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

[Reynard]

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?).



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.

This presupposes that the reality of the fiction (aka the verisimilitude) bends to the narrative,which I am not a huge fan of. Personally I would rather suppose that if the PC chose to hid under the table and rolled very high they just did a really good job of hiding in an unoptimal spot. I don't put huge amounts of weight on immersion and verisimilitude but I like to give a nod toward consistency and something vaguely like "realism."

 

[Reynard]

Yes, and everyone here is imagining different context surrounding those things in order to make those determinations, just like a player and DM might be at the table. Only by hashing it out can everyone be sure they are on the same page.

The game is a conversation. We should all repeat this until it is automatical. I don't like everything about the PbtA, but articulating this so succinctly is super innovative and important.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another thing that's running through many posts here appears to be this difference:

Some players are effectively asking what they need to say to be "allowed" to roll an ability check. Sometimes they just come out and say what they want to roll.

Other players are addressing the fictional context by taking action and trying to avoid making an ability check if they can. They'd rather automatically succeed and, if that's not possible, then the roll is their insurance.

If you are the kind of player who sees ability checks as a means to do things, perhaps even the only means, then trying to avoid making them is going to seem weird. After all, how will I ever get to do anything if I don't roll? So let me roll.

Contrast with the other players who get to try whatever they want and only roll when what they want to do has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Why would I ask to roll? I'd rather win this without one.

I’ll note that I have observed at least one person in this conversation who is coming at this from a third perspective, which is trying to avoid the possibility of failing without a check. To them, it seems the aversion to this possibility is so strong that they are willing to forego any chance at succeeding without a check in order to avoid it. They want to make a check because if they fail, they want it to be because they rolled poorly, not because of the action they described. Which is totally wild to me as someone who would rather succeed and fail based on my own decisions rather than on random chance any day of the week.

 

[Deset Gled]

Refusing to say, "I check the door for traps," instead of "I roll Investigate! ::clatter::" seems like like a weird hill to die on.

IMNSHO, the DM that clearly understands what his players want but demands they phrase it differently seems like they're picking a weird hill to die on.

Then again, as someone only passively following the conversation , it seems like this entire thread is a call for people to claim hills to die on, then argue about the size of the hills.

 

[Reynard]

I want to change perspective and come at this as a player for a minute, since I GM a lot more than I play. It might help me better understand that needs and intents of those players that declare "I roll perception! ::clatter::"

If I am a player and in a circumstance that feel precarious, my first instinct is to declare something like, "I draw my weapons and prepare for anything." If I am being honest, that's pretty vague (except the weapons part).

I want to ask @Charlaquin and @GMforPowergamers and anyone else how you would respond to that declaration.

 

[robus]

If I am a player and in a circumstance that feel precarious, my first instinct is to declare something like, "I draw my weapons and prepare for anything." If I am being honest, that's pretty vague (except the weapons part).

I’ll give them advantage on their initiative roll if a fight breaks out in the next few moments.

 

[Deset Gled]

If I am a player and in a circumstance that feel precarious, my first instinct is to declare something like, "I draw my weapons and prepare for anything." If I am being honest, that's pretty vague (except the weapons part).

I want to ask @Charlaquin and @GMforPowergamers and anyone else how you would respond to that declaration.

"Nothing happens. It's a gazebo."

 

[Mort]

Yeah, I definitely wouldn’t. In my view, it’s up to the player to make that decision (the decision of what they think the best place to hide will be), not me.

Except, unless your description is perfect (and who's is?) you will know the layout better than the player. Further, this is another way of saying, my character is better at this than I (the player) am, can I get some help.

This conversation is so weird to me. What’s there to be good and bad at when it comes to hiding? You get behind something that can conceal your body and you hold still and try not to make noise.

Sure,

But some people are WAY better at that then others. In a D&D game there would be some (even possibly in the party) who are practically supernatural at it (even without magic). The skill exists and there is plenty of fiction (heck a while genre of ninja movies) to support it. If a player what's his character to be good at that, I'll let him

Stated out the table? It’s… a table… what stats could it possibly need?

There are lots and lots of tables some which works be MUCH easier to hide behind or under.

 

[robus]

Except, unless your description is perfect (and who's is?) you will know the layout better than the player. Further, this is another way of saying, my character is better at this than I (the player) am, can I get some help.

Right so if comes to a check a character with high stealth is likely to get a great number and beat the passive perception of any guards. The player’s choice, of course, might make it so that no check is needed, but if it is, the character build is going to have a big impact.

 

[Charlaquin]

I want to change perspective and come at this as a player for a minute, since I GM a lot more than I play. It might help me better understand that needs and intents of those players that declare "I roll perception! ::clatter::"

If I am a player and in a circumstance that feel precarious, my first instinct is to declare something like, "I draw my weapons and prepare for anything." If I am being honest, that's pretty vague (except the weapons part).

I want to ask @Charlaquin and @GMforPowergamers and anyone else how you would respond to that declaration.

Hard to make a good ruling on out of the context of a game. I would say if you did this during travel or exploration, it sounds to me like a declaration that you want to keep watch for danger, which would mean until you shift focus to some other task, any creatures attempting to ambush you would need to beat your passive Wis (Perception) with a Dex (Stealth) check to surprise you. As well, you would have your weapons drawn at the start of combat if it were to break out.