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

[GMforPowergamers]

But a failed ability check always has a consequence. Failing to accomplish a goal without an ability check might not.

what example we have spoken about so far falls into this?

perception for the assassin?
Perception for the trap?
Asking the king/prince for help?
Calming down the crying queen? (and I think this one had the worst fail without a roll)
or hiding from an ogre?

See, I would say to that player, “are you sure you want to do that? This could have significant consequences…”

I would too... except I might (depending on there answer to that) explain WHAT the consequences might be)

"Yea, that movie is way out dated, and if you slap the queen you most likely are at least ending up in minor trouble, maybe lethal trouble, is that what your character would do?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is the DM’s job to interpret the rules and apply them using their best judgment. If the DM rules that an action should be resolved by way of a Dex save, then a Dex save is the way by which it shall be resolved. But, if you don’t like that example, imagine I said they called for a Dex (Athletics) check when you wanted to make a Dex (Acrobatics) check because you’re proficient in acrobatics but not in athletics. Point is, the player doesn’t get to decide what mechanics are applied to resolve their own actions. And yes, sometimes that will mean some of your character’s features won’t be applicable to some actions.

Deciding which proficiency applies is fair. But, again, you have decided that it must be a passive and that it cannot possibly be active. This bothers me, but you keep saying it shouldn't bother just because the DM can make up whatever justification they want. That's not a good argument in my mind.

But they can’t know there’s nothing in the room if they don’t search it. They can make a reasonable educated guess based on the description of the environment and the presence or absence of telegraphs therein, and decide based on that educated guess whether or not it’s worth their time to search. That’s a decision that’s up to the players to make, not me.

Let's say that they make the decision to search then. Why not just say "You don't find anything of note" and move the clock hands forward? If you want to give them a consequence for choosing to search a room with nothing in it, you totally can without having them actually search anything.

So, why do you not do that and instead have them search the room manually when you know there is nothing noteworthy in it.

sigh I keep telling you, I do have lots of knowledge of what’s going on. What I don’t have knowledge of is what among “what’s going on” will end up being important and what won’t. To answer your question, yes, if there’s something hidden in the room, I will know it’s there.

Why do you not know? If there is nothing going on involving Shar, then an idol to Shar wouldn't have any importance to what is going on, correct?

As do PCs, when the person hiding fails to beat the PCs’ passive Wisdom (Perception) with their Dexterity (Stealth) check.

And I have done so when taking an action that I do not take repeatedly. Which isn't a passive check.

Yes, you are wrong about it. I set up the initial conditions, and the players do what they will from there. I can’t know if any given thing in the environment is important, because I don’t know what the players will do with it, or even if they will ever see it. Like, imagine a room hidden behind a secret door, with like a dragon-slaying arrow in it. Maybe the players will find the room and take the arrow, and maybe later they’ll encounter a dragon and use the arrow to slay it. In that case, the arrow ended up being pretty important. But when I designed the dungeon and placed a hidden room with a dragon slaying arrow in it, I didn’t know if the players would find the room, I didn’t know if they would take the arrow, and I didn’t know if they would end up encountering a dragon later. It could have ended up being entirely unimportant. We have to play to find out.

Wait. The only way that arrow would be important is if they end up encountering a dragon later and they use it? That has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about things like the Dragon-Slaying arrow being in the secret room because it is a clue that the Duke was once secretly an adventurer, a secret he is hiding. It is important because it informs something else and gives them context or reveals things about the location or an ongoing plotline. It sounds like you are using "important" to mean something like "I didn't know that pipe was going to be important until they used it to bar the door". It wasn't important when they found it. They found something unimportant and utilized it (which is why my inventory is always full of miscellanous stuff) I'm talking important as in it tells the PCs something they didn't know before, or confirms something they suspected.

If you just have random treasure that may or may not be worthless, that's not actually important.

I don’t know if there will be a roll to which the the bardic inspiration could be applied.

But you heard them make the plan. The plan that you knew you would regulate to a passive check and would not be a roll. Would you not tell them that?

