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

[Charlaquin]

And it is your decision to make up a new character to shore up a weakness simply because you don't like the example. But I'm not doing that. Maybe it is a two person DnD game. I'm currently running a game with only a single PC via Dischord. It happens. Declaring the party make up HAS to have a perception expert is ludicrous, especially since, again, 14 wisdom and proficiency is far from bad.

Sure, maybe it was a two person campaign and neither of the players decided to invest much in Perception. A small party not having the tools they need to excel in a particular situation is a normal thing that happens in D&D gameplay.

Right, sticking to the original parameters is disingenuous. Adding new elements of design, new party members, specific race combos, and mixed-level parties (a thing that never happens at the majority of tables) is perfectly reasonable.

None of those things were initially specified in the example. Regardless, my point was that it’s not impossible or even particularly unlikely for the party to have access to a better passive Perception than 14. That this particular hypothetical group doesn’t is not a problem with my DMing style.

Well, since that's the case we can give the goblin a cloak of invisibility and purple worm poison too, right? If we are just going to go about changing the parameters to suite our argument.

I don’t see how that would even meaningfully affect the argument. I mean I guess the cloak of invisibility would narrow the range of possible approaches that could lead to finding the goblin?

And nothing says that working together gives advantage on Passive Perception, after all, I know I often rule that you can't Work Together or take the Help action with perception, because it is all about what you see or what you smell or what you hear. No one can help you smell something, this isn't something that people can work together to achieve.

But even if we assume it does apply... that doesn't change my overall point? There isn't a decision to look for danger. It is a default state. And if you want to rule that you can grant +5 Passive perception to someone... then it is even less of a choice. Person with the highest modifer looks, other person helps, because you both seeing the same thing doesn't do anything different. And since they are helping, and not providing their own passive perception, they are now vulnerable, but hey, at least they won't have to worry about traps.

I don’t understand how you can see that the players have multiple, mutually exclusive options, and claim that picking between them isn’t a choice.

Critique isn't Badwrongfun. I've never accused you of Badwrongfun. Not even trying to prove you are "wrong". But since any all things that challenge your position are ignored, I can't really have a discussion either. Because your consider your ideas impossible to challenge or critique.

I don’t consider my ideas impossible to challenge or critique, I’m just not here to present them for critique. And it certainly seems like you’re trying to argue that my technique only serves to trap players into unsinkable gotcha scenarios, which I think definitely qualifies as an accusation of badwrongfun.

Normal doors are absolutely something you pay attention to when looking for an ambush.
Blind corners are absolutely something you pay attention to when looking for an ambush.
Darkness is absolutely something you pay attention to when looking for an ambush.

Why aren't secret doors? What makes them so special? They are hidden from view? So are traps. You don't build a trap with a sign that says "Trap here!". You hide it, sometimes really well, sometimes not so well. And since you'd be looking at the floor and walls for signs of traps, things like scrape marks that could be caused by moving stones... you'd also see the signs of a secret door.

I did acknowledge several posts back that it would probably make more sense to lump looking for traps in with looking for secret doors rather than keeping watch for monsters.

Well then why are secret doors different than traps and ambushes?

They are entirely different things.

And, since you have made anyone looking for ambushes unable to find secret doors, then ambushes that happen behind secret doors are utterly impossible to stop before the ambush happens, because the player has zero chance of spotting it. They'd need to find the secret door to suspect there is something behind the secret door after all.

The characters who are keeping watch for danger can avoid being surprised by monsters that ambush them from behind secret doors. I don’t know how one would possibly counter-ambush a group of enemies that is hidden behind a secret door without finding the secret door first, regardless of whether you lump looking for it in with keeping watch for monsters.

Seriously. You have never once until right now said that the approach was not specific enough. Only once I pointed out that there was completely and totally a way to move towards the center of the room where the trap was AND reasonably have a chance to spot the trap do we suddenly have that the approach was not specific enough.

So, I guess "I go to the East Wall and look for traps" is equally not specific enough. What you mean by specific is you want me to describe the method of looking for traps.

I thought I was pretty clear that the specific thing I wanted you to describe was your method of looking for traps, yes. If that’s your goal, I need to know your approach to that goal, to a reasonable degree of specificity.

Something that I don't actually know how to do, because just like I'm not a auto-mechanic, I'm not a trap-smith.

And since my method can fail simply by describing something that wouldn't work to locate that specific trap, I'm utterly without options.

Funny, you seemed to come up with the10-foot poll method and the mage-hand method easily enough. I have also been quite explicit that I understand you are not a trapsmith; I am also not a trapsmith. I will keep both of our lack of specialized knowledge in mind and do my best to interpret your action declarations generously in light of that fact.

Really? Because all I was asking for before was a chance to roll when moving to look for traps.

If for some reason you want to roll, I recommend describing something that you think could succeed but could also fail, and would have consequences if it failed.

Now I've got two different SOP's that I'll just read to you every single room, every single time, until they don't work and I get smashed. Because you won't allow the same thing to work every single time. I know plenty of DMs who have decided that since their players insist on using mage hand to interact to avoid traps, that they specifically build the traps to trigger in ways that hit you for not being near the trigger. The logic being that "of course" trap builders would know of mage hand and build traps to counter it.

It's just a matter of time until my bored, droning reading of the same list of specific actions gets me in trouble.

That’s an incorrect assumption. Maybe you have played with lots of DMs who acti fly try to thwart whatever actions the players attempt, but I am not one of them, and you treating this discussion as if it was with one of them is not helping us come to a mutual understanding, which you claim to be your goal.

Right, because all of us who say we've tried it, didn't like it , and had bad expeirences with it are either just wrong or were traumatized to fear success by Bad DMs. That's why you feel no need to defend your practices, because you are obviously right and your approach can have no problems or pitfalls.

My approach absolutely can have problems and pitfalls, which I have acknowledged plenty, including in this thread if I recall correctly. A lot of “killer DMs” are DMs who have fallen into pitfalls related to this technique. One of the reasons I share my approach is to help other DMs who employ or may be curious about employing a similar style, might avoid such pitfalls.

Because, again, I came into this thread that was

explicitly a rant about bad players doing bad things (declaring they use their skills ) and my initial goal was and has continued to be, explaining why you don't need to "train" these players to be "better" (as many posters early on talked about doing) because what was happening was mostly a breakdown of communication and this bizarre fixation on the player's needing to be hyper specific so they can't complain when something bad happens. Which still seems rather crappy, since the ENTIRE POINT is this fear of the players getting upset when something bad happens, because you don't give them a chance to roll if their declared action MIGHT set off the hazard.

