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

[GMforPowergamers]

For the record though, concerning the things you are talking about I'm vastly more proactive than you seem to be.

very possible... lets see

If I know as the DM there is something hidden in a scene, I don't wait for a player to say "I Perception" or whatever, I just roll for the players behind the DM screen to see if they see it, and if they do I describe that they can see the hidden thing.

not me i have not hidden a roll in years. maybe a full 20 but at least close. I will look at the passive I have noted and if that is high enough just give it to them... or if i know someone is 'known for' or 'going for' being the observant person I may just not give it a DC and just say that player finds it... but if a roll is to be made I will ask the players for it..

I may ask for perception check if they walk by but I may not that is more mood dependent

Likewise, if I describe a mural on the wall and I know as a DM that characters with religious knowledge might understand more of what is depicted in the mural, then I don't wait for a player to go, "I Religion it", I just call for Religion checks right away.

this i 100% agree with... the actions/check questions normally comes when i forget someone has it, or someone asks about a skill i didn't think of ahead of time.

The act of looking at a room or object in the room is enough to tell me the player wants to understand it. They don't need to say any magic phrase to do that.

I agree here.

Which is one of several reasons something like, "I Perception it" or "I Investigate it" isn't a valid proposition at my table.

i still don't understand why.. but i accept you can't wrap your mind around why i don't mind it.

The response is always going to be, "You already did." If they want more information they have to describe doing something that could have given them information they didn't have already.

yeah I just have a different reading of passive/active

"I perception the room" doesn't open the chest.

i agree with this... those are two different things

"I investigate the room" probably does eventually, but will always be followed with something like, "Ok, but it's a biggish rom. What do you want to investigate first?"

if someone isn't interested in playing through in detail i am not going to force the issue.

unless investigating the room carries no consequences and I think the pace of play has gotten slow and I need to move things along a bit in which case I'll risk a handwave solely because I know OOC the player has no agency in this situation to lose.

 

[Mort]

I mean, I disagree fundamentally. If someone has +17 stealth and says "I hide in the best location my character can find", and you, the DM, determines that is "under the table", then sure.

That seems to be one of the disconnects in this thread. I'm not at all sure some of the posters in this thread would accept "best location I can find..." as a valid action declaration (not specific enough?).

If however, I have NPCs who are serious professionals and not a bunch of numpties or lazy (which to fair, most NPCs are - numpties or lazy), and the players says "I want to hide under the table", I'm probably going to say "You've +17 stealth, you're not sure that's a great idea", and they insist anyway, then, no matter how good their stealth, if they insist on not moving from under the table, they WILL be found, it's just a matter of when (sure they won't be detected early like a low-stealth numpty might). If they're willing to move, sure a good stealth rolling could see them vanish out one end of the table just as the guy looks under it, and thus misses them or the like.

And that's the point. The CHARACTER is good at hiding, so should be allowed to be good at hiding.

To use the table again. If the player says I hide under the table, and I hadn't statted out the table in any way. I see no problem with making it a good possible hiding spot. If, for some reason, I had statted out the table, and know it would be a terrible spot - the player with the character who's good at hiding gets told that.

 

[Mort]

Because I was not making the bolded assumption.

Well hopefully, you let the player know "tablecloth or not..." or clarified if the player asked.

Or at the least, made sure there isn't a disconnect, where the player thinks under the table is a good hiding spot and you don't.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To use the table again. If the player says I hide under the table, and I hadn't statted out the table in any way. I see no problem with making it a good possible hiding spot. If, for some reason, I had statted out the table, and know it would be a terrible spot - the player with the character who's good at hiding gets told that.

I'm not sure how one "stats out" a table, but I think this is the same thing as I'm saying.

If I've predetermined the guards are highly professional, then "under a table" is a terrible hiding spot, because they're going to look there, and possible just pull off the cloth entirely. So I have "statted out the table" in this scenario, in that I've written how the guards behave.

And that's the point. The CHARACTER is good at hiding, so should be allowed to be good at hiding.

And yes agree completely. If the PC is good at hiding, or good at persuading, or good at investigating, a player who isn't great at those things should not negate the PC's ability to do them. We don't stop players casting spells because they can't memorize Enochian, or force them to be bad at melee combat because they can't explain to me the exact procedure they'll use to make an attack or something.

However, they can of course override "what their PC should do" with something dumb if they really want to. I will tell them first though.

 

[Andvari]

I kind of agree with the OP in that I prefer the players explain what their characters do in natural language rather than in game mechanics when possible.

I have a player who, when I mention something that seems suspicious about an area, will exclaim “I search for traps!” but also sometimes simply “Perception!”

As I am familiar with the player, I know that when they say “Perception!” they very likely mean they carefully investigate the area, hoping to avoid falling into any traps. So instead of having an argument, I just ask for confirmation. “Do you want to search the room?”

