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

[HammerMan]

inkpenavenger on TikTok

This is a link to how some new players are thinking about it on tic tok

 

[Jay Murphy1]

characters in 5e don’t need to map every 10 feet to know where they’re going either. But they do need to make a map if they want to have a map as an item in their inventory which they could perhaps sell, or a character could use grant advantage on their Wisdom (Survival) check to navigate.

Wild to me how people will gut the game’s exploration system because they “don’t need” any of the mechanic in it ans then complain that the exploration pillar is anemic.

With the rules I use this is not a mechanic so nothing is gutted. The rest of your sentences are putting words in my mouth. Yes, characters can make a map and stick in their backpack and later make a paper hat out of it, whoopee. In DnD basic the map is a tool for the players to better visualize what the DM is explaining.
As explicitly written in the book. So, it takes no in-game time or action. Mapping is not a distraction which would prevent a PC from being "prepared" or use an action.

I don't play 5e because I don't like it.

 

[Charlaquin]

With the rules I use this is not a mechanic so nothing is gutted. The rest of your sentences are putting words in my mouth. Yes, characters can make a map and stick in their backpack and later make a paper hat out of it, whoopee. In DnD basic the map is a tool for the players to better visualize what the DM is explaining.
As explicitly written in the book. So, it takes no in-game time or action. Mapping is not a distraction which would prevent a PC from being "prepared" or use an action.

I don't play 5e because I don't like it.

Ok, well this is a discussion about 5e.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, well this is a discussion about 5e.

Technically its about D&D in general, though the issues involved apply to most systems.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

Yes, I agree. I mentioned mapping was an exploration activity and someone responded that Moldvay Basic was so much better because it didn’t have this unnecessary step and mapping was a player activity and a useful visual aid instead of something the characters had to do to know where they are. It was weird.

How is it weird? Making a map as you travel through buildings you have never been is weird, and is something no one does. Every exploration I have done in real life has never included stopping every ten minutes and mapping out where I am. I seem to find my brain remembers what I've seen and where I've been. And Moldvay is "better" because these rules recognize the need to depict the fictional world being described by making a map because there is no real space you are occupying. In real space you do not need a map to move around. In a shared fictional space the map is essential so everyone knows where they are at any given time in the game world, not because it is a real-world activity which needs to be done by the character so they don't get lost. In the Mines of Moria, for example, not once did the group start drawing a map.

 

[Reynard]

With the rules I use this is not a mechanic so nothing is gutted. The rest of your sentences are putting words in my mouth. Yes, characters can make a map and stick in their backpack and later make a paper hat out of it, whoopee. In DnD basic the map is a tool for the players to better visualize what the DM is explaining.
As explicitly written in the book. So, it takes no in-game time or action. Mapping is not a distraction which would prevent a PC from being "prepared" or use an action.

I don't play 5e because I don't like it.

Mapping is explicitly a in-game action performed by a PC in B/X (and every edition of D&D, as far as I know). There are even rules for how you can't do it while running or fleeing pursuit.

 

[DragonBelow]

This, I think, is not a good idea. It will only embarrass and anger the player, which is not a good way to win them over on the style of action resolution. Quite the contrary, it will likely put them off of it.

That's one touchy player lol

 

[Chaosmancer]

At this point I'm just going to start snipping large parts of your responses. I'm tired of trying to get you to engage in a fruitful discussion where all you do is claim you don't know or don't understand which then leads to you either dismissing the things I explain as "Great, you have different preferences, don't care" , "I understood that all along" or "You have psychological issues that prevent you from playing my way"

None of those is actually helpful, and I find a few of them either insulting or infuriating depending on the context, so I'm done trying to explain those things to you.

I’ve been giving examples of things throughout this conversation. I don’t know what you want me to give you an example of at this point.

The only example I can recall you giving was the dragon-slaying arrow, which had no importance to the location because it only became important when the players randomly faced a dragon and used the arrow to slay it.

By that logic the Fighter's Sword is important because they used it to kill monsters. But the fighter's sword isn't actually important.

If that’s your assessment of the situation, you would be welcome to try the fire plan. I still think it was a perfectly fine plan. As an aside, it’s really strange to me that you assume a passive check is always going to fail. Though I suppose it might explain why you refuse to accept it as a means of resolving an attempt to find something by looking around.

Because as established, the PCs likely have a 14 passive perception. With the Goblin rolling a +6 the Goblin succeeds 60% of the time. A plan that will fail 60% of the time isn't a good plan.

Also, if we have gotten to the point of the players wanting to roll to find something, then we have ALREADY failed the passive check, because if they succeeded the passive check, they won't want to roll, because they found the thing.

Navigating is certainly not typically necessary in dungeons. Mapping is quite useful in both cases. Point being, there are many distinct exploration activities a character might engage in that would preclude keeping watch for danger (and thereby making a passive perception check), so it is indeed a choice.

Is it really? Typical party is 4 people. One person is drawing the map. That leaves 3 people.

No one is navigating. No one is foraging for food. No one is tracking. That is the entire list of PHB actions to do while traveling, so did those three players make a choice by not all four of them drawing the same map? Or is remaining alert to the environment simply the default option?