And my point in this thread has been to explain what I do that has been successful in avoiding the problem the OP is ranting about. If you go back, you may notice that I came in simply saying that what I do is state what I understood from the player’s declaration, and what information I still need them to clarify. This has been incredibly successful for me at getting players to engage with this style of game: like I said, players at my table who may have been hesitant at first have consistently found they enjoyed it once they saw it in action. Since then though, I have been met with nothing but specific example scenarios contrived to try and prove that I’m secretly just an adversarial DM trying to make excuses to ignore players’ intents and spring traps on them without giving them a chance to avoid it.

And again and again, the same arguments repeat. "Well it isn't hard, so I don't understand why you won't do it" (Weird when you spent multiple days saying an approach was fine only to backpedal the second you realized it wasn't) or "You just are so scared of failure you can't seek success" or "The players just had a bad DM" or "This would never happen at MY table" or or or or or

Is it not true that it isn’t that hard, or that your aversion to failure without a roll is why you would rather just make a check, or that you have had negative experiences with other DMs that have made you hesitant about this style of play? It is certainly true that such gotchas wouldn’t happen at my table.

What hasn't happened? Someone saying "You know, I can see why players might feel that way, that's a valid point." or "I can see how that is specific enough to narrate"

Because I haven’t found that to be the case.

And since this conversation happens every few months, with people complaining about the exact same things, maybe I'm feeling like it would be useful to actually attempt to reach some sort of real understanding instead of platitudes.

Well if you want to try to reach a real understanding, I recommend starting by dropping assumptions of what I will do based on what you have seen other DMs do. Give me enough benefit of the doubt to believe me when I say these problems don’t come up in my games, and that even players who have been hesitant about the style have enjoyed it when they play at my table, and ask questions with the intent of understanding what I may be doing differently than those other DMs you’ve played with instead of trying to prove that I’m secretly doing exactly the same thing they did.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There's a term from old adventure games called "pixelbitching" where you need to click on a very small part of the screen to trigger the interactive elements. Many times this is very hard to actually do and it results in player frustration in extreme.

The tabletop version of this is when the GM wants a specific way of phrasing the process or the location that players want their characters to explore. And then hits them with a gotcha: either nothing is found until the keyphrase is said, or a trap is triggered that an experienced adventurer would have known what to do about.

While true, I hardly ever see this. At least, not in recent years.

What I do see, though, is people who don’t understand Goal & Approach assume that what is being described is some form of pixelbitching. @iserith in particular gets accused of this a lot, by people who (at least from my observations) don’t seem to understand what he is describing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, maybe it was a two person campaign and neither of the players decided to invest much in Perception. A small party not having the tools they need to excel in a particular situation is a normal thing that happens in D&D gameplay.

Not every single game of DnD involves 5 to 6 people, yes this is a true statement.

Also, again, how is proficiency and a 14 wisdom not "investing much" in perception. You have built characters, you know how the system works. Assuming standard array because rolling is random the highest four scores are 15, 14, 13, 12. Assuming Tasha's because we don't want to assume race, so you have a +2 and a +1.

Fighter is going to need either Dex or strength, and con. No matter how you slice those scores and those modifiers, you only have three options. Either at 14, wisdom is tied for your highest stat (The 15 does not make a meaningful difference, both give a mod of +2. Option two, at a 14 wisdom is tied for your second highest stat, or option 3 for some unknownable reason you make your wisdom a 16 and your highest stat. Option 3 is really a non-starter, because no fighter ability or subclass I can think of uses wisdom. Meanwhile a fighter gets only 4 skills, so getting perception proficiency is 25% of all their skill profs.

So, the fighter is likely using 25% of the skills and their second highest score. That's a low investment to you?

The bard is actually even worse, because as a full caster they need Charisma, then they need Dex for AC, then they need con, making Wisdom a fourth consideration. And they have the exact same options. Either it is tied for their highest, it is their second highest and they have dropped dex or con to a +1, or they have insanely chosen wisdom as their highest score. They are slightly better on skills, they get 5, but it is still 20% of their skill options. Which is still a large investment.

And frankly, if you are finding every single character in your games is making wisdom their highest score, regardless of their classes actual use for the score? Then that is a bad sign about your games, because it means all your players see Passive Perception as the single most important aspect of their characters, more important than even their class abilities.

None of those things were initially specified in the example. Regardless, my point was that it’s not impossible or even particularly unlikely for the party to have access to a better passive Perception than 14. That this particular hypothetical group doesn’t is not a problem with my DMing style.

Never said it was impossible. But saying "I don't see a problem because I just added a level 4 variant human cleric with alert and skill expert who has a higher passive perception" is ignoring the spirit of the conversation to score cheap points because it is "possible"

I don’t understand how you can see that the players have multiple, mutually exclusive options, and claim that picking between them isn’t a choice.

I don't see why I have to keep repeating myself.

The options, including your houserule are

1) Look for Danger (automatic)
2) Help someone look for danger
3) Look for secret doors
4) Make a map

Which, under my rules, looks like
1) Look for Danger (automatic)
2) Make a map

When you have more than 1 person in the party, then two options isn't a "choice" since multiple maps is pointless. And even with your rules, half the options are looking for danger. The only reason you don't have all four options picked is because we established a four-man team, and you would have auto-suprise hit the back row if they didn't have a person looking for danger in front and a person looking for danger in back, requiring at least two people. Which makes the only choice being if the third lowest wisdom score helps the back, helps the front, or thinks they have a chance to locate any random secret doors.

So, again, I don't see "looking for danger" as a choice, because it is the default option. Heck, the PHB calls it out that PCs are going to be looking for danger unless they are specifically doing something else. It is their baseline state.

I don’t consider my ideas impossible to challenge or critique, I’m just not here to present them for critique. And it certainly seems like you’re trying to argue that my technique only serves to trap players into unsinkable gotcha scenarios, which I think definitely qualifies as an accusation of badwrongfun.

Only because every time I try and figure out what is needed for your technique, we end up needing more and more detail lest the players do the wrong thing and get punished for it. That's not on me. That's on you.

I did acknowledge several posts back that it would probably make more sense to lump looking for traps in with looking for secret doors rather than keeping watch for monsters.

