D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[Oofta]

When it comes to checks I break it down into three rough categories.

1. Things you do physically. A PC searches a room or disables a trap. I can see how the approach could change chance of success even if I don't care for this.
2. Things you say for intimidation and persuasion. I take these into consideration when setting a DC.
3. Checks that you either do or you don't. You don't "do" anything when trying to remember something about a symbol or creature other than "I think about it". AKA, a knowledge check.

There are sometimes modifiers for some things like performance where I assume the person playing the bard doesn't have to break into song, but the choice of theme of the song may matter. If someone has a pre-established special knowledge that can matter (i.e. a sailor will know more about boats).

But for #3? Things such as knowledge checks? It's something you know or you don't. I used to amaze my wife that, for whatever reasons, I could identify make and usually model of most cars at a glance. But I never could have pointed out how exactly I knew this. It's accumulated knowledge, not something I can describe.

Then there's goals. When my wife asked me about those vehicles, it's no like I only pay attention to one thing. I'll note whether it's a sedan, pickup, SUV or crossover. I'll see the number of doors. If it's an old Mustang I'll remember that Steve McQueen drove one in the Bullit movie in a famous car chase scene. I just remember what I know about the car.

So that's what I don't get about some types of checks. Some I understand but disagree, my PC me be capable in disabling traps even though I'm not. But knowledge checks? Insight? Those are things are far too nebulous to state the "how". In addition, you don't know or notice just one thing. That's simply not how it works in real life.

In any case, people should do what makes sense to them. I'll just never understand how it adds value for some cases.

 

[jgsugden]

It’s not totally obvious. “I’m rolling a perception check” doesn’t tell me what the player is trying to accomplish or what the character is doing to try to accomplish it, it only tells me they think their training in perception is relevant to their chances of success...

It can be, and often is, entirely obvious what a player is trying to achieve when saying they want to roll a perception check. I'm really not sure how you can think otherwise given how often I've seen it as pretty much every table I've played at in the 5E era.

In these instances it is a shorthand for the the longer description you are requiring. It ends up meaning the same thing ... but just comes out in a fraction of the time.

So if it means the same thing, why is it potentially a bad thing to ask them to spell it out?

For one thing, pacing. Detail is slow. Detail kills momentum. Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace. It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies. Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next. Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on! Just read this paragraph and look at how the addition of more and more language slows the point and changes the tone.

For another thing, it is repetitive. Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach. Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling. As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions.

Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM. Every approach has limitations. Some reveal too much information. Some hide too much. Some create too much tension. Others result in not enough. Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it. By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach. Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It can be, and often is, entirely obvious what a player is trying to achieve when saying they want to roll a perception check. I'm really not sure how you can think otherwise given how often I've seen it as pretty much every table I've played at in the 5E era.

In these instances it is a shorthand for the the longer description you are requiring. It ends up meaning the same thing ... but just comes out in a fraction of the time.

So if it means the same thing, why is it potentially a bad thing to ask them to spell it out?

For one thing, pacing. Detail is slow. Detail kills momentum. Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace. It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies. Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next. Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on! Just read this paragraph and look at how the addition of more and more language slows the point and changes the tone.

For another thing, it is repetitive. Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach. Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling. As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions.

Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM. Every approach has limitations. Some reveal too much information. Some hide too much. Some create too much tension. Others result in not enough. Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it. By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach. Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility.

It also works the other way though. People are lazy. You let them get away with, "Perception check" on a regular basis, that's all you're going to get from them, and they'll complain if you later ask for more.

 

[iserith]

It can be, and often is, entirely obvious what a player is trying to achieve when saying they want to roll a perception check. I'm really not sure how you can think otherwise given how often I've seen it as pretty much every table I've played at in the 5E era.

How did people do it before ability checks or skill checks? They said what they wanted to do. And note that D&D 5e doesn't support the player asking for checks. That's the DM's role. Players asking for checks comes from previous versions of the game (or people learning from people who played previous versions of the game who brought that into D&D 5e).

