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

[Charlaquin]

I was watching an episode of Stargate: Atlantis recently that had an interesting idea (IMO) for a secret door.

There is a hallway with a solid wall at the end.

As you walk to the solid wall at the end of the hallway, there are 3 lamps - set about 5 feet apart (one after the other - along the way to the solid wall). If you touch each lamp 1 after the other, as you are walking, (if you stop it doesn't work) and THEN walk "into" the wall, the wall is not solid (even though it still looks solid) and you walk into the next room.

@Charlaquin , @GMforPowergamers , @iserith - or anyone who wants to really.

If you were DMing, how would finding this "secret door," likely, work in your session? How would it look?

Woah, neat. I would probably not have thought of such a door concealing mechanism, but it does sound very cool. I could see something like that showing up in a Tomb of Horrors style puzzle-dungeon. That would be a very difficult door to telegraph, because it doesn’t sound like there’s anything you’d be able to tell about it just by looking at the hallway. I probably wouldn’t have a door like this show up as a random one-off. I’d need to lay some early groundwork to establish that these sorts of permeable walls are a thing in this dungeon, and that touching certain objects can activate them. There are many ways I might go about planting that seed. Maybe they could pick up a hint about such devices as a rumor. Or maybe they could find a corpse of a dead adventurer in the dungeon who has a journal that describes finding one of these walls and how they opened it. Or maybe they could happen upon an unaware creature as it’s opening one of them. Or maybe they find a note on a defeated enemy from its superior, exhasperatedly explaining how to get past these secret doors “for the last time!” and stressing the importance of burning the note after reading it. Most likely I would use more than one of these clues, since any of them have the potential to be missed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think this just further reveals that we think about roleplaying differently. My definition, taken from the rules, includes things like sitting around the tavern and telling stories or having a reaction to the character's dead father, but also includes every other thing the character does, thinks, and says that I establish.

I mean my list wasn't exhaustive.

But so far as I can tell from your posts, much of this doesn't matter at all in the game except as "narrative," whatever that means, or "fluff" as you said upthread.

yeah... the narrative part of the game... I am confused here again.
like the whole point (IMO) of the RPG is to roleplay. SO when you say there is no point... I wonder why you play RPGs.

Whether I use a random argument with the king or one that is based on the very things he is saying, I'm still rolling, it doesn't affect the DC, and I don't have a chance at getting adv/disadv from the DM. I can't even get Inspiration for adding to the "narrative" or "fluff." To me, these incentives need to be aligned for the game to work as intended.

i disagree the game runs perfectly without those things

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay I have been lurking for over a day now but I think it’s safe to enter this part without being dragged into the “can you name a skill” thing


Handprints and footprints.

I would have a passive perception motive hand prints on each and the if they pay attention or look at all go with investigate or survival (tracking) to notice that the foot prints don’t stop at the lamps so they must touch them on the way by.

amazing

 

[GMforPowergamers]

@Swarmkeeper asked you, if there was a door concealed behind a tapestry, how would you determine if the PC found it, and what would you do if they failed a check to search the room and then said they look behind the tapestry. You said you would use passive Perception. If I have misunderstood how you would resolve that, by all means, clarify.

I don't understand at all... it isn't something that has come up or will most likely ever come up... becuse if I ran a door just needing a physcial object in the way I would just give that to the trained in perception character as room description.

at no point in my games will I make players move everything to see what is or isn't behind it

 

[iserith]

I mean my list wasn't exhaustive.

yeah... the narrative part of the game... I am confused here again.
like the whole point (IMO) of the RPG is to roleplay. SO when you say there is no point... I wonder why you play RPGs.

i disagree the game runs perfectly without those things

The point is to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story by playing. Or at least, that's the goal. Part of doing that is roleplaying as your character - deciding what they do, think, and say. But part of the game is also overcoming challenges where what you decide the character does, thinks, and says matters. You seem to fight against that very notion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't understand at all... it isn't something that has come up or will most likely ever come up... becuse if I ran a door just needing a physcial object in the way I would just give that to the trained in perception character as room description.

at no point in my games will I make players move everything to see what is or isn't behind it

I’m not suggesting you’d make your players move everything to see what’s behind it. I’m asking what you would do if, after failing to find something that was hidden behind something else (for example, if they said they searched the room and then didn’t roll high enough to find it), they then said they looked behind the thing. They would be allowed to do that, right? You’ve said that you’ll accept more specific action declarations of players make them, you just don’t require them. So, what happens if a player fails the check for a general action, and then declares a related but more specific action?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The point is to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story by playing. Or at least, that's the goal. Part of doing that is roleplaying as your character - deciding what they do, think, and say. But part of the game is also overcoming challenges where what you decide the character does, thinks, and says matters. You seem to fight against that very notion.

what I fight against is player skill vs character skill...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I’m not suggesting you’d make your players move everything to see what’s behind it.

okay my phraseing was bad. I would not set up part of the game where in order to continue to part of the adventure (I at least hope what ever is behind the book case or tapestry is optional extra and not the goal of the dungeon/encounter site) realys on then saying the words "I look behind the ______"

if I had to do this (say running an adventure) I would default to what the adventure wrote... but I would never plan this way...

if there is something hidden as just 'move X to open" I would just give it to the perceptive character... "Oh and X notices Y"

I do not understand the fun of having a room to search and having to go 1 by 1 "I check under the bed" "I check behind the night stand" "I check under the carpet" "I check behind the armour" "I check behind the book shelf...YATZEE!"

like what do you do if no one says the right thing to look behind?

I’m asking what you would do if, after failing to find something that was hidden behind something else (for example, if they said they searched the room and then didn’t roll high enough to find it), they then said they looked behind the thing.

again... if they asked to search (with any level of description) and I had them roll (perception or investigation or what ever) and they didn't hit the DC... they searched everywhere there would be no reason to keep moving things. I don't understand in what circumstance someone searches, finds nothing, BUT then looks behind the tapestry (and why was looking and searching not doing that already?)

They would be allowed to do that, right? You’ve said that you’ll accept more specific action declarations of players make them, you just don’t require them. So, what happens if a player fails the check for a general action, and then declares a related but more specific action?

they don't... the whole point of the general action is to avoid the description... in all of these years I never had a player switch from "I don't want to RP this can we skip" to "Wait now that i failed I want to RP this to try again"
I don't know how to handle this... I mean why would they care enough to want a second bite at the apple if they didn't care enough to RP it to begin with?

 

[iserith]

what I fight against is player skill vs character skill...

There's really no "versus" there. They work hand in glove.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's really no "versus" there. They work hand in glove.

I will agree they work togather, but me and mine work to minimize one and maximize another.