So now your houserule system is going to be

1) Look for monsters (automatic?)
2) Help someone look for monsters
3) Look for traps and secret doors
4) Help someone look for traps and secret doors
5) Make a map

And with needing people in front and in back looking for monsters, how exactly is a 4-man party supposed to cover these? It would have to be that you have 1 person make the map (can't get lost), 2 people looking for monsters and 1 person looking for traps and doors... who will have to be the furthest forward, and won't be able to look for monsters, so... good thing rogues are high dex and can disengage as a bonus action, cause they can't see a monster unless the stupid thing is standing in the middle of the hall, so they are either walking in tandem with a monster spotter, who hopefully you are kind to and don't have auto-trigger traps as they travel, or they are getting ambushed all the time.

Almost makes you wonder if there was a reason the PHB indicates that looking for monsters, hazards, traps AND secret doors should be the same travel action...

They are entirely different things.

Physically sure, but that's like saying that Orcs and slimes are entirely different monsters. Not the point being raised.

You would spot a secret door using the same exact cues as you would be traps and ambushes.

The characters who are keeping watch for danger can avoid being surprised by monsters that ambush them from behind secret doors. I don’t know how one would possibly counter-ambush a group of enemies that is hidden behind a secret door without finding the secret door first, regardless of whether you lump looking for it in with keeping watch for monsters.

"Avoid being surprised" isn't the same thing as "stop the ambush" because the ambush is still 100% successful, they just have one person, maybe two who may possibly get to act on the first round.

And, yeah, you hit the nail on the head. You could counter-ambush a group behind a secret door, by noticing the secret door. Which is why the chance to notice the secret door is kind of important. It is kind of the whole crux of being able to deal with the potential ambush.

I thought I was pretty clear that the specific thing I wanted you to describe was your method of looking for traps, yes. If that’s your goal, I need to know your approach to that goal, to a reasonable degree of specificity.

Funny, you seemed to come up with the10-foot poll method and the mage-hand method easily enough. I have also been quite explicit that I understand you are not a trapsmith; I am also not a trapsmith. I will keep both of our lack of specialized knowledge in mind and do my best to interpret your action declarations generously in light of that fact.

If for some reason you want to roll, I recommend describing something that you think could succeed but could also fail, and would have consequences if it failed.

So, for days you argued on the position that "I move to the center of the room, looking for traps" and that it was exactly as specific as you needed. Now that is false (coincidentally, that started being false as soon as I pointed out that that description does cover a method that could find the trap, as I kept asserting) and so far the only method I've given that you have accepted is a traditional pixel-kvetching that you started this thread claiming you do not require.

I also find it darkly hilarious that you can honestly still claim you would "interpret your action declarations generously" when doing so for the initial declaration would have led to you interpretting it as moving slowly and looking at the ground, which utterly changed the entire thing! Except then looking wasn't good enough, so in your "generous" interpretation, what am I doing when looking? Or are you only generous as long as I declare I'm touching something? Because for all your supposed generosity, the only thing you have accepted without question is pixel-hunting in traditional fashion.

That’s an incorrect assumption. Maybe you have played with lots of DMs who acti fly try to thwart whatever actions the players attempt, but I am not one of them, and you treating this discussion as if it was with one of them is not helping us come to a mutual understanding, which you claim to be your goal.

My approach absolutely can have problems and pitfalls, which I have acknowledged plenty, including in this thread if I recall correctly. A lot of “killer DMs” are DMs who have fallen into pitfalls related to this technique. One of the reasons I share my approach is to help other DMs who employ or may be curious about employing a similar style, might avoid such pitfalls.

I started this conversation thinking you weren't that type of DM. Now here we are. You need more detail, you need even more detail, you still don't know if I triggered the trap so you need EVEN MORE detail. And every time I've pushed for you to explain... well you don't understand, it isn't hard, and the player really has to decide because you don't have any ideas.

But I need more detail. How exactly am I moving? Where exactly am I going? What exactly am I touching and how?

If you think your conversation with me could be used as an example to help other DMs not be "killer DMs" then you seem to be sorely mistaken, because this is exactly how they operate.

And my point in this thread has been to explain what I do that has been successful in avoiding the problem the OP is ranting about. If you go back, you may notice that I came in simply saying that what I do is state what I understood from the player’s declaration, and what information I still need them to clarify. This has been incredibly successful for me at getting players to engage with this style of game: like I said, players at my table who may have been hesitant at first have consistently found they enjoyed it once they saw it in action. Since then though, I have been met with nothing but specific example scenarios contrived to try and prove that I’m secretly just an adversarial DM trying to make excuses to ignore players’ intents and spring traps on them without giving them a chance to avoid it.

And I've never had the problem the OP claims either, because if I need to I ask what their intent is, and get an answer. The method doesn't matter, because there is no reason any method they would reasonably choose would prevent them from achieving their intent.

I'm sure you can come up with something like screaming at their shoelaces to tie them, but most people who are reasonable and experts in their fields who I can generously assume are trying their best? They don't scream at shoelaces, they pick them up with their fingers and tie them, and while there are hundreds of knots and many are more effective than others, I don't need to know exactly which method they used.

And shockingly, for the players who are comfortable with the game? Those who know I won't blow a trap up in their faces for declaring the wrong action? They tend to start giving me more than just the skill, because its fun. Not because it is a guaranteed success (sometimes it is, you don't always need to roll) but because they have fun doing it. But since they started doing things the "wrong" way, so many people on these forums want to "teach them".

Is it not true that it isn’t that hard, or that your aversion to failure without a roll is why you would rather just make a check, or that you have had negative experiences with other DMs that have made you hesitant about this style of play? It is certainly true that such gotchas wouldn’t happen at my table.

My aversion is for the intent to be trampled on because the player said the wrong thing. If you want to chalk that up to trauma, well, I've already stated multiple times I find that to be insulting and high handed.

Because I haven’t found that to be the case.

Shocking.

 

[James Gasik]

Not every single game of DnD involves 5 to 6 people, yes this is a true statement.

Also, again, how is proficiency and a 14 wisdom not "investing much" in perception. You have built characters, you know how the system works. Assuming standard array because rolling is random the highest four scores are 15, 14, 13, 12. Assuming Tasha's because we don't want to assume race, so you have a +2 and a +1.