Given that a failed roll results in a meaningful consequence for failure, why would I as a player even want to roll? You won't catch me asking to, and players at my table quickly learn that trusting your life to a d20 is not a great strategy if it can be avoided. Also that it's great to have Inspiration in your back pocket for when it can't be avoided (which is a very nice feedback loop that encourages consistent character portrayal).

So if it means the same thing, why is it potentially a bad thing to ask them to spell it out?

For one thing, pacing. Detail is slow. Detail kills momentum. Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace. It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies. Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next. Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on! Just read this paragraph and look at how the addition of more and more language slows the point and changes the tone.

For another thing, it is repetitive. Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach. Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling. As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions.

Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM. Every approach has limitations. Some reveal too much information. Some hide too much. Some create too much tension. Others result in not enough. Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it. By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach. Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility.

I'd bet real money that my game runs faster than just about anyone's. I know because a lot of people tell me that, both regulars, pickup groups, and observers. I also play in and watch other games that are standing still by comparison. So, no it has no appreciable impact on pacing. If anything, you end up saving time on hashing out misunderstandings or playing 20 Questions. (But the real time savings mostly come from digital dice and "Yes, and..." collaboration which is unrelated.)

It's also not repetitive, or at least needn't be. The context of a given situation while often similar is not really the same, so descriptions vary accordingly according to a player's approach to a goal. There's also no limit to versatility. It's as varied as the words the players and DM know and use. Some will be succinct. Some flowery. Some will use active roleplaying, others descriptive. But all convey what they want to do and how, which is at the heart of the approach - clear communication so that everyone's on the same page with what's going on in the fictional world.

 

[iserith]

It also works the other way though. People are lazy. You let them get away with, "Perception check" on a regular basis, that's all you're going to get from them, and they'll complain if you later ask for more.

Or, as someone expressed concern about in another thread, they potentially become suspicious as to why you're asking for more description all of a sudden and engage in "metagaming" or "takebacks."

 

[Oofta]

It also works the other way though. People are lazy. You let them get away with, "Perception check" on a regular basis, that's all you're going to get from them, and they'll complain if you later ask for more.

Except what, exactly are they supposed to add? It's not like they know what they aren't currently perceiving. At best people are just adding extra words for no reason, at worst it's the ultimate pixel batching.

Making a perception check covers sight, smell, sound, vibration, feeling a change in the temperature or air, any number of things. It represents taking a moment and paying attention to all those things and probably one or two I didn't mention. Say "I look around carefully" and a gotcha DM is going to tell you that you see nothing because you needed to listen. Listen and you needed to smell.

If you're not a gotcha DM, then all those extra words are pointless because "Perception check?" tells you the player means to do all those things.

 

[Mannahnin]

Except what, exactly are they supposed to add? It's not like they know what they aren't currently perceiving. At best people are just adding extra words for no reason, at worst it's the ultimate pixel batching.

Making a perception check covers sight, smell, sound, vibration, feeling a change in the temperature or air, any number of things. It represents taking a moment and paying attention to all those things and probably one or two I didn't mention. Say "I look around carefully" and a gotcha DM is going to tell you that you see nothing because you needed to listen. Listen and you needed to smell.

If you're not a gotcha DM, then all those extra words are pointless because "Perception check?" tells you the player means to do all those things.

This comment is really shocking coming after Iserith and Charlequin's explanations. It's like a combination of ignoring everything they've written while deliberately insulting them. "Adding extra words for no reason", "pixel bitching", "gotcha DM"... Are you trying to pick a fight?

 

[Oofta]

This comment is really shocking coming after Iserith and Charlequin's explanations. It's like a combination of ignoring everything they've written while deliberately insulting them. "Adding extra words for no reason", "pixel bitching", "gotcha DM"... Are you trying to pick a fight?

I can see why people asking for details for searching a room or disabling a trap even if I don't care for it. But perception checks? If my PC is asking for a perception check, what options are there? Where you have to ask for specifics? Yes, that is pixel bitching. I can't think of any other phrase that fits.

