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

[GMforPowergamers]

It may be that the 20th level rogue has no chance of failure, which is fine, but that is not the same thing as exempting them from the process.

but that seems the oppisite... they have no chance of fail but they have to roll?

 

[tetrasodium]

the hardest thing in every one of these discussion is context...

on game night 17 (4 levels of play) on the second session of this part of the adventure an hour into the night there is A LOT of context that we just can not give on these forums.

not so much, it shouldn't be assumed that the target you want to attack is obbious enough. I have one player who consistently says things like "I move up & attack the zombie" leading to "uh... which one? red green blue or white ring? there are four" followed by a hair pulling exercise of "the one he attacked">"which he? Bob & dave attacked different ones">"which one is more damaged?">"You aren't sure at this point, do you want to use your action trying to determine that or pick one?">"well I attack the one next to bob">"three of them are next to bob... red blue or white ring?">"well which one is closer to me?">"well if we look with our eyes we can see that the red ring one is closest to you on the map">"so is the red one damaged?">"^$@#% would you like to use your action trying to determine that?">"no I guess I'll move up to attack the red zombie">"ok the green skeleton leans in with his rusty necrotic energy dripping sword to smack you & makes an AoO as you run past it & xx is a hit">"woah I wouldn't have moved like that if I knew he was in the path, I would have gone around">"Maybe but you didn't*"

This player is also one who is extremely prone to making quantum skill check efforts like that rather than actually taking any action

*I run in person with a touch enabled tvbox & vtt. Players can literally trace their finger along the plexi & show me the route they want to take but this guy often can't be bothered to even lean forward to look at the screen.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Exactly. To say "But my character isn't actually in the world and I (player) wasn't born there" is a cop out. If the game is being described and narrated by the GM properly, it is very easy to decide what you (player/character) might do in that situation.

It could be something like
"I search the room" - in which case, I, as the DM, after already having described what is in the room, might say "Are you opening the doors to the bureau? Are you looking behind the curtains? Are you picking up anything that is on the table?" The player/character can then yes/no those items, or describe an alternate way to interact with them.

it isn't a cop out.

in the real world locked room mysteries involve secret doors, in D&D they might involve plane shirting and teleporting... it is a VERY different mindset. Over years of play I would like to think I can put myself into that D&D mindset... but I promise you not all my players can. (maybe I am too cocky maybe I can't either)

just growing up in different parts of the same country makes you see and interact with the world differently. If I the player do not have the skill (or at least not the skill to describe properly what I am doing) and I ask "My character wants X and has Y skill I think can help do it" I don't see why you need more information 100% of the time (I'm not usre you EVER do but for sure not 100%)

Or it could be "First I'll take a look under the table, since that is closest, to see if anything is hidden under it. Then I'll look at what is on the table, but not touch anything."

In both cases, there is no rolling involved at all. As the DM, I know what is in and around and on those items.

Only if the player decides to interact in some way where failure is an option: "I check to see if the bureau is trapped. I'll peer at the lock itself to see if anything is out of the ordinary." (For me, and half competent thief would be able to tell a trapped lock by spending time looking at it, probably no roll even necessary); or "I'll stand to the side of the chest and whack my mace straight into the keyhole of the chest, so if there is a poison needle, it'll be blocked." Also perfectly fine, and might set the trap off with no ill effect, no roll necessary. Unless the trap is a poison gas.... (but I would also be less likely to actually do that kind of thing, without it being telegraphed, i.e. not in a random dungeon).

god I don't even want to play that game again... I might be in the mood to go point by point pixle by pixle clicking on everything to see what happens but I doubt it... My time is too valuable out of game... I could be joking about 80's cartoons or rolling for my character instead of all that.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Per the rules of the game, the player doesn't actually have any control except to describe what they want to do.

Just saying "I make a Perception check" actually does cede more control to the DM than the rules appear to envision because now the DM is forced to assume or describe that for the player, which is not the DM's role.

Per the rules of the game, any rule can be overidden by the DM and players in agreement, if they so wish.

 

[iserith]

Per the rules of the game, any rule can be overidden by the DM and players in agreement, if they so wish.

That's correct, but my comment still stands even in that context.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's really not in my power to tell someone they can't talk to someone else.

so I can just ask at your table "Um I don't know how to describe _________ but I want to roll _____ or use it without a roll what do I say?"

"Perfect hiding place" says to me that success is guaranteed.

the same reason that describing a perfect attack doesn't guarantee a hit (although I bet players would describe there attacks more if they did)

 

[Cadence]

it isn't a cop out.

in the real world locked room mysteries involve secret doors, in D&D they might involve plane shirting and teleporting... it is a VERY different mindset. Over years of play I would like to think I can put myself into that D&D mindset... but I promise you not all my players can. (maybe I am too cocky maybe I can't either)

just growing up in different parts of the same country makes you see and interact with the world differently. If I the player do not have the skill (or at least not the skill to describe properly what I am doing) and I ask "My character wants X and has Y skill I think can help do it" I don't see why you need more information 100% of the time (I'm not usre you EVER do but for sure not 100%)

"I have my character emulate Archie Goodwin and Saul Panzer and search (dissect) the room. The kind of thing that would take 2 hours if I was trying to not leave the place a mess and was just looking for anything suspicious... but I'm not particularly worried about neatness and you can stop me every time we get to a cup so that we can take a hard look at it. I start on the left wall by the door and work my way around clock-wise."

"What do Archie and Saul do to search?"

"I have no idea, but they're the best at tearing apart rooms and finding all the hidden things. And my character's level and skills should put me about how good they are."

 

[iserith]

so I can just ask at your table "Um I don't know how to describe _________ but I want to roll _____ or use it without a roll what do I say?"

I'm not sure if there's some kind of disconnect here, but I don't have any power over people's speech as DM. You're free to say what you want.

You shouldn't want to roll though. That's bad strategy.

the same reason that describing a perfect attack doesn't guarantee a hit (although I bet players would describe there attacks more if they did)

If we're making the attack roll, then by definition it isn't a "perfect attack." The outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I'm still wrestling with my players over this as well. The biggest one I get is, "Can I make an insight check?" when talking to an NPC, instead of, "I'm looking for signs that he might be lying" or something like that. They're getting better, but it's slow going.

 

[Reynard]

but that seems the oppisite... they have no chance of fail but they have to roll?

In my mind, "Your sill is so high there is no chance of failure, so don't bother rolling if you don't want," is different than determining the DC based on the person attempting it. I don't like the latter. How hard something is (from a "physics" perspective) is independent of the person trying it. That person's skill determines their individual chance of success, obviously.