Fighter is going to need either Dex or strength, and con. No matter how you slice those scores and those modifiers, you only have three options. Either at 14, wisdom is tied for your highest stat (The 15 does not make a meaningful difference, both give a mod of +2. Option two, at a 14 wisdom is tied for your second highest stat, or option 3 for some unknownable reason you make your wisdom a 16 and your highest stat. Option 3 is really a non-starter, because no fighter ability or subclass I can think of uses wisdom. Meanwhile a fighter gets only 4 skills, so getting perception proficiency is 25% of all their skill profs.

So, the fighter is likely using 25% of the skills and their second highest score. That's a low investment to you?

The bard is actually even worse, because as a full caster they need Charisma, then they need Dex for AC, then they need con, making Wisdom a fourth consideration. And they have the exact same options. Either it is tied for their highest, it is their second highest and they have dropped dex or con to a +1, or they have insanely chosen wisdom as their highest score. They are slightly better on skills, they get 5, but it is still 20% of their skill options. Which is still a large investment.

And frankly, if you are finding every single character in your games is making wisdom their highest score, regardless of their classes actual use for the score? Then that is a bad sign about your games, because it means all your players see Passive Perception as the single most important aspect of their characters, more important than even their class abilities.



Never said it was impossible. But saying "I don't see a problem because I just added a level 4 variant human cleric with alert and skill expert who has a higher passive perception" is ignoring the spirit of the conversation to score cheap points because it is "possible"




I don't see why I have to keep repeating myself.

The options, including your houserule are

1) Look for Danger (automatic)
2) Help someone look for danger
3) Look for secret doors
4) Make a map

Which, under my rules, looks like
1) Look for Danger (automatic)
2) Make a map

When you have more than 1 person in the party, then two options isn't a "choice" since multiple maps is pointless. And even with your rules, half the options are looking for danger. The only reason you don't have all four options picked is because we established a four-man team, and you would have auto-suprise hit the back row if they didn't have a person looking for danger in front and a person looking for danger in back, requiring at least two people. Which makes the only choice being if the third lowest wisdom score helps the back, helps the front, or thinks they have a chance to locate any random secret doors.

So, again, I don't see "looking for danger" as a choice, because it is the default option. Heck, the PHB calls it out that PCs are going to be looking for danger unless they are specifically doing something else. It is their baseline state.



Only because every time I try and figure out what is needed for your technique, we end up needing more and more detail lest the players do the wrong thing and get punished for it. That's not on me. That's on you.



So now your houserule system is going to be

1) Look for monsters (automatic?)
2) Help someone look for monsters
3) Look for traps and secret doors
4) Help someone look for traps and secret doors
5) Make a map

And with needing people in front and in back looking for monsters, how exactly is a 4-man party supposed to cover these? It would have to be that you have 1 person make the map (can't get lost), 2 people looking for monsters and 1 person looking for traps and doors... who will have to be the furthest forward, and won't be able to look for monsters, so... good thing rogues are high dex and can disengage as a bonus action, cause they can't see a monster unless the stupid thing is standing in the middle of the hall, so they are either walking in tandem with a monster spotter, who hopefully you are kind to and don't have auto-trigger traps as they travel, or they are getting ambushed all the time.

Almost makes you wonder if there was a reason the PHB indicates that looking for monsters, hazards, traps AND secret doors should be the same travel action...



Physically sure, but that's like saying that Orcs and slimes are entirely different monsters. Not the point being raised.

You would spot a secret door using the same exact cues as you would be traps and ambushes.



"Avoid being surprised" isn't the same thing as "stop the ambush" because the ambush is still 100% successful, they just have one person, maybe two who may possibly get to act on the first round.

And, yeah, you hit the nail on the head. You could counter-ambush a group behind a secret door, by noticing the secret door. Which is why the chance to notice the secret door is kind of important. It is kind of the whole crux of being able to deal with the potential ambush.



So, for days you argued on the position that "I move to the center of the room, looking for traps" and that it was exactly as specific as you needed. Now that is false (coincidentally, that started being false as soon as I pointed out that that description does cover a method that could find the trap, as I kept asserting) and so far the only method I've given that you have accepted is a traditional pixel-kvetching that you started this thread claiming you do not require.

I also find it darkly hilarious that you can honestly still claim you would "interpret your action declarations generously" when doing so for the initial declaration would have led to you interpretting it as moving slowly and looking at the ground, which utterly changed the entire thing! Except then looking wasn't good enough, so in your "generous" interpretation, what am I doing when looking? Or are you only generous as long as I declare I'm touching something? Because for all your supposed generosity, the only thing you have accepted without question is pixel-hunting in traditional fashion.



I started this conversation thinking you weren't that type of DM. Now here we are. You need more detail, you need even more detail, you still don't know if I triggered the trap so you need EVEN MORE detail. And every time I've pushed for you to explain... well you don't understand, it isn't hard, and the player really has to decide because you don't have any ideas.

But I need more detail. How exactly am I moving? Where exactly am I going? What exactly am I touching and how?

If you think your conversation with me could be used as an example to help other DMs not be "killer DMs" then you seem to be sorely mistaken, because this is exactly how they operate.



And I've never had the problem the OP claims either, because if I need to I ask what their intent is, and get an answer. The method doesn't matter, because there is no reason any method they would reasonably choose would prevent them from achieving their intent.

I'm sure you can come up with something like screaming at their shoelaces to tie them, but most people who are reasonable and experts in their fields who I can generously assume are trying their best? They don't scream at shoelaces, they pick them up with their fingers and tie them, and while there are hundreds of knots and many are more effective than others, I don't need to know exactly which method they used.

And shockingly, for the players who are comfortable with the game? Those who know I won't blow a trap up in their faces for declaring the wrong action? They tend to start giving me more than just the skill, because its fun. Not because it is a guaranteed success (sometimes it is, you don't always need to roll) but because they have fun doing it. But since they started doing things the "wrong" way, so many people on these forums want to "teach them".



My aversion is for the intent to be trampled on because the player said the wrong thing. If you want to chalk that up to trauma, well, I've already stated multiple times I find that to be insulting and high handed.



Shocking.

Just wanted to add that having a decent Wisdom has another important use besides Perception- Wisdom saves are generally pretty bad things to fail.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not every single game of DnD involves 5 to 6 people, yes this is a true statement.

Also, again, how is proficiency and a 14 wisdom not "investing much" in perception. You have built characters, you know how the system works. Assuming standard array because rolling is random the highest four scores are 15, 14, 13, 12. Assuming Tasha's because we don't want to assume race, so you have a +2 and a +1.

