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

[Celebrim]

Earlier someone, don’t remember who, said that their response to a player describing a particularly clever approach would be “cool idea! Roll [whatever] to see how well your character pulls it off.” And as a player, that would frustrate the heck out of me. In fact, I’ve had exactly such an experience before in an online game. We were petitioning the chief of a Barbarian clan for aid or something, and throughout this scene I had been listening carefully to the DM’s portrayal of her, listening to what she says, trying to get a good idea of who she is, what she values, etc. I choose my moment carefully, and at what I think will be an appropriately dramatic point in the conversation, I deliver my carefully thought-out argument for why the chief should help us, and…

“Make a persuasion check.”

For all that effort, I don’t even get so much as advantage. What the heck was the point?

You are talking about an earlier dialogue I was involved in and I said for my part that while I agreed with the process, it left out a step and that part it left off was making the rules conform to the fictional position by giving advantage or disadvantage as appropriate to the circumstance.

Persuading someone to do something shouldn't have a fixed difficulty. Persuading your wife to pass you the salt shouldn't be a difficult check. People should want to do things that are in their own interests. People normally are happy to do things that don't cost them much. If you explain why your petition is within the interests of the person, that should matter. Fictional positioning should matter.

Now it could be the case that your character is just a terrible public speaker and rolling low and failing is appropriate because your character stumbled and stuttered and in his awkwardness the chief didn't even quite get the point (this happens several times to good effect in Avatar the Last Airbender cartoons), but I do agree with you that if you the player outline a good plan in any situation - including a social situation - that should alter the difficulty.

It's easier to climb a wall with handholds than a wall covered with ice. If you've discovered the secret wall with handholds, you shouldn't roll at the same difficulty as if you hadn't.

A classic example would be the difference between:

a) "I try to intimidate the Burgomeister into changing his vote." Ok, roll intimidate.
b) "I present the Burgomeister with copies of the letters and the pages from the ledger that proves he's embezzling funds from the city to fund a mistress. I then say, "Dear Master Hoff. Let's come to some agreement. These never need to see public light. I have nothing against you making a little extra on the side. I have no interest in scandals. So this is how you will vote in tomorrow's council session." Ok, roll intimidate.

Notice the biggest difference is not the presence of RP, although RP is GREAT. The biggest difference is the presence of clear leverage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah that would be frustrating.

My general method is to have a set DC, but to pay attention to what the player is saying and to make sure that adds to their roll (effectivelly modifying the DC). So the closer the PC can get to aligning with the NPCs interests the more likely they are to succeed.

I Still have the player roll for their PC, because there ARE varying levels of success. Say they are trying to convince the king that there is a threat in his castle. a basic success (say DC 10, made with advantage if the player made a good case or even advantage +5 if the king can't possibly be anything but convinced) may convince the king to let the PCs investigate unimpeded. A great success (say DC 15) would have the king offering assistance, guards or whatever. A truly amazing success (say the PC hits DC 25) could have the king offering access to his armory or magic item stash.

This way any player, even one not trained in persuasion can "convince the king" if they are careful and paying attention. But a player whos PC is trained in persuasion and is ALSO paying attention and making an effort can get better benefits/success because that's their PCs schtick.

Yeah, to be clear, it didn’t bother me that I had to make a roll. That’s perfectly understandable in my mind, I can definitely see that the action had an uncertain outcome. The issue for me was that it felt like the roll was the only thing that mattered. This would have been a perfect opportunity to grant advantage, or use “failing forward,” or combine progress with a setback, or like… anything other than a straight-up roll and zero progress when I failed it.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, and to be fair my character did have low Charisma. Of course, that was because she was an ill-mannered Barbarian, which doesn’t seem like it would have been a huge detriment in that situation. But still, I could understand the DM not wanting to rule auto-success just because I “roleplayed well” or whatever. The issue was that I felt that effort was completely wasted. Not only did I not get advantage for playing on the chief’s values, but because I rolled low, my speech was completely ineffective. I mean the DM could have at least given me progress combined with a setback, right? Like, she finds my words convincing, but demands I perform some kind of trial to prove myself through action? Something? Anything?