In past games I have allowed people to notice all sorts of things with perception checks. Perhaps you don't see anything but you smell the stench of troglodytes. Perhaps you can't see that invisible creature but you can hear it. Maybe it's a ghost and the air suddenly becomes chilled. The air pressure changes suddenly and there's a small gust of wind as someone opens a hatch. The things people can sense are only limited to the imagination of the DM describing the scene.

If a DM gives you information about something you hear when you said you looked around then saying you look around is effectively asking for a perception check using different words. If it's not, then as a player I would start a check list. Every time I wanted to make a perception check I would say "I look around, listen carefully, do I notice anything?" If the DM then says I didn't ask for smell, I'd add smell to the checklist and ask for it next time. All along all I really wanted was a perception check, stopping for a moment paying close attention to all my senses. If "I stop for a moment and pay close attention to all my senses to see if I notice anything unusual" works, then all that's been accomplished is replacing 2 words with 20.

Maybe there's something I'm missing. Maybe there's something added to the declarations that make the game more engaging for people. But details are almost never forthcoming when asked. All I can say is that I have never played in, seen, nor even heard of anyone outside of this message board require goal and approach for something like perception checks.

 

[Voadam]

Except what, exactly are they supposed to add? It's not like they know what they aren't currently perceiving. At best people are just adding extra words for no reason, at worst it's the ultimate pixel batching.

Making a perception check covers sight, smell, sound, vibration, feeling a change in the temperature or air, any number of things. It represents taking a moment and paying attention to all those things and probably one or two I didn't mention. Say "I look around carefully" and a gotcha DM is going to tell you that you see nothing because you needed to listen. Listen and you needed to smell.

If you're not a gotcha DM, then all those extra words are pointless because "Perception check?" tells you the player means to do all those things.

The PHB gives examples of specific active uses of perception.

Page 178:

Perception. Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are ogres lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.

FINDING A HIDDEN OBJECT
When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.
In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom ( Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.

Your senses of things you don't see that you are not specifically looking for is generally handled with passive perception.

Page 177:

HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.

 

[Mannahnin]

I can see why people asking for details for searching a room or disabling a trap even if I don't care for it. But perception checks? If my PC is asking for a perception check, what options are there? Where you have to ask for specifics? Yes, that is pixel bitching. I can't think of any other phrase that fits.

In past games I have allowed people to notice all sorts of things with perception checks. Perhaps you don't see anything but you smell the stench of troglodytes. Perhaps you can't see that invisible creature but you can hear it. Maybe it's a ghost and the air suddenly becomes chilled. The air pressure changes suddenly and there's a small gust of wind as someone opens a hatch. The things people can sense are only limited to the imagination of the DM describing the scene.

If a DM gives you information about something you hear when you said you looked around then saying you look around is effectively asking for a perception check using different words. If it's not, then as a player I would start a check list. Every time I wanted to make a perception check I would say "I look around, listen carefully, do I notice anything?" If the DM then says I didn't ask for smell, I'd add smell to the checklist and ask for it next time. All along all I really wanted was a perception check, stopping for a moment paying close attention to all my senses. If "I stop for a moment and pay close attention to all my senses to see if I notice anything unusual" works, then all that's been accomplished is replacing 2 words with 20.

This sounds like you're saying that you use active perception checks as a prompt from the players to remind you to give more details you may have forgotten to in the first place. As Voadam noted, anything that you can just stand there and notice is supposed to be covered by Passive Perception.

The baseline rule is that if it's something you could notice just by stopping and standing there, using your senses, you would have noticed it with Passive Perception. So the question is, what are you interacting with/examining more closely/actually doing to change the situation and give yourself a chance of seeing/hearing/smelling something else?

Maybe there's something I'm missing. Maybe there's something added to the declarations that make the game more engaging for people. But details are almost never forthcoming when asked. All I can say is that I have never played in, seen, nor even heard of anyone outside of this message board require goal and approach for something like perception checks.

Literally all those details you say are "never forthcoming when asked" have been repeatedly provided to you, including in this thread. I'm in a state of some disbelief.