Fighter is going to need either Dex or strength, and con. No matter how you slice those scores and those modifiers, you only have three options. Either at 14, wisdom is tied for your highest stat (The 15 does not make a meaningful difference, both give a mod of +2. Option two, at a 14 wisdom is tied for your second highest stat, or option 3 for some unknownable reason you make your wisdom a 16 and your highest stat. Option 3 is really a non-starter, because no fighter ability or subclass I can think of uses wisdom. Meanwhile a fighter gets only 4 skills, so getting perception proficiency is 25% of all their skill profs.

So, the fighter is likely using 25% of the skills and their second highest score. That's a low investment to you?

The bard is actually even worse, because as a full caster they need Charisma, then they need Dex for AC, then they need con, making Wisdom a fourth consideration. And they have the exact same options. Either it is tied for their highest, it is their second highest and they have dropped dex or con to a +1, or they have insanely chosen wisdom as their highest score. They are slightly better on skills, they get 5, but it is still 20% of their skill options. Which is still a large investment.

And frankly, if you are finding every single character in your games is making wisdom their highest score, regardless of their classes actual use for the score? Then that is a bad sign about your games, because it means all your players see Passive Perception as the single most important aspect of their characters, more important than even their class abilities.

Putting a 14 in a score and taking proficiency in a skill is what I would call moderate investment. A significant investment would involve additional character building resources such as feats and/or expertise. This is not unique to perception.

Never said it was impossible. But saying "I don't see a problem because I just added a level 4 variant human cleric with alert and skill expert who has a higher passive perception" is ignoring the spirit of the conversation to score cheap points because it is "possible"

But you’re dismissing the possibility because your argument hinges on all of the characters involved having invested only moderately in Perception. Which is fine, that happens sometimes. I’m just saying, the fact that groups can struggle in situations that the party doesn’t have a specialist in is not a problem with my DMing. It’s a normal and expected part of the game.

I don't see why I have to keep repeating myself.

The options, including your houserule are

1) Look for Danger (automatic)
2) Help someone look for danger
3) Look for secret doors
4) Make a map

Which, under my rules, looks like
1) Look for Danger (automatic)
2) Make a map

When you have more than 1 person in the party, then two options isn't a "choice" since multiple maps is pointless. And even with your rules, half the options are looking for danger. The only reason you don't have all four options picked is because we established a four-man team, and you would have auto-suprise hit the back row if they didn't have a person looking for danger in front and a person looking for danger in back, requiring at least two people. Which makes the only choice being if the third lowest wisdom score helps the back, helps the front, or thinks they have a chance to locate any random secret doors.

So, again, I don't see "looking for danger" as a choice, because it is the default option. Heck, the PHB calls it out that PCs are going to be looking for danger unless they are specifically doing something else. It is their baseline state.

You left out helping someone look for secret doors. But you added it later, so I’ll
address these together.

So now your houserule system is going to be

1) Look for monsters (automatic?)
2) Help someone look for monsters
3) Look for traps and secret doors
4) Help someone look for traps and secret doors
5) Make a map

And with needing people in front and in back looking for monsters, how exactly is a 4-man party supposed to cover these? It would have to be that you have 1 person make the map (can't get lost), 2 people looking for monsters and 1 person looking for traps and doors... who will have to be the furthest forward, and won't be able to look for monsters, so... good thing rogues are high dex and can disengage as a bonus action, cause they can't see a monster unless the stupid thing is standing in the middle of the hall, so they are either walking in tandem with a monster spotter, who hopefully you are kind to and don't have auto-trigger traps as they travel, or they are getting ambushed all the time.

To be clear, I believe this is by-the-book, apart from shifting looking for traps to be part of looking for secret doors instead of part of looking for monsters. But, yes, there are more possible travel actions that characters in a typical 4-person party. This means that the party will either have to forego one or more of these tasks, or hire additional help. In other words, they have to make a choice. A difficult choice. That’s the point.

Only because every time I try and figure out what is needed for your technique, we end up needing more and more detail lest the players do the wrong thing and get punished for it. That's not on me. That's on you.

There have been three times during this conversation, if I recall correctly where you have actually given me more detail instead of trying to argue why you shouldn’t have to do so (specifically, using fire to smoke out the goblin, using a 10-foot poll or mage hand to poke the ground to find traps, and walking slowly forward while looking at the ground), I have said those would be perfectly acceptable action declarations, and seem like good plans.

Almost makes you wonder if there was a reason the PHB indicates that looking for monsters, hazards, traps AND secret doors should be the same travel action...

I don’t agree that it says that.

Physically sure, but that's like saying that Orcs and slimes are entirely different monsters. Not the point being raised.

You would spot a secret door using the same exact cues as you would be traps and ambushes.

"Avoid being surprised" isn't the same thing as "stop the ambush" because the ambush is still 100% successful, they just have one person, maybe two who may possibly get to act on the first round.

And, yeah, you hit the nail on the head. You could counter-ambush a group behind a secret door, by noticing the secret door. Which is why the chance to notice the secret door is kind of important. It is kind of the whole crux of being able to deal with the potential ambush.

Ok, let’s remove the secret door from the equation. Assume there are some monsters hiding around a blind corner. How exactly do you propose you would prevent this ambush? You don’t even know the monsters are there.

So, for days you argued on the position that "I move to the center of the room, looking for traps" and that it was exactly as specific as you needed. Now that is false (coincidentally, that started being false as soon as I pointed out that that description does cover a method that could find the trap, as I kept asserting) and so far the only method I've given that you have accepted is a traditional pixel-kvetching that you started this thread claiming you do not require.

The point when I realized the declaration was not clear enough was when you stressed that your approach was to move to the center of the room while looking for traps. Until then, I had been taking your approach at face value - you said you were moving to the center of the room, I assumed you were moving to the center of the room. Not an action that I can imagine succeeding at the goal of finding any traps that might be present, except in the sense that the trap we’ve established in this example is in the center of the room would be sprung by you doing so. If you had made it clear that “looking for traps” was part of your intended approach, I would have said that it was not clear to me how you were looking for traps.

I also find it darkly hilarious that you can honestly still claim you would "interpret your action declarations generously" when doing so for the initial declaration would have led to you interpretting it as moving slowly and looking at the ground, which utterly changed the entire thing! Except then looking wasn't good enough, so in your "generous" interpretation, what am I doing when looking? Or are you only generous as long as I declare I'm touching something? Because for all your supposed generosity, the only thing you have accepted without question is pixel-hunting in traditional fashion.

