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

Reynard

aka Ian Eller
Supporter
For context, this mini-rant is based on an event from my Iron Gods 5E conversion campaign last night, but goes beyond that. I am starting an OSE game soon with another group of folks and I expect similar issues there.

"I make a perception check" is not a valid action declaration in any version of D&D. One does not "make a perception check." One looks around, or stops and waits and listens at the door, or moves very carefully and slowly down the corridor while testing each flagstone, or runs their fingers along the edges of the old desk, or carefully pulls one book off the shelf after another. There is no "perception check" in the fiction of the game world. Stop doing that. Tell me what you DO.

I have had this argument with players constantly, and every time remind them that they need to explain what they are doing, how they are "making a perception" check. For a couple of them, itis just ingrained 3.x habits that they are working to shake. But for a couple others they just can't seem to grok that "I make a perception check" is not an actual thing.

::sigh:: /end rant
 

log in or register to remove this ad

When players do this to me, I respond with: What are you doing? What does that look like? It wouldn’t be sufficient to declare “I make an attack roll” in combat without establishing the target(s), so the same should be the case for skill checks.
 


A pet peeve here, but aren’t you describing an investigation check there, rather than a perception check?

Running fingers and methodically testing each flagstone seems much more like the 'you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues' of Investigation than the 'general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses' of Perception. I would argue that as soon as you start actively investigating, you are Investigating.

For me, Perception would indeed be 'what can I see/smell/hear?', so I'd only really need the sense they were using and nothing more.
 

I'm constantly have to remind my player to provide an action, and I will tell them which, if any ability to roll. Mostly they will ask instead of declare, but that's as annoying.
This is an important distinction. I, as DM, should never say "you can't do that" when a player declares an action. All I should to is adjudicate whether it needs a roll, and if so, what. But it needs to be a VALID action that their character could perform in the world in which play takes place.
 

A pet peeve here, but aren’t you describing an investigation check there, rather than a perception check?

Running fingers and methodically testing each flagstone seems much more like the 'you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues' of Investigation than the 'general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses' of Perception.
What difference does it make? Half of those examples might be investigation checks -- if the version of D&D in question has an Investigation skill. That's not the point.
 

What difference does it make? Half of those examples might be investigation checks -- if the version of D&D in question has an Investigation skill. That's not the point.
About as much as someone saying 'I make a Perception check' as opposed to narratively describing a search! ;)

It over-values Perception as a skill. It's like asking to roll Persusasion to tell a lie - it's not the right skill. If the DM is going to insist on detail about how I use a skill, they should probably be asking for the right skill in the first place.

The current version of D&D has an Investigation skill. Why not use it if that's the version you are playing, which from your OP is the case?
 

I have had this argument with players constantly, and every time remind them that they need to explain what they are doing, how they are "making a perception" check. For a couple of them, itis just ingrained 3.x habits that they are working to shake. But for a couple others they just can't seem to grok that "I make a perception check" is not an actual thing.

This is a rant, so feel free to ignore this...

Are you giving them any real reason to not do this? I mean, aside from just being annoyed with them?

Players (and GMs, honestly) are going to form mental shortcuts when taking the long way around does not matter. If the vast majority of "I look around" action declarations end in the exact same mechanical resolution, you are teaching them that the declaration is not material. If you are always going to just call for a Perception check anyway, why not both of you just cut to the chase?
 

Speaking personally as a DM... after the 17th time of the players describing their "action", which is "listen and look for anything out there in front of me that could be hidden behind stuff that is ready to jump out"... I have had no problem reducing that long, drawn out sentence to "I make a Perception check".

The only time I ask for detailed description of action is when a PC is searching for a hidden door or trap, or looking for items tucked away in a room. Because if they can find the area or item via description... then they don't need to make an Investigation check.
 

This is a rant, so feel free to ignore this...

Are you giving them any real reason to not do this? I mean, aside from just being annoyed with them?

Players (and GMs, honestly) are going to form mental shortcuts when taking the long way around does not matter. If the vast majority of "I look around" action declarations end in the exact same mechanical resolution, you are teaching them that the declaration is not material. If you are always going to just call for a Perception check anyway, why not both of you just cut to the chase?
"I look around" doesn't usually result in a perception check, either. I just tell them what they see.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top