Yes, I agree. I'm not at all opposed to a low charisma character failing at a social check despite the circumstances. But the circumstances should matter. So in my game you've brought forward at least three circumstances that would be informing the scenario if I was running it:

a) There are set penalties for xenophobia in my game when a character is influencing another character of a different culture. Simply put, elves are more likely to listen to other elves than a dwarf, because racism is rampant in my setting. So if your party is speaking to members of a different culture - "barbarians" - everyone who isn't part of that culture in my game would already have increased DC. If on the other hand your barbarian was from the same culture, you'd know the customs and ways of that culture and would put them more at ease and so potentially wouldn't have the xenophobia penalty on your social interactions.
b) The starting disposition of the chief toward you can be radically different. If the Barbarians actively dislike members of a culture, then they may start with a disposition of antipathy or hostility rather than apathy. That has a huge impact on the chance that someone is going to listen to you. I had a character who was a low charisma Hobgoblin in my game, and the party encountered a goblin knight in the forest. Between the xenophobia penalty and the fact that the goblin had neutral disposition toward the strange Hobgoblin, the Hobgoblins effective social skills were actually better than the elven face in the party whom the goblin reflexively hated and would have liked to kill (and probably would have if he wasn't outnumbered). Effectively the face was operating at a -15 penalty because the knight hated and distrusted elves. The party wisely let the Hobgoblin do the talking, which they would never have done in the Court of Talernga where the Hobgoblin was viewed as a rather smelly mangy dog that probably should be put down and gods only knew why the heroes kept their "pet".
c) And on top of that you've outlined a plan that should influence the Chieftain and so should have some specific and not general circumstance modifier.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, to be clear, it didn’t bother me that I had to make a roll. That’s perfectly understandable in my mind, I can definitely see that the action had an uncertain outcome. The issue for me was that it felt like the roll was the only thing that mattered. This would have been a perfect opportunity to grant advantage, or use “failing forward,” or combine progress with a setback, or like… anything other than a straight-up roll and zero progress when I failed it.

I think you've hit one of the "big" issues (many people have) with a player just going "I roll perception..." rolls dice

In addition to being confusing for the DM (It's an odd interrupt to the game flow and if too many players do it unprompted, especially at the same time, it's a mess for the DM).

It provides no opportunity to use anything other than a static DC. The DM can't grant advantage or a bonus based on context or content. So the player is actually accepting a higher probability of failure than they would have had they provided those things (context, content etc.) And that can be frustrating for the player.

That said, for me, I'll go with it. If a player just wants to leave it to chance (or their PCs excellent skill, if they have one) and not bother trying to affect the DC otherwise? Sure, but the players who engage and provide context, content etc. are likely going to have an easier time hitting their rolls.

And to preempt the inevitable question - would you allow the same thing on a physical challenge/combat? why is that different?

The basic answer is, it isn't. If a player has the proper tools for opening a door, they will have an easier time opening the door (easy ex = a crowbar provides advantage).

In combat (though my group doesn't use flanking) proper positioning and tactics are going to make the combat MUCH easier than it would be otherwise (proper use of cover, terrain etc.).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, exactly. This is the "Can I..." problem? "I don't know, can you?" Or the classic Matt Mercer response, "You can sure try." I take a few seconds at the beginning of each session to remind my players that intent is all that matters. What is your intent? What are you looking for? What are you doing? What are you attacking and what weapon are you using? Where are you moving? Reminding players to express their character's intent makes everything go much more smoothly. Once they state their intent, I can often follow up with, "That's great, how does your character do that?" If they said their intent was to "find any hidden doors," my response is, "Very good, how does your character search for secret or hidden doors?" Then the mechanics can fall into place.

Of course the flip side of that is that players will often ask because the mechanics to resolve something are not obvious to them, and sometimes the choice of mechanics makes whatever it was, in practice, stupid to try. People will play the "well the character wouldn't know that" but the two answers to that are 1. Its not clear they shouldn't have some idea in most cases, and 2. Even if true the player doesn't care; he's not interested in looking like an idiot even if the character might not be clear on the idea of how bad an approach this is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But you can't know that. You can't say, "I know the characters wouldn't know what a vampire is." or something like that.

right... and I didn't. I can assume pretty well that anyone raised in a real world setting has a base idea what a vampire is... and an aliens but I can't believe they would think those as true options unless they were portrayed as the kind of nutty person that would believe in those things...

That's a statement of opinion. In the real world, if there was evidence of a vampire, some people would be skeptical and some people would immediately be going, "We need garlic and holy water."

I really hope that the first time you find even the hint of vampires you don't hope holy water or garlic will protect you and you would jump to the MUCH saner "someone is acting like a vampire but is a normal person" theory...

cause in the real world vampires are NOT real...(I can't believe I just had to type that)

now in a D&D setting they may be real and it may be as reasonable to suspect a vampire as in the real worlds it would be to suspect a crazy person...