I don’t think we actually interrogated the “walking slowly forward while looking at the ground” example, you were too busy mocking the notion that you might find traps by looking somewhere other than the ground. In fact, I think that approach is reasonably specific and seems like it could succeed or fail at the goal of finding out if there’s a trap (before springing it). It also seems like it could fail to do so, and that failure would certainly have a meaningful consequence. So I would call for a Wisdom check to resolve that action.

I started this conversation thinking you weren't that type of DM. Now here we are.

Wow. You want to come out and say that directly instead of just implying it? You think I am actively trying to maneuver PCs into unavoidable traps, and just… lying about not doing so?

You need more detail, you need even more detail, you still don't know if I triggered the trap so you need EVEN MORE detail. And every time I've pushed for you to explain... well you don't understand, it isn't hard, and the player really has to decide because you don't have any ideas.

But I need more detail. How exactly am I moving? Where exactly am I going? What exactly am I touching and how?

“Walking slowly forward while looking at the ground” is far from exact. It is, however, reasonably specific detail, and from that detail I can discern that a check is needed to determine the results. I keep asking for more detail because you keep refusing to give it, instead trying to argue why you shouldn’t have to give it with meaningless semantic tangents about what “important” means.

If you think your conversation with me could be used as an example to help other DMs not be "killer DMs" then you seem to be sorely mistaken, because this is exactly how they operate.

My conversation with you is my conversation with you. No, I don’t think this conversation is particularly likely to be helpful to… anyone. Which is why I’ve been dropping lines of discussion when it’s clear they’re leading nowhere but bickering about our differing play preferences or differing interpretations of the rules.

And I've never had the problem the OP claims either, because if I need to I ask what their intent is, and get an answer.

Hey, we have something in common!

The method doesn't matter, because there is no reason any method they would reasonably choose would prevent them from achieving their intent.

It matters to me, because a lot of methods they would reasonably choose could lead to them achieving their goals without even needing to roll.

I'm sure you can come up with something like screaming at their shoelaces to tie them, but most people who are reasonable and experts in their fields who I can generously assume are trying their best? They don't scream at shoelaces, they pick them up with their fingers and tie them, and while there are hundreds of knots and many are more effective than others, I don't need to know exactly which method they used.

Right, so maybe your concerns about automatic failure are a bit overblown. For the most part, players who actually describe actions that they have thought about in terms of what would likely achieve their goal, instead of desperately trying to avoid giving any more detail than absolutely necessary, tend to achieve success at best and a roll at worst.

And shockingly, for the players who are comfortable with the game? Those who know I won't blow a trap up in their faces for declaring the wrong action? They tend to start giving me more than just the skill, because its fun. Not because it is a guaranteed success (sometimes it is, you don't always need to roll) but because they have fun doing it.

Great! I’m glad that works for you and your players, and I wouldn’t want to take that away from you.

But since they started doing things the "wrong" way, so many people on these forums want to "teach them".

You keep bringing this up, but I have never talked about my DMing style in these terms. If you want to discuss this with me, kindly discuss it with me instead of with a pastiche of everyone who’s style you imagine to be similar to mine.

 

[Mort]

The point when I realized the declaration was not clear enough was when you stressed that your approach was to move to the center of the room while looking for traps. Until then, I had been taking your approach at face value - you said you were moving to the center of the room, I assumed you were moving to the center of the room. Not an action that I can imagine succeeding at the goal of finding any traps that might be present, except in the sense that the trap we’ve established in this example is in the center of the room would be sprung by you doing so. If you had made it clear that “looking for traps” was part of your intended approach, I would have said that it was not clear to me how you were looking for traps.

I don’t think we actually interrogated the “walking slowly forward while looking at the ground” example, you were too busy mocking the notion that you might find traps by looking somewhere other than the ground. In fact, I think that approach is reasonably specific and seems like it could succeed or fail at the goal of finding out if there’s a trap (before springing it). It also seems like it could fail to do so, and that failure would certainly have a meaningful consequence. So I would call for a Wisdom check to resolve that action.
similar to mine.

Ok, 1,326 posts in, I think I finally understand the difference in styles here.

For me, and I think @Chaosmancer and @GMforPowergamers, the player declaring "I walk to the center of the room, looking for traps..." Is specific enough. It would trigger an investigation check that could determine if there is a "trap" anywhere along the route. Such a check could also be triggered by simply saying "I walk to the center of the room using investigation..." Which would trigger a check to find anything of interest (or danger) along the traveled route. The declaration is specific enough, because it's assumed the CHARACTER knows how to accomplish the declared action. In essence, we are fine with using the name of the skill in the action declaration (I investigate, I use athletics, I use persuasion), with no (usual) need to elaborate further - though it can be fun to do so.

For @Charlaquin , "I walk to the center of the room, looking for traps..." or worse, "I walk to the center of the room using investigation..." Are not specific enough declarations because the player has not specified how the PC is accomplishing the stated activity(using the skill). While it's assumed the character has proficiency there is still a need to SPECIFICALLY declare how the character is accomplishing the task of investigating, looking for traps etc. If the declaration is "somewhat" specific "I walk to the center of the room l looking at the floor..." This would trigger a check. If the action is specific enough (I use my 10' pole to tap each square before I move to it, to see if that can reveal or trigger the trap before it can harm me..." It might work without a roll (or it might not, depending on the trap). In essence, you can't just use the name of the skill to say what your character is doing, you must specifically declare what your character is doing to accomplish any given task.

That about right?

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, 1,326 posts in, I think I finally understand the difference in styles here.

For me, and in think @Chaosmancer and @GMforPowergamers, the player declaring "I walk to the center of the room, looking for traps..." Is specific enough. It would trigger an investigation check that could determine if there is a "trap" anywhere along the route. Such a check could also be triggered by simply saying "I walk to the center of the room using investigation..." Which would trigger a check to find anything of interest (or danger) along the traveled route. The declaration is specific enough, because it's assumed the CHARACTER knows how to accomplish the declared action. In essence, we are fine with using the name of the skill in the action declaration (I investigate, I use athletics, I use persuasion), with no (usual) need to elaborate further - though it can be fun to do so.