I would disagree that such a ruling is consistent with either the letter or intent of the rules, but I would accept the ruling because that’s the DM’s call to make, not mine. If I often found myself disagreeing with the DM’s rulings I might bring it up at a later time, and/or decide not to continue playing in their game.

Ignoring the double speak of you accepting the DM's call but then bringing it up later because you don't accept it, this means that you agree there is no practical difference between looking for ambushes and looking for secret doors, because you need to find secret doors to prevent some ambushes.

A secret door is not a threat, so I would not consider that the same activity as Noticing Threats, but yes, looking for ambushes and traps are both covered under the same activity, which I misremembered as being called “keeping watch for danger.” Looking for secret doors is not specifically listed as a travel activity, but it is given specifically as an example of an action that one could use a passive check to resolve performing repeatedly.

Or do you actually disagree that looking ambushes and looking for secret doors is the same action. You can't have it both ways.

Either Noticing Threats includes hidden creatures, traps, hazards, ambushes and secret doors (because you can be ambushed from a secret door) or it doesn't, and not having a player constantly declare they are looking for secret doors and only secret doors means that you are opening yourself up to being ambushed from a secret door because you weren't looking for it so your Passive Perception never applied.

The clue is the information. The possibility that they may misinterpret the information does not mean that the decisions they make were not informed decisions.

Yes it does.

An approach can certainly prevent intent from being achievable. If my intent is to tie my shoes and my approach is to yell at the laces to move, my approach has no chance of succeeding at achieving my goal. But both things would be necessary information for someone to determine if my overall action could succeed or fail.

I love how it always comes to this. It always comes to something absurd that could never work.

I guess walking carefully forward while looking at the ground is the equivalent of screaming at shoe laces to tie themselves. I should go on nation television, I'm an impossible man.

My understanding was that the trap is triggered by standing in the center of the room. How slowly you walk to the center of the room will have no effect on whether or not the trap that triggered by standing in the center of the room will be triggered when you stand in the center of the room.

I also seems to have no effect on whether or not you can notice the trap, walk slow, crawl on your belly, spring, teleport. Doesn't matter, you will never see the trap.

So, by them not completing the action they declared?

The intention of the action was to look for traps. So, yes. When they spot the trap, they stop. The PC isn't a robot that must knowingly step on a hazard because they declared their movement before noticing the hazard.

I will guarantee you no player will be upset their movement was interrupted to prevent them from triggering a trap and DEMAND that they be allowed to trigger that trap.

My intent did matter, the issue was my approach not mattering.

no. This DM was not one for telegraphing.

Funny how certain you are that you were absolutely correct in that scenario.

Yes, and I accepted that ruling. I accepted a lot of rulings he made that I disagreed with. Occasionally, we discussed those disagreements outside of game time. Eventually, I decided the game was not for me and left.

So, you just didn't argue it at the table. You don't actually accept their ruling, and in fact used it as an example of Poor DMing.

Which makes it strange to me that you then take this conversation, where we are not at a table, and just constantly assert that I should just accept the DMs ruling and that I cannot discuss the pros and cons of the approach. It seems you are perfectly fine disagreeing and discussing when you feel you are in the right, but not when someone challenges that.

Literally because I rolled low,

That is how you resolve checks right? Low rolls fail and high rolls succeed?

I said it would have made no difference had I been playing Candy Crush instead, which is true. I happen to know that other players in that campaign regularly goofed off in other tabs. It bothered me quite a bit that actually engaging in the game was treated no differently than tabbing out until the DM shut up and then pushing one of the “make something else happen” buttons on the character sheet. It did not make for a believable world, because the world didn’t really respond to player inputs, it just did whatever the octopus in the DM’s brain decided the random numbers meant would happen next.

Again. You preach that the DM is allowed to make the rulings they want, and we should accept the DMs rulings. But when those rulings are what you want... then it is "whatever the octupus in the DM's brain decided the random numbers meant"

You utterly dismiss them as unimportant, uncaring and poor DMing... because you disagree with it. Different Strokes, except you get to deride them as being a bad approach.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Isn’t this the “magic words“ hoop that we all say we decry?

I don't know, is it?

It seems Charlaquin is perfectly willing to dismiss players who miss clues and telegraphing and make mistakes, but then derides a DM she had because they "clearly" weren't paying attention to their excellent approach that had no flaws and just cared about random number generation.

I just find it interesting that when laying out their GMing, Charlaquin seems to think they do an incredibly excellent job, and yet when someone disagreed with them, it is because they didn't care enough to make a believable world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

More or less. It's the problem with the DM asking "but what are you actually doing?" - the last time I asked that very question, my player simply reframed the question as I stated. And while it is functionally equivalent to "I roll perception", it should also be a valid action declaration, what with to perceive being a verb.

The shorter version: I've concluded that calling the skill Perception was a mistake. It should have been something like Senses instead.

Yeah, this is part of why I want to make Wisdom into an Awareness stat. Perception is one of those "skills" that is so fundamentally neccessary that if every PC doesn't take it, at least 2 did. At that point it is nothing more than a skill tax.