (3 mostly but at 1 point 4) assassin guilds at war. I actually had something like this happen...

i had a super tense moment at the table where the players out of game knew an unknown assassin was in the room, and we had our normal perception and SOP/Paranoia against there stealth/prep and I had the suprise... the PCs talked for a moment expecting a autocrit sneak attack and got "I heard you were good, I am disappointed that I got this close"
it was me introducing a new potental alley... not a hug per say but it broke up the moment with some laughter

That's awesome

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't follow... are you now saying that you would tell your players that there is a concealed door behind a tapestry?

I mean I would need context but my guy reaction is I would check everyone's passive perceptions see how many beat it and when I describe the room end with "But ____ also sees"

I can not imagine describing a detailed room then making my players guess what item to move to auto find the door.

But you wouldn't tell them that there is a concealed door behind a bookcase?

again same as tapestry... the (more detailed) some old dude pushes the book case to access it I would give the high perception PCs that the book cases moves alot and that there looks like maybe something behind it.

They need search behind a bookcase but not behind a tapestry?

no... I will not make some passage way that requires a very spesfic object be moved AND hide it in such a way that PCs need to spend any real time finding it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think he's saying that he doesn't get why people should have to say that they look behind the tapestry rather than just roll to find it.

Ah, yes, "Roll to find it" makes sense in the context of @GMforPowergamers playstyle. As opposed to declare an action to discover it for free.

What would happen if the roll indicated they failed to find the concealed door behind the tapestry and then that same player (or another player) in your game, @GMforPowergamers, said they wanted to check out the tapestry more closely or, even, stated they wanted to look behind it?

EDIT: for succinctness since Max cleared something up for me

again... you guys love to accuse others of filling in missing information (even if they tell you they are not) then you added a search roll where I woul just have it be based on passive... or not have it at all.

and again Swarmkeeper... if there was a secret worth spending time searching the rooms for and they made a search check with 0 or little details why would they THEN decide to start giving more details... in that version they already searched.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am still a somewhat baffled why some here are projecting malicious intent on the DM for expecting players to engage a bit more with a basic component of the play loop: The players describe what they want to do

Because, as we keep saying, the player has described what they do.

Quite literally, I have responded with the the idea of "I search the room" and the answer I got in response was "That doesn't give me enough information to know if you triggered the trap, you need to be more specific"

"I climb the wall" which got the response "I need to know which wall, so I know whether or not you triggered the trap"

You say we are projecting, but... there it is. The goal of asking for more information in these scenarios isn't because the player hasn't described what they want to do, it is that they haven't described what they do in sufficient detail to determine if they triggered the trap.



Outside of that, we have two camps.

Me? I'm fine with descriptions, and do push for some vague descriptions on social skills. This is all based on intent though. If I understand the player's intent, they could say or describe anything, and I will accept it. Additionally, I do not want that intent circumvented and denied because the DM imagines my exact method would automatically fail.

@GMforPowergamers makes some incredibly good points about challenging the characters, not the players. And I largely agree with them. We would probably quibble over social skills, but I largely agree that the it is best to assume the PC is competent with their skills, and knows better than the player.