For @Charlaquin , "I walk to the center of the room, looking for traps..." or worse, "I walk to the center of the room using investigation..." Are not specific enough declarations because the player has not specified how the PC is accomplishing the stated activity(using the skill). While it's assumed the character has proficiency there is still a need to SPECIFICALLY declare how the character is accomplishing the task of investigating, looking for traps etc. If the declaration is "somewhat" specific "I walk to the center of the room l looking at the floor..." This would trigger a check. If the action is specific enough (I use my 10' pole to tap each square before I move to it, to see if that can reveal or trigger the trap before it can harm me..." It might work without a roll (or it might not, depending on the trap). In essence, you can't just use the name of the skill to say what your character is doing, you must specifically declare what your character is doing to accomplish any given task.

That about right?

Basically, yeah. Though I would note that my metric for whether the action succeeds, fails, or requires a check isn’t actually the specificity of the action; it’s that I try to picture the action and imagine if there’s a reasonable possibility of it achieving of the stated goal, if there’s a reasonable possibility of it not achieving the stated goal, and if not achieving the stated goal would have consequences. I only call for a check if all three are true. This is correlated with the specificity of the action, because a more specific action is less likely to leave room for uncertainty in the possible results, but the specificity isn’t itself the deciding factor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just wanted to add that having a decent Wisdom has another important use besides Perception- Wisdom saves are generally pretty bad things to fail.

Sure, but again, Wisdom being tied as your second highest stat is pretty important. And getting a 16 instead of a 14 isn't nearly as good as getting proficiency in wisdom saves.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Putting a 14 in a score and taking proficiency in a skill is what I would call moderate investment. A significant investment would involve additional character building resources such as feats and/or expertise. This is not unique to perception.

So things a low level party either can't do, or the Bard taking one of their only two expertises and instead of focusing on literally anything else, focusing on perception. Only then will you accept that they have invested heavily in their ability to spot danger.

I generally don't start assuming a level of investment based on how they could build in the future, and instead look at how they build with the resources they had. And I don't dismiss an investment just because they could have possibly done more.

But you’re dismissing the possibility because your argument hinges on all of the characters involved having invested only moderately in Perception. Which is fine, that happens sometimes. I’m just saying, the fact that groups can struggle in situations that the party doesn’t have a specialist in is not a problem with my DMing. It’s a normal and expected part of the game.

All I am doing is not altering the terms of the example. Isn't that the goal? Isn't the goal not to shift the goal posts until we are both arguing entirely different situations tailor-made to support our arguments?

All the fighter could have done is make wisdom their highest score. Or wait a few levels to get feats and such to improve their perception even more. Is that seriously what you would have expected from them?

And the problem with "not having a specialist" is that there may not be a need for a stealth specialist, there may not be a need for a persuasion specialist, there may not be a need for an arcane knowledge specialist.

There is always need for a perception specialist. So, you must always have someone with high wisdom, investing in those feats, in every single game. Or otherwise it is "on them" for not being prepared.

You left out helping someone look for secret doors. But you added it later, so I’ll
address these together.

To be clear, I believe this is by-the-book, apart from shifting looking for traps to be part of looking for secret doors instead of part of looking for monsters. But, yes, there are more possible travel actions that characters in a typical 4-person party. This means that the party will either have to forego one or more of these tasks, or hire additional help. In other words, they have to make a choice. A difficult choice. That’s the point.

So no matter what the party does, unless they spend gold to get more bodies, they cannot possibly even attempt to try and be safe. Especially with how you were running it before where they needed one person to look for traps, one person to look for secret doors, and one person to look for monsters. At that point I guess just forgo the mapping and agree to get utterly lost, because trying to not get lost just leads to you getting ambushed.

Now, let's set aside your belief that the rules support this, because my belief is that they don't and you have made it clear you hate discussing our beliefs. What is the advantage of doing it your way? What is the advantage of making this such an incredibly hard decision that will always leave them vulnerable no matter what they do?

I'll go first. The advantage of my way, where looking for danger includes all the possible types of danger is that the party doesn't need to hire NPCs (which means I don't need to roleplay those NPCs and the players don't need for me to inflate the coin they receive to cover expenses). Additionally, they can feel like they actually have a chance to be safe. They are in a dangerous area, but when they declare they are on the lookout for danger, they are on the look out for danger. This matches with what they are imagining in their minds when they declare the action. And it gives them the ability to do other things as they travel, without feeling like those things will get them killed. This can vary widely, covering everything from discussing with a freed NPC while they travel, or fiddling with a strange magical device they discovered.

Ok, let’s remove the secret door from the equation. Assume there are some monsters hiding around a blind corner. How exactly do you propose you would prevent this ambush? You don’t even know the monsters are there.

Because if someone is looking for ambushes, they should have a chance to spot the threat before they turn the blind corner. Maybe they see a shifting shadow, maybe they see a weapon glinting around that blind corner the enemy didn't properly conceal. Maybe there is a creak of leather as they shift.

Then, after noticing the signs of a potential ambush, they tell the party that they think an ambush is ahead. Now, if they are dumb (which trained killers used to dangerous situations should never be assumed to be dumb) they are loud enough that the enemy charges out, which isn't an ambush, because no one is surprised. If they aren't dumb, then they have a chance to act before the enemy realizes they have been spotted. They may even counter-ambush, depending on their strengths and tactics.

The only way I see this not working is if looking for monsters preparing to ambush you can not possibly detect an ambush being set up around a blind corner, which I do not believe is the case.

The point when I realized the declaration was not clear enough was when you stressed that your approach was to move to the center of the room while looking for traps. Until then, I had been taking your approach at face value - you said you were moving to the center of the room, I assumed you were moving to the center of the room. Not an action that I can imagine succeeding at the goal of finding any traps that might be present, except in the sense that the trap we’ve established in this example is in the center of the room would be sprung by you doing so. If you had made it clear that “looking for traps” was part of your intended approach, I would have said that it was not clear to me how you were looking for traps.

I don’t think we actually interrogated the “walking slowly forward while looking at the ground” example, you were too busy mocking the notion that you might find traps by looking somewhere other than the ground. In fact, I think that approach is reasonably specific and seems like it could succeed or fail at the goal of finding out if there’s a trap (before springing it). It also seems like it could fail to do so, and that failure would certainly have a meaningful consequence. So I would call for a Wisdom check to resolve that action.

So, you've known since Tuesday when you posted this?