It might turn out to be a serial killer pretending to be a vampire, in which case the skeptics would be right, but both reactions would be reasonable for a character.

no... and if my real life buddies acted like they thought that a vampire was loose in the city in real life I would look at them like they were crazy. AND IF SOMEHOW IT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE VAMPIRES DID EXSIST, i would not even feel dumb for saying "No they don't" until overwhelming evidence was given.

And in the D&D world, every rural peasant probably knows as much or more about vampires than you or I do because they live in that world.

correct... another way that a character may know or be used to things that we the players are not.

Sure if that's all the evidence you have. But if you go outside and instead of a skunk you see a guy in a halloween mask with a chainsaw, and you unload a shotgun into him and it doesn't seem to phase him, you are now at the point where, "Is this Jason or is this a guy in bullet proof vest?"

I'm sorry what?!?! supernatural killer is as likely as body armor or PCP(or a mix)?!!? really?

becomes reasonable speculation and how you react will depend on you as a person. I won't be able to tell you how you react in that moment. But, "Jason is real!" becomes reasonable in context.

no it doesn't... it is slightly more reasonable then it was when 'someone died in my city and now I hear a noise' but only slightly... like I feel like at this point you are pulling my leg.

You just completely admitted the wrongness of your position. Yes, half of the people would not even think it was real.

I'm sorry how does that disprove anything... a real life thing that has happened in history (including resent history) and half the people wont believe it... but you seem to think that something that (as far as we know) has not only never happened but is literally based on stories we tell our children should be just accepted?


I can see a movie character being superstitius and seen by most other characters as crazy jumping to vampire... and in the story even being right. I just can't see regular people just going "Oh must be the children's story"

The rest of the population would make other choices. You don't get to decide which part of the population a Player Character is in.

nore did I claim to... I asked for consistency and role playing based on the character NOT out of game knowledge.

The Player gets to decide that. Stop telling Players how to play their character. You've been doing it the whole thread.

I have not once told a player how to play there character so KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!

Yes they are! People aren't stupid if they use their common sense in situations that are well inside the bounds of normal. But as soon as things well outside the bounds of normal happen, it's utter stupidity to keep acting like your common sense is relevant your evidence is "We are outside the bounds of normal".

there will come a point when that is true... and with 5 recon marines it may be 5 different times... with 5 players and 5 PCs it may be 5 different times... I just ask that the movie be based on the characters not the writer or audicane knowing it is a movie, and that the character not the players that know it is a game.

More importantly, you don't get to tell the players as a GM that they should be stupid for the sake of your story.

nore did I... I asked they play the characters they made... consistent with the world we all worked on. KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!

The Players are the ones that decide what their characters know and how they react.

yes and no one disagrees with that.

If the players want to pretend that they don't know something because they think their character wouldn't, then great.

yup... but who said it sin't?

That's their call. But you as the GM don't get to tell them, "Your character wouldn't know that."

unless they are literally saying "Oh the battle matt is out so I know there is a fight..." I can tell them there character can't see the battle matt or dice...

, because you as the GM cannot know that.

I can know that the player has seen the battle matt and the character hasn't

The full life experiences and knowledge of the character isn't listed.

no and I expect that even the most annoying write a novel length back story player can't have it and I for one have never required such

If you are using some common trope, then chances are no matter what the world that knowledge is common to many many characters, including possibly the player character.

I agrree... in the real world no one is choosing to jump off a 50ft cliff let alone a 100ft one... but as I said before in my games the characters grew up knowing that strong/tough adventurers CAN survive that... and when they are tough enough they have a good idea about that.

because again that is IN CHARACTER knowledge.... as opposed to the presence of the battle mat, or me opening the monster manual, or me taking out the dragon mini... those are OUT OF CHARACTER things.

YOUR side doesn't want to separate in and out of game... I do. and that makes me wonder what happens if someone sees your notes... does there character get some view of what is to come?!?!

You never as a GM write stories that depend on the player's lack of knowledge.

the only knowladge I want them to lack is out of game

It's just terrible GMing to insist, "Pretend you don't know that", or "You have to pretend you don't know that because your character wouldn't."

um... then why play as a character at all? why ROLE PLAY what your character knows instead of just talking useing your out of game mindset... make it like chess and pandamic, just a board game not a role playing game

I think exactly the same thing, which is why I think you are obviously wrong. And this especially true of the D&D world. In the D&D world, common sense tells you that there are zombies and invisible things, so if the door opens on its own, every NPC's first thought ought to be, "Something invisible entered the room, quick throw something at it and see if it bounces. If it's corporeal, we can kill it."

