Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Benji" data-source="post: 7758554" data-attributes="member: 6793743">Ok, I get what you're saying and it's good advice for dm's to never assume a point of reference. But if the the 'gloves' example, the gloves are instead just a clue the players can gather to make the solving of a mystery easier (they don't need it, but it might help) then it's a slightly different discussion. Then the 'meaningful failure' is 'we don't find clue'. Here's where we differ, I think. I view perception (and other skills) as a fundamentally different player resource than you. You use it to determine if a player has suceeded at and action, which is fine but I also view it (and I'm not saying my way is the only way) as a way to differentiate characters from each other. Players who have higher passive perception scores are generally more alert individuals and therefore I tend to describe a scene in basic and then say to players who have a high score things like 'but you notice'. Just the same if a player has higher arcana I'd tell them a few things about magical items on a table that other players might not know. This means players who have higher perception get to be the scouts of the group, sensing stuff before anyone else. They feel like the choice to have perception as a proficent skill was worthwhile. That said, I think it'd only be in the area of passive perception we differ and where that becomes real perception role. This is getting off topic but if you say that players who are actively taking watch use their passive perception, when do they get to actually roll a perception check? Do they have to be stood attention not talking to anyone to get the good numbers?I would also note that I've had players tell me they aren't paying attention in a scene and want to take a disadvantage or straight up fail. I've never had a problem with that.</blockquote>

Verification