Wait, hang on. Their goal was to find out if there were any traps in the room, and their approach was to move to the center of the room? And there was a trap that is triggered by moving to the center of the room, which they didn’t notice with their passive perception? Then, yeah, when they get to the center of the room, I would describe the initial trigger being set off - what was it, a pressure plate? So I’d describe the feeling of something sinking under their weight and the sound of a click, then ask what they do. They could then tell me what they do to try and avoid the trap, which could result in them avoiding it without having to make a saving throw. If their action wouldn’t help them avoid the trap, I would still give them a saving throw to avoid it. So, again, there are many points at which they could have avoided the trap. I would first of all have telegraphed it in the initial description, which could give them enough information to know not to step in the center of the room. I would second of all have compared their passive perception to the DC to spot the trap, and if it was higher, just told them they noticed it. I would third of all have given them a chance to avoid the trap without a save after perceiving it’s initial activation and before taking any damage or other negative effects. And if they didn’t manage that I would finally have given them the chance to avoid it with a saving throw.

That makes me wonder why it wasn't until Thursday/Friday when I said "moving slowly and carefully forward" that your answer started changing. I'd go back further, but the conversation snarls after monday and it isn't easy to trace back when I first start with this example.

Wow. You want to come out and say that directly instead of just implying it? You think I am actively trying to maneuver PCs into unavoidable traps, and just… lying about not doing so?

No, I don't think you are lying. I think that you are continuing how you've played and been taught to play for decades, and that you don't seem to realize that the bad things you are picturing when you state things like "actively manuevering PCs into unavoidable traps" aren't what we actually find problems with.

What you don't seem to realize is that in your pursuit of how you think the game should be played, you are doing the exact same things that many of us have come to see as problems. You may place a poisoned needle in the door handle, and you won't move it or force people to touch it. But you need to know, absolutely need to know, who touches that door handle and when they touch it.

But what is the consequence of that?

The consequence I've found, not from anything I've ever done, but simply from the behaviors of players I inherited from others, is that no player will ever touch a door handle, unless they have first specified that they are wearing a full-plate gauntlet and angling their hand so that any needles won't pierce. Those are the ones who never had to deal with an adamantium needle that punches through gauntlets. And how do I know this? Because I still have players checking every door and every hall and every room, even though I rarely run traps at all.

And I myself, I was in a game where we ran into a single treasure chest that was trapped. We then used mage hand to open every single treasure chest from that point on, and the DM lamented that we were never going to trigger another trapped chest, because we were never going to physically touch another chest, or another door, or another drawer. And we didn't. Which meant either the traps were pointless because we were never going to interact with them or the DM had to come up with traps that weren't pointless.

And you can keep calling me psyologically traumatized, but that's what I heat every time you say you need a "specific" approach. We need to know if we do the wrong thing, if we make a mistake, so that we trigger the trap. Or just like the examples Mannahim gave of those garden walls, need to know which garden wall they go up, because they might be traps. Or why the example of the desk needed to know if you are opening the drawers, because there might be a yellow mold trap in the drawers.

And I fully understand that just having them roll to see if they trigger the trap or not won't stop anything. Because they will still seek to remove any ambiguity about the risk and take extreme measures to protect their characters. But that is where this divide comes from. When you ask that question it is no longer something like "how does my character search a room" which can be some fun RP. It is "what can I do to eliminate any and all possible risk from this scenario, because if I don't, I'm screwed by what I forget." And some of us don't find that fun or engaging. It becomes white noise and busywork. Standard Procedure #7 engage, and it no longer becomes about playing the game or stepping into our characters, it is a repetition of the same things we've done 100 times, because that's the only safe option.

“Walking slowly forward while looking at the ground” is far from exact. It is, however, reasonably specific detail, and from that detail I can discern that a check is needed to determine the results. I keep asking for more detail because you keep refusing to give it, instead trying to argue why you shouldn’t have to give it with meaningless semantic tangents about what “important” means.

I've abandoned any hope of ever getting an answer from you about what is important in your games. It seems like it is all just randomly generated and connected by the thinnest strands.

And yes, I've argued that the level of detail given should be plenty. Because I'm sure if I go and look up rock-climbing or talk to a gymnast I could come up with all sorts of specific details I could ask when someone says that they climb a wall or do a flip. I've got a little musical experience, I know that is someone says "I want to play a sad song on my viol" that I could ask if they are playing in a major or minor key, if they are using a 3/4 time or a 5/8 time. I could which specific song they play. But none of that actually matters, and I assume that their character plays a properly sad song without getting into the details of HOW sad, or sad in which way. I don't even need to ask whether or not they sing an accompaniment. These are all details that would matter if I'm making a movie in my mind that needs to match the player's movie, but there is a difference with climbing, flips, and playing sad songs.

There are no traps that can trigger from doing the wrong thing. It is impossible. So you don't need the detail. There are only two times you need that detail. Investigating a physical space. Talking with NPCs. And I only agree with one of those.

You keep bringing this up, but I have never talked about my DMing style in these terms. If you want to discuss this with me, kindly discuss it with me instead of with a pastiche of everyone who’s style you imagine to be similar to mine.

You couch it in nicer language, sure, but you don't deny that other people who share your position do say exactly that. And so if you want to know why am I bothering, there it is.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, 1,326 posts in, I think I finally understand the difference in styles here.

For me, and I think @Chaosmancer and @GMforPowergamers, the player declaring "I walk to the center of the room, looking for traps..." Is specific enough. It would trigger an investigation check that could determine if there is a "trap" anywhere along the route. Such a check could also be triggered by simply saying "I walk to the center of the room using investigation..." Which would trigger a check to find anything of interest (or danger) along the traveled route. The declaration is specific enough, because it's assumed the CHARACTER knows how to accomplish the declared action. In essence, we are fine with using the name of the skill in the action declaration (I investigate, I use athletics, I use persuasion), with no (usual) need to elaborate further - though it can be fun to do so.

For @Charlaquin , "I walk to the center of the room, looking for traps..." or worse, "I walk to the center of the room using investigation..." Are not specific enough declarations because the player has not specified how the PC is accomplishing the stated activity(using the skill). While it's assumed the character has proficiency there is still a need to SPECIFICALLY declare how the character is accomplishing the task of investigating, looking for traps etc. If the declaration is "somewhat" specific "I walk to the center of the room l looking at the floor..." This would trigger a check. If the action is specific enough (I use my 10' pole to tap each square before I move to it, to see if that can reveal or trigger the trap before it can harm me..." It might work without a roll (or it might not, depending on the trap). In essence, you can't just use the name of the skill to say what your character is doing, you must specifically declare what your character is doing to accomplish any given task.

That about right?

Seems like a good summary.

I will note, I have had players go into more specific detail, if they have a very specific goal in mind, but it isn't very common.