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

[Reynard]

Its just very tiring to have to reword "I want to make a Perception check" a thousand times in a campaign.

You get tired of describing your character's actions in play?

 

[Charlaquin]

Its just very tiring to have to reword "I want to make a Perception check" a thousand times in a campaign.

People want to do a Perception check because they are trained that Perception is what unlocks goodies, dangers, or new information. If you don't want them to say it all the time, you need to just giving out better information, or you need to tell them you rely on passive Perception and instead only use Perception checks when called for by you.

Yeah, setting expectations is important especially because so many players are used to ability checks being the only way to succeed at anything.

 

[Reynard]

So, "No, I pause and really look instead of just our usual caution" would work?

For me it would. The player is clarifying intent.

I think some folks are ignoring the fact that the player will be getting some information about what their characters experiences and perceives just as a matter of course. Dice rolls come as a result of actions performed by the characters with uncertain outcomes, so in order to "make a perception check" the character must actually do something.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except, it isn't. Because the player likely hasn't internalized your personal take on the lingo. Declaring "I look around" is a statement that the character is taking somewhat more care and attention on it.

You’re the one who said the default assumption is that the PCs are a bit paranoid and are always looking around. They should already have been putting their care and attention on it.

Passive Perception, Investigation, or Insight) don't take an action, but Search using any of these does.

They don’t require an action declaration, but they represent activity on the character’s part. Getting a different result requires a different activity.

 

[Cadence]

For me it would. The player is clarifying intent.

I think some folks are ignoring the fact that the player will be getting some information about what their characters experiences and perceives just as a matter of course. Dice rolls come as a result of actions performed by the characters with uncertain outcomes, so in order to "make a perception check" the character must actually do something.

Fair enough.

(That's what I would have taken the extra "I look" to be if it was said in an situation where it was assumed they already did a general look as part of the usual set-up.)

But I agree it feels like the players at the table would figure out pretty quickly if there DM did it your way instead of mine.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, "No, I pause and really look instead of just our usual caution" would work?

(That's what I would have taken the extra "I look" to be if it was said in an situation where it was assumed they already did a general look as part of the usual set-up.)

I would say something along the lines of “I assumed you were really looking. But I’m hearing that you want to find out if there’s anything hidden here that you may have missed. What does your character do to try and find that out?”

 

[iserith]

I have not noticed that... infact what I have found is almost (but not exactly) the reverse.

players that don't ask for rolls or call skills are used to DMs (or GMS if not from D&D) that hide auto successes behind real world information or player skill...

I also find that it is FAR easier to get a player that is used to having to 'figure it out in game not out of game' to play a variety of characters with different abilities (shy people playing out going bards or warlocks as the face of the party)... and the best part is once they realize if they say something wrong but there character would know better, I find they open up to TRY to say things more...

It's a game. As with many games, player skill matters to some degree. In this case, the skill is in listening, imagining what's happening, then responding to it with reasonable specificity in an effort to solve a problem. This doesn't require a shy player to engage in active roleplaying with which they may not be comfortable. They just say what they want to do and achieve so the DM can adjudicate the action. No dramatic acting necessary.

is the opposite of what I want from an RPG. because yea there are 100 times you should auto succeed or auto fail (I even make it MORE oftent PCs trained in something don't need to roll) but it should (IMO) ALWAYS be about the character skill and rarely or never the players...
having a -1 persuasion and having a +17 persuasion should mean something even when not rolling... that is how good (or bad) your character is about persuading... just like having a -1 to hit is very different then a +17 to hit. It doesn't matter if out of game I can make the ultimate argument of logic that everyone would agree to...my character can't he has a -1, and it doesn't matter that you can't frame an argument to save your life, your character can they have a +17...

just like it doesn't matter that I have no idea how to swing a sword, or how to pierce full plate let alone a dragon. If I describe it as "I attack" and have a +17... it doesn't matter if you have trained in martial arts for 50 years and can describe perfectly how to slide your blade into the weak spot of the armor... you have a -1.


so yeah avoiding rolling is great, I do it alot just based on the numbers on the sheet. But not becuse someone said the write words.

There is no scenario in which player skill doesn't apply. The character is a lifeless husk. At a minimum, the player has to position the character in a way to make their action have a chance of success. If the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure, then the DM calls for a roll. If either of those conditions are lacking, the DM rules automatic success or failure, no roll. So the smart play in my view is to try to think about how to remove uncertainty and/or the meaningful consequence of failure. Succeeding automatically is far better than relying on the swing of a d20.

 

[Shardstone]

You get tired of describing your character's actions in play?

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes I have low energy, or had a rough day, or really just want the scene to move on.

 

[Reynard]

But I agree it feels like the players at the table would figure out pretty quickly if there DM did it your way instead of mine.

Oh, for sure. After a couple times you are inevitably going to have a conversation and figure it out.

Except that one player, who forgets in the week between every session and declares, "I make a perception check ::clatter::" every time his character enters a room...

 

[Reynard]

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes I have low energy, or had a rough day, or really just want the scene to move on.

A good solution for this are those Standard Operating Procedures we talked about upthread. Players are free, even encouraged, to set marching order and standard hallway and door actions. The GM should take that into account when describing things and adjudicating passive perception, etc.