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

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, this is undeniably a thing we (by which I mean, we DMs who like to use this sort of action resolution process) have to contend with. A lot of players are going to be coming to the table with baggage related to being asked for specificity. It’s a bit of a leap of faith for them to try playing this way, and we need to be willing to show some patience and empathy to them in turn. It also helps if we run damn good games, cause at the end of the day that’s what’s going to sell someone on our GMing.

Its also one of those things you're more likely to have luck if the person has just absorbed it from the gestalt than if they've had it done personally; depending on the frequency and extent of the latter you may never be able to entirely get them beyond that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So I think @Thomas Shey is right to some extent. The solution is to stop playing with baggage-laden veterans. Find some kids and teach them to play.

I think to really avoid this, you need to find players who've had no contact with D&D culture at all, though, and among ones who'd be interested, that's going to just be harder and harder as time goes on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think to really avoid this, you need to find players who've had no contact with D&D culture at all, though, and among ones who'd be interested, that's going to just be harder and harder as time goes on.

I was being a little (just a little) facetious about only playing with kids who are brand new to the game.

There are obviously posters here who have lots of 'baggage' but have shifted to a new approach, and while I gripe about the players in my group who don't seem to want to try anything different, that doesn't describe everybody. So I don't think "no contact with D&D culture at all" is even remotely necessary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yeah, it is more satisfying to to figure to figure things out yourself than just solve the thing via a roll. Then again, I don’t think poking all the different things in all the different ways to get the clues is the interesting part. When possible, I try to build things so that you can gain/discover clues/information via skills and then they can figure out what the clues mean/imply using their own brains.

And people have to really learn that some people just don't get much out of some things of this nature. I can get some fun under limited circumstances from figuring out what's going on, but its limited, and actual puzzle solving just bores me to tears. If a GM is really fixed on that sort of thing, we're probably a mismatch, but until that's obvious, I'm probably going to do a lot of things to try to just engage with it on a character level to get to the parts of the game I do like. And I can't imagine I'm alone.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a very interesting observation which leads me to this: There seems to be an odd correlation at times between those who decry "meta-gaming" as "cheating" yet being ok with invoking skills on a character sheet - a very "meta-gamey" concept indeed - to direct gameplay.

I think that's missing the point; when not being a cover for other things, "metagaming" is an objection to the opposite of what you think; moving things up to the player level, since the "metagame" is knowledge the character won't have. Playing off the sheet is moving things down to the character; in its most degenerate form, it'd be the character running on autopilot. That's only "metagaming" if you consider anything having to do with the game elements at all metagaming.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I often wish that D&D didn't have an Intelligence ability score.

There is at least a coherent argument for removing all mental and social attributes and skills from characters from a certain perspective. Its at least consistent.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was being a little (just a little) facetious about only playing with kids who are brand new to the game.

There are obviously posters here who have lots of 'baggage' but have shifted to a new approach, and while I gripe about the players in my group who don't seem to want to try anything different, that doesn't describe everybody. So I don't think "no contact with D&D culture at all" is even remotely necessary.

To clarify, my comment is to be read as being necessary if you want to be sure you're not hitting someone with baggage or outright scar tissue here. You can, of course, have people who can get around their expectations here; but you probably won't know until after considerable attempts in many cases.

(Of course you can end up running into people who's baggage with some of what you want is unrelated to gaming, too.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I often wish that D&D didn't have an Intelligence ability score.

Yeah, if I had my druthers, Intelligence and Wisdom would be replaced with Perception and Willpower. Charisma is a tougher nut to crack, because it has the same “what if I’m not as charismatic as my character” problem, but I do think the game benefits from having a stat that applies in social situations.

 

[Reynard]

If this thread has taught me anything it is that more words does not equate to more communication. Oof.

Also, the more specific you feel you have to get to get your audience to understand what you are saying, the less likely that they are listening or engaging in good faith.

It's ironic because it's the forum equivalent of the "pixelbitching" some folks are decrying in this thread.

Maybe we can return to talking about the ACTUAL thread topic, which isn't really about Perception at all: players don't declare dice rolls, they declare actions, and GMs decide on what dice rolls, if any, are necessary. This is an interesting discussion, I think, because we can talk about traditional games versus story games versus player empowerment, with a healthy dose of prep vs "play to find out" thrown in.

This ever tightening spiral discussion about Perception is going nowhere very, very slowly.

 

[tetrasodium]

If this thread has taught me anything it is that more words does not equate to more communication. Oof.

Also, the more specific you feel you have to get to get your audience to understand what you are saying, the less likely that they are listening or engaging in good faith.

It's ironic because it's the forum equivalent of the "pixelbitching" some folks are decrying in this thread.

Maybe we can return to talking about the ACTUAL thread topic, which isn't really about Perception at all: players don't declare dice rolls, they declare actions, and GMs decide on what dice rolls, if any, are necessary. This is an interesting discussion, I think, because we can talk about traditional games versus story games versus player empowerment, with a healthy dose of prep vs "play to find out" thrown in.

This ever tightening spiral discussion about Perception is going nowhere very, very slowly.

In an effort to do that I can show an example from a game a couple years ago where my players had to deal with a trapped safe. Although technically it doesn't involve "perception" it dies nicely illustrate how a player needing to make action rather than just skill rolls changes play dramatically

Spoiler

I do [require action], the extra benefit of this kinda thing is thatmost of the group can get involved. I as a gm can describe the big bad's safe as radiating enough magic to make the wizards hair on the neck stand up & be palpably felt at a distance if he moves closer while my notes say "bug nasty safe, let players spend a few min figuring it out" only to result in the wizard/rogue/barbarian/druid interact with a bunch of knowledge checks that are ultimately part of the players dismantling the wards by....

• Disabling a divination ward that checks to make sure the other wards are in tact & triggers the patyload if it notces them being mucked with
  • you aren't sure how well it's gonna work if at all & there's a ton o power in that safe... yea you aren't sure the spell but your syure it's enough to power a disintegration field.
• corrupting the divination check to make the part looking for a specific arcane marked item to accept a different arcane marked item to be present when the safe is opened
  • Your pretty sure it will still go off maybe 50/50
• The druid casts plant growth or something to ground the payload into the foundation of the basement where the safe is with help from the wizard & rogue to make sure that vine grows into the right spot
• everyone runs far away... The barbarian rages, makes a save, & pulls open the door while holding the marked item as directed
  • Boom everyone hears a huge explosion & cloud of dust streaming out of the room
  • barbarian sits on pins and needles waiting to hear the outcome while everyone rushes in to help rescue him
  • barbarian is a little rattled & gets a description of the explosion with the vine taking the brunt of things but he took... roll dice not too bad damage & is okish

The party spent about 15-20 minutes there
edit: the solution was their own design. My yardstick as a gm was "is this plausible" and "would it prepare for that"

Because the players were required to decide upon & take actions this trap was able to play out in a pretty cool 15-20 minutes of gameplay involving the whole group really getting involved & working together. Had the group been able to just roll skills I think it would have been a forgettable check or annoying series of checks narrated to a railroaded party dragged through it.