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

[Demetrios1453]

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

In my group, it's perfectly acceptable to do that, both in games I've played and games I've DMed.

The DM might say, "In this case it would be a 'x' check instead", but there would be no ruffled feathers if a player asks for a check instead of describing what they are doing. It's a perfectly acceptable shortcut. I've never understood why DMs say they don't like this.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except, it isn't. Because the player likely hasn't internalized your personal take on the lingo.

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.)

yeah this is what I mean by word games...

Do you understand the intent? if I say 'Diplomacy' everyone at all of my tables would get what I meant (although I would not be surprised if half or more posting here do not, cause it is table jargon) but if I go into detail for what I mean by it everyone knows too... my intent either way is clear at teh table.

I look around seems pretty clear to me

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

in detail... sometimes yes

 

[Demetrios1453]

What were Cleopatra's religious practices like?

The typical Egyptian-Greek syncronism of her Ptolemaic Dynasty.

 

[Jer]

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...

Another thing I was thinking - some players really want to roll dice.

Like my usual approach to Knowledge checks in games is to assume that if the character has the skill, we generally don't need to roll to see if they know something in that area. Only if there's some kind of pressure or the information is particularly obscure or if there are tiers of information (like you get X for free with the skill, but if you roll over Y you also know Z) do I usually ask for a check.

Except for one of my players, who I will always ask for a roll when he's the only one with a particular Knowledge-type skill. Because he hates that approach - he wants to roll dice. If there's a number on the sheet it needs to be used. So in deference to his desire to roll dice I allow it and if he misses his roll, well, his character wasn't paying attention in school the day that the Arcana instructor was detailing the particular kind of ritual that they're seeing evidence of here. He likes it that way and in general the other players have figured out how to work around that particular quirk of his.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?”

my character interact with the world like a person who is both smarter and more perceptive then me, and one that grew up in a fantasy setting with all the tropes of this world intact, unlike me that grew up in the real world... so can my character check?

 

[iserith]

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?”

Right. I'm going to describe the environment including the basic scope of options that present themselves to the PCs. That is what is required of me as the DM by the rules. I will err on the side of being too generous rather than too stingy with information - with an eye toward being succinct - because only so much is going to be absorbed by the players anyway.

But there may be other things going on in that situation that aren't so obvious to the characters. Perhaps there's a hidden cache of treasure or a lurking monster or trap ready to slay the unwary. If you want to discover those things, you have to describe what you want to do - outlined by the rules as the player's role - and then I'll tell you how it works out, sometimes calling for a roll. (Often this means you're also going to have to pay for the privilege with the resource of time.)

 

[Charlaquin]

In my group, it's perfectly acceptable to do that, both in games I've played amd games ive DMed.

The DM might say, "In this case it would be a 'x' check instead", but there would be no ruffled feathers if a player asks for a check instead of describing what they are doing. It's a perfectly acceptable shortcut. I've never understood why DMs say they don't like this.

For some DMs it doesn’t work as a shortcut because it doesn’t convey enough information for them to assess the possibility of success and failure and determine potential consequences for failure the way they prefer to do. Personally, I prefer to consider what the player wants to accomplish and what the character does to try and achieve that goal. Asking to make a perception check doesn’t really convey all of that information, it only tells me that the player wants to find something and that they think the character’s sensory acuity will be relevant in helping them find it. But I don’t know what they’re hoping to find (“anything of interest” would be valid here, but I don’t want to assume that on the player’s behalf) or what the character is doing to try to find it, so I can’t properly determine if they succeed, fail, or need to make a check and at what DC, without making assumptions about their intent and the character’s actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

my character interact with the world like a person who is both smarter and more perceptive then me, and one that grew up in a fantasy setting with all the tropes of this world intact, unlike me that grew up in the real world... so can my character check?

Yes, they did so, and I have already described the results of them doing so. Is there anything else you would like to do?

 

[Umbran]

in detail... sometimes yes

Yeah - like when the results aren't very dependent on the declaration, or I am repeating actions several times. If you're in a combat and mostly using a cantrip or basic attack, "I attack with X," seems sufficient.