How did I not see a beholder?

[mmadsen]

Exploring a dungeon falls into the normal circumstance. The brain is not looking for anything hyper-specific, and thus generally sees obvious threats.

I think it's accurate to say that you will find what you're looking for, and you will not see things you're not looking for -- even if they're really, really "obvious".

For instance, if you're creeping down an underground corridor, yes, you will tend to spot a monster that jumps out at you. On the other hand, if you're, say, jumping from platform to platform, avoiding a diabolical trap, or fighting a roper that has grabbed your companion, you might completely miss the goblin archers arraying themselves on the balconies above you. In fact, you might miss the ogre coming in the door.

 

[airwalkrr]

I saw the gorilla, but thought it was there to distract me, like el-remmen. Interesting to note though. I've never had a problem with checks to see things. The random roll is supposed to simulate (poorly, but good enough for a game like D&D) factors such as relative darkness, whether you are looking in the right direction at the time, how distracted you are, etc. There are myriad reasons for why you might fail to notice a beholder sneaking up on you. It's not because the beholder is right in front of your face and you are stupid, but rather because you were doing something that precluded you from noticing. Whereas a roll of '20' might indicate you are looking in the right direction and are completely focused, a roll of '1' might indicate you are daydreaming at the moment, or turning your head to discuss something with another party member. The basic idea is very reasonable. The only problem is whether the system is an accurate simulation of such things. Making an argument against the system's accuracy is much easier than making an argument against the underlying rationality of a roll to see something.

Exploring a dungeon falls into the normal circumstance. The brain is not looking for anything hyper-specific, and thus generally sees obvious threats.

You might have a point if adventurers had 360 degree vision, but they don't. The case can still be made that a poor roll indicates the character wasn't looking in the right direction at the time. I know there isn't facing in D&D any longer, but that is only a generalization for combat rounds, and it isn't a very accurate one at that. But it sure makes gameplay go a hell of a lot quicker.

 

[Angrydad]

I'd rule that as long as the monster is trying to remain hidden, then the PCs have to make a Perception roll of some sort. If it's just chilling in the middle of the room though, unless the PCs have a negative modifier to their Perception skills I wouldn't require a roll.

 

[avin]

Read too fast and watched first time counting how many white shirt people shows in.

I'd roll tests for monsters appearing in the middle of combat, always.

 

[Janx]

I think it's accurate to say that you will find what you're looking for, and you will not see things you're not looking for -- even if they're really, really "obvious".

For instance, if you're creeping down an underground corridor, yes, you will tend to spot a monster that jumps out at you. On the other hand, if you're, say, jumping from platform to platform, avoiding a diabolical trap, or fighting a roper that has grabbed your companion, you might completely miss the goblin archers arraying themselves on the balconies above you. In fact, you might miss the ogre coming in the door.

I don't think it's quite that distractable (play some FPS games for awhile).

Generally, if it moves, I'll probably see it. Especially if I'm expecting enemy attack. I play on a 1080i HD widescreen. It's almost as good as really being there.

Cases I don't see things:
finding a spice from the spice cabinet. I've gone through that entire thing, and couldn't find stuff. Wife can walk up and show me exactly where it is. This is a situation of NOT seeing what I'm looking for, amidst a pile of similar items.

wearing an eye-patch. I got surprised bunches of times during renfair, on my patch side. Loss of 50% peripheral vision. I'm right-eye dominant, so I don't use my left for seeing, so much as peripheral extension. It's really hard taking the vision test at the DMV, because I have to conciously switch to my left eye for some of the slides.


It looks like there's enough data, and rationalizations to justify rolling or not rolling perception checks. I'd recommend using the rationalization/explanation that justifies the RAW.

 

[Relique du Madde]

... I spotted the gorrilla... but not the assassin who backstabbed me while i was watching the video.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The video demonstrates why we might fail to perceive somthing that is there, because we were distracted by another task but does not say wether we should be making the preception check or the DM rolling hide againt our passive perception. I prefer the latter because that way the players don't get to tell the characters.

 

[Gruns]

So...

So is the answer 14?

And yes, I saw the gorilla...

As an aside, I had my wife do it, and she counted 10. And said "What gorilla?"...

Gruns

 

[Midnight Dawns]

Wow, I missed it. My vision effectively tunneled so I just focused on those wearing white and all movement from the players wearing black was ignored. Had the costume been white or had you asked to watch those wearing black I think I would have noticed the women in the costume.

 

[Imban]

14, and I saw the gorilla. I personally don't have a problem with Perception checks, though, because I've had the Combat Stress thing happen more than a few times in laser tag (with all the noise, it can be hard to notice people who are moving in such a way as to collide with you) and it represents things like you just looking the wrong way at the wrong time.

I mean, sure I saw the gorilla, but I could still nat 1 the Perception check against that assassin to my left...