I agree that is 100% the way the characters should be thinking if they live in an average D&D world. I never even hinted it isn't... my Predator example was characters in the modernish world

Characters will be plenty stupid in play without deliberately being stupid because players will in the natural course of things make tons of mistakes. Acting in character with enforced stupidity is almost always wrong.

no one... not me not anyone else is asking players to play dumb.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you've hit one of the "big" issues (many people have) with a player just going "I roll perception..." rolls dice

In addition to being confusing for the DM (It's an odd interrupt to the game flow and if too many players do it unprompted, especially at the same time, it's a mess for the DM).

It provides no opportunity to use anything other than a static DC. The DM can't grant advantage or a bonus based on context or content. So the player is actually accepting a higher probability of failure than they would have had they provided those things (context, content etc.) And that can be frustrating for the player.

That said, for me, I'll go with it. If a player just wants to leave it to chance (or their PCs excellent skill, if they have one) and not bother trying to affect the DC otherwise? Sure, but the players who engage and provide context, content etc. are likely going to have an easier time hitting their rolls.

And to preempt the inevitable question - would you allow the same thing on a physical challenge/combat? why is that different?

The basic answer is, it isn't. If a player has the proper tools for opening a door, they will have an easier time opening the door (easy ex = a crowbar provides advantage).

In combat (though my group doesn't use flanking) proper positioning and tactics are going to make the combat MUCH easier than it would be otherwise (proper use of cover, terrain etc.).

I basically agree, but for me I wouldn’t allow a no-context roll because it doesn’t just deprive the player of potentially better chances of success; it may actually make success or failure possible when it ought not to be. I need some context to be able to determine if success and failure are possible, and if both are, and if the difference is meaningful, then I’ll figure out what the roll should be, along with any modifiers and what not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Earlier someone, don’t remember who, said that their response to a player describing a particularly clever approach would be “cool idea! Roll [whatever] to see how well your character pulls it off.” And as a player, that would frustrate the heck out of me.

it was me and it wasn't for just looking for coins in a room it was for a hard interaction (I can't remember if it was convince the prince to join them or if it was disarm a trap) don't make it out that I make players roll to search for coins.

In fact, I’ve had exactly such an experience before in an online game. We were petitioning the chief of a Barbarian clan for aid or something, and throughout this scene I had been listening carefully to the DM’s portrayal of her, listening to what she says, trying to get a good idea of who she is, what she values, etc. I choose my moment carefully, and at what I think will be an appropriately dramatic point in the conversation, I deliver my carefully thought-out argument for why the chief should help us, and…

“Make a persuasion check.”

yeah... cause you said something that would maybe persuade them... and the out come was in question.

For all that effort, I don’t even get so much as advantage. What the heck was the point?

um... the fun of role playing?

Why did I bother listening to what the DM said or crafting an argument I thought would be convincing, when I would have gotten exactly the same result just by saying “I try to persuade her to help us” and pressing the Persuasion button on my Roll20 character sheet?

um cause it's fun? I don't understand why every interaction has to give advantage to be fun.

Moreover, it made the story feel a lot less credible to me that, because I rolled low, this speech was completely ineffective despite my conscious efforts to hit on points I knew this character would find compelling. In any movie or book, this would have been a climactic moment where the hero’s compelling speech wins the hearts and minds of the tribe. But, no, apparently the events that we narrate are not as important as the random numbers the computer spits out.

again just because you thought it was a slam dunk doesn't mean everyone does... I assume everyone thinks what they say is the best they could... but some people ear hard to convince.

If it works for y’all to prioritize the dice over the specifics of what the player describes their character doing, I hope you have fun that way. But it really, really doesn’t work for me.

I'm sorry you don't. I also am sorry you need a carrot in the form of some mechanical advantage in order to play your character.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The idea posited was that a key was hidden in the drawer. I added the element that it was to a safe full of hungry mimic coins.

okay I missed that... but again a key in a drawer is not something I need a roll for either "I search" is enough unless you made some sort of blind character

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have played with kids, and I have never seen one do this.

great... perfect already sorry I asked

It’s frankly tragic.

yeah so tragic they learn the rules