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

[Charlaquin]

okay my phraseing was bad. I would not set up part of the game where in order to continue to part of the adventure (I at least hope what ever is behind the book case or tapestry is optional extra and not the goal of the dungeon/encounter site) realys on then saying the words "I look behind the ______"

if I had to do this (say running an adventure) I would default to what the adventure wrote... but I would never plan this way...

if there is something hidden as just 'move X to open" I would just give it to the perceptive character... "Oh and X notices Y"

I do not understand the fun of having a room to search and having to go 1 by 1 "I check under the bed" "I check behind the night stand" "I check under the carpet" "I check behind the armour" "I check behind the book shelf...YATZEE!"

I understand you wouldn’t set a scene up this way, this is unnecessary to clarify.

like what do you do if no one says the right thing to look behind?

They probably miss the concealed door. I’m ok with that possibility.

again... if they asked to search (with any level of description) and I had them roll (perception or investigation or what ever) and they didn't hit the DC... they searched everywhere there would be no reason to keep moving things. I don't understand in what circumstance someone searches, finds nothing, BUT then looks behind the tapestry (and why was looking and searching not doing that already?)

they don't... the whole point of the general action is to avoid the description... in all of these years I never had a player switch from "I don't want to RP this can we skip" to "Wait now that i failed I want to RP this to try again"
I don't know how to handle this... I mean why would they care enough to want a second bite at the apple if they didn't care enough to RP it to begin with?

I mean… I certainly would if I was playing in your game. Why wouldn’t I? I get a roll to see if I find anything first, and then if I don’t, I can try more specific actions to try and get a better result. Seems like a highly effective strategy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean… I certainly would if I was playing in your game. Why wouldn’t I? I get a roll to see if I find anything first, and then if I don’t, I can try more specific actions to try and get a better result. Seems like a highly effective strategy.

I mean I guess... but as I think it over we would ask you not to game that. Like asking for the check is to avoid not to do WITH the description...

 

[Mort]

I mean… I certainly would if I was playing in your game. Why wouldn’t I? I get a roll to see if I find anything first, and then if I don’t, I can try more specific actions to try and get a better result. Seems like a highly effective strategy.

How would that work?

Player: I search the room..

DM: OK, to investigation...

Player: I got a 15.

DM: ok, after a thorough search you find a bag of 20 silver, some notebooks written in eleven(I beleive you speak they, right?) And that's about it.

Player: what no secret door? I church behind the tapestry!

DM: I don't recall describing a tapestry, but, ok, there's nothing behind it.

Player: ok, I move the cabinet and check behind it!

DM: nothing there. You know I already told you what you found right?

Point being, the two styles accomplish the same result, so don't stack (can't think of a better word).

If you do one way, you shouldn't get to go back and do the other way if you don't like the result. The result, is the result.

At least that's the way I see it .

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean I guess... but as I think it over we would ask you not to game that. Like asking for the check is to avoid not to do WITH the description...

Fair enough, and I would certainly respect that. But, this does seem to be something that your method relies on the social contract to address.

 

[Charlaquin]

How would that work?

Player: I search the room..

DM: OK, to investigation...

Player: I got a 15.

DM: ok, after a thorough search you find a bag of 20 silver, some notebooks written in eleven(I beleive you speak they, right?) And that's about it.

Player: what no secret door? I church behind the tapestry!

Well, if I got a decent roll and found some stuff I probably wouldn’t start searching more specifically. But, if I got like a 2, I might be concerned that I missed something and start describing more specific approaches.

DM: I don't recall describing a tapestry, but, ok, there's nothing behind it.

Obviously I wouldn’t describe looking behind the tapestry if you didn’t describe one in the first place.

Point being, the two styles accomplish the same result, so don't stack (can't think of a better word).

If you do one way, you shouldn't get to go back and do the other way if you don't like the result. The result, is the result.

At least that's the way I see it .

I definitely agree that the styles don’t mesh together. But one style seems to rely on an agreement (possibly an unspoken agreement) not to “metagame” by trying more specific approaches after the general one fails. Whereas the other style addresses the issue at a system level: the generalized search is handled passively, and more specific approaches are an expected follow-up.

 

[Charlaquin]

what I fight against is player skill vs character skill...

This is ultimately what it comes down to. You want to remove player skill from the equation to whatever extent you are able to do so, whereas others (such as myself) gladly embrace player skill as a not only a necessary evil, but actually a desirable and valued part of gameplay.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is ultimately what it comes down to. You want to remove player skill from the equation to whatever extent you are able to do so, whereas others (such as myself) gladly embrace player skill as a not only necessary, but valued part of gameplay.

So much this.

There's really no "versus" there. They work hand in glove.

And, hence, this as well.

Otherwise we tread on some weird meta ground of what is and is not acceptable as an action declaration... "your character wouldn't do/know/say that"... which, in our game, is a death knell...

To each their own gaming style, I suppose.

 

[Mort]

I definitely agree that the styles don’t mesh together. But one style seems to rely on an agreement (possibly an unspoken agreement) not to “metagame” by trying more specific approaches after the general one fails.

I don't think that's quite it.

The Roll the result style assumes you ARE trying every specific approach your character (rather than you, the player) can think of. It's just that, if you roll low, your character might have missed something - but you're stuck with it.

As @GMforPowergamers said, it minimizes player skill in these instances. For better or worse.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For me, player skill certainly comes first.

There are a few primary (and related issues) that arise for me:

1. Few players have the intellect to figure things out their INT 18+ PC might.
2. Few players can role-play their CHA 18+ PC well enough to justify what their PC should be able to do.
3. Some players are much more intelligent than their INT 8 PC is, but they play their PC like a very intelligent creature.
And so forth.

Under such circumstances, I allow rolls to help players who can't match their PCs, and FORCE rolls when the players are out-performing the expectations of their PCs.

Some people might find that heavy-handed, but if you have a dump stat, then PLAY it!

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think that's quite it.

The Roll the result style assumes you ARE trying every specific approach your character (rather than you, the player) can think of. It's just that, if you roll low, your character might have missed something - but you're stuck with it.

Right, but nothing in the rules of the game stops a player from describing a more specific approach after failing at a general one. Hence, this style relies on an agreement, perhaps an unspoken one, to not do that.

As @GMforPowergamers said, it minimizes player skill in these instances. For better or worse.

For sure. Not my style, as to me the player skill element is part of what makes it a game. You wouldn’t want to remove player skill from Chess, or Catan, or 40K, or Football. So it’s weird to me to want to remove it from D&D. But, a lot of D&D players do, and that’s fine. They’re welcome to do that in their own games. Without me.