90% of the time, they say “yes”, I describe how the character is carefully moving through the room, investigating the flagstones and walls, and, assuming no objection, I secretly roll the d20. If one of the flagstones is trapped, they might trigger it if their roll is too low.

If there are no traps, but the southwest corner has some loose floorboards with treasure hidden, they will find it if their roll was high enough, even though it isn’t a trap.

If there is an alcove with treasure hidden behind a tapestry, they will find it if they roll high enough. However, if they say “I look behind the tapestry”, they will automatically find the alcove, assuming the tapestry is the only thing preventing them from seeing the alcove.

So while I would prefer the player says “I search the room” to “Perception!”, I can usually infer the former from the latter. I also don’t require as precise a description as “I look behind the tapestry,” but specificity can in some instances be advantageous to the players.

The reason why I prefer natural language to game mechanical lamguage is that it makes the experience more immersive to me and (as far as I can tell) my players.

Imagine if the DM was equally lazy in their narrative.

DM: “You are in a room.”
Players: “Perception.”
DM: rolls
DM: “You gain 187 gold pieces and a dagger.”

That would make for an immensely boring game, I think.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And again (like a broken record) D&D is full of hazardous situations. And the examples of the wall and the room with the assassin or trap are just examples. Do you get, finally, that I need to know where the PCs are standing to fairly adjudicate traps, and determine who might be affected, among many other things which can happen in the game?

i can understand why in some rare corner cases you might need more information, i cna not imagine it coming up often though.

maybe i don't run enough traps?

If I present you a room, and your character stands in the doorway looking for traps, or for treasure, or for a hidden enemy you think might be in this room, there is a reasonable chance that the PC won't be able to see them from the doorway. There is a nonzero chance that they will become obvious if he moves some place in the room where he gets a clear view of the sought thing. If you refuse to tell me where in the room your character moves, I am unable to adjudicate whether a) you find the thing you're looking for without even needing a roll, b) you get another opportunity for an ability check, or c) you trip a hazard of some kind.

again this seems like such a corner case to me...

even in the spy vs spy style game I ran with 2 assassins trying to one up each other we rarely NEEDED details like that... but I mean we give them when we feel like it.

@GMforPowergamers uses Athletics checks for climbing walls. He's made that clear. He's not exactly strict on the rules in the book.

okay I missed this... what do YOU use to climb?

 

[Mort]

I'm not sure how one "stats out" a table, but I think this is the same thing as I'm saying.

If I've predetermined the guards are highly professional, then "under a table" is a terrible hiding spot, because they're going to look there, and possible just pull off the cloth entirely. So I have "statted out the table" in this scenario, in that I've written how the guards behave.

We agree.

I just mean, most of the time well "it's a table." But if the player (whose PC is excellent at hiding) wants to hide under it and, for some reason feels it the best spot in the room, maybe it's a table with a perfectly positioned partition that the expert hider can exploit and get away from the guards. Essentially, it's allowing the player a tiny bit of narrative control over the fiction (which, yes, I realize to some DMs is a mortal sin in D&D).

And yes agree completely. If the PC is good at hiding, or good at persuading, or good at investigating, a player who isn't great at those things should not negate the PC's ability to do them. We don't stop players casting spells because they can't memorize Enochian, or force them to be bad at melee combat because they can't explain to me the exact procedure they'll use to make an attack or something.

However, they can of course override "what their PC should do" with something dumb if they really want to. I will tell them first though.

Sure,

Though sometimes, so dumb it's brilliant, is a thing. And along with being hilarious in the fiction, might actually work.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm confused by this.

How is it not uncertain? Sometimes the opposition might think to look under the table (let's say there is a long tablecloth so the PC is not immediately visible) sometimes they might not.

Seems like the perfect opportunity for an opposed roll (PCs stealth vs. opponents Perception or possibly, investigation).

I certainly wouldn't have the searching NPCs immediately look under the table just because "it's obvious."

i'm confused by what some people think is and isn't certain a lot in this thread...

so far hiding under a table
hiding in a closet/cabinet/pantry
finding a hidden compartment
finding a false bottom
attacking/killing very under level CR creatures

I think thats all I can think of...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We're still talking at cross purposes. We're saying that going into Burger King and asking for food is not specific enough. Ordering a whopper, on the other hand, is plenty specific enough.

except in every example I have engaged in i have given a goal AND what ability my PC has that I think could help

 

[Maxperson]

That seems to be one of the disconnects in this thread. I'm not at all sure some of the posters in this thread would accept "best location I can find..." as a valid action declaration (not specific enough?).

For me it depends. If I've described the room, tell me where you are hiding. You KNOW the best place you can find. Just tell it to me. If you're out in the wilderness and you say that, you just roll and I will narrate based on the results, because it's a big place and even I don't know all the nooks and crannies.