No, not when they move to the center of the room. When they declare an action (with clear goal and approach) that could succeed at finding the trap, could fail to find the trap, and has consequences for failure.

They declared an action, with a clear goal and approach. That action was to search for traps by moving to the center of the room. They could succeed in finding the trap. They could fail to the find the trap. And it has consequences for failing to find the trap.

Since the trap happens to be in the center of the room, do they get to roll to find the trap?

Different action than what? You didn’t describe any action in the example.

Yes I did. Moving to the center of the room to look for traps. That is an action, you clearly can picture it, it gives positioning. It has every single factor you have asked for. Do they get to roll to find the trap?

Then we have different definitions of reasonable specificity.

Clearly. If someone told me they were going to search a room, I'd know what they are doing and where they were. Seems reasonably specific to me.

I can imagine searching a room as a thing someone could do, but there are so many possible ways a person could go about doing so, I cannot form a clear mental picture of how a player’s character is doing so, unless they narrow it down for me or I make assumptions, and I do not want to make assumptions about the what the player wants their own character to do.


No, because it’s still too vague what they are doing in their search of the room. It leaves the fictional action an abstract haze, which doesn’t work very well for forming a consistent shared fiction.

Why does it matter EXACTLY how they are searching the room? There are many ways I could go about running too, multiple techniques and styles, each with pros and cons. But I don't need to ask someone HOW they are running. They are running, that is good enough.

That’s a way one might choose to resolve such an action, sure. For me, it’s too abstract. Can’t form a clear mental picture of what actually happened to result in the trap being sprung or not.

And here it is again. What matters is "did they declare an action which springs my trap".

It isn't about not understanding or not knowing, it is that you want them to state exactly what they are doing, so there is no question if they triggered the trap. Even if their action is to specifically look for traps so they don't spring them, you need to know if they randomly guessed the wrong thing to say, so that they actually sprung the trap before they get the chance to look.

And if this isn't the case? Then you could just remind them that failing the roll could result in any hazards in the room being activated. If they agree, then they also can't complain to you about the fact that they triggered the trap. Simple fix.

Why can’t they? They can make up whatever they want.

Because unless you state "This is from Tyr" to a group of people who aren't from Tyr, no one knows to make up the fact that they are from Tyr.

You seem awfully concerned about the possibility of failure without a roll, to the point that you would rather risk a swingy d20 roll than try to pursue success without a roll. That seems absolutely bonkers to me, but it is certainly your prerogative.

Because "you fail without even getting a chance to try" sucks. I'd rather have some chance of success than zero chance of success.

See, that sounds awesome to me. We’re gradually learning more about the character through play. That’s emergent storytelling right there, which to me is what D&D is all about.

I don’t agree that it boils down to the same thing at all. Like, I guess, in a strictly mechanical sense they might be resolved similarly. But in the former case you’ve generated and established a cool story about this character and their relationships with the people they met while studying magic, while in the latter case you have nothing but a vague abstract haze.

Sorry you feel that way I guess.

I can get the same backstory of people and relationships in magic school without them needing to make up a new fact every time they encounter something magical in the world. And it will be far more coherent and far easier to work into the story naturally than something they made up on the spot so they didn't need to risk rolling when they encountered swamp magic for the first time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That would necessitate a roll to find the trap. I think it would be a very bad DM call to deny the PC a roll, since the trap is in the middle of the room where he is looking for traps.

I agree

Where? The doorway? The walls? The floor? If it's everywhere, you better not complain when I have you opening drawers in the dresser and pulling the mattresses off of beds. If you're going to give me your PC to play like that, you don't have a right to complain when I play him.

If the drawers and mattress pulling are helping me find traps? Sure, I don't really care if you want to spend a little purple prose on me being extra cautious.

No. It means I follow the rules. Passive perception is for passing by a trap without actively searching that spot. To get an active roll, you need to be engaged in a more detailed search, which means giving details. Look at the RAW for finding secret doors on page 103 of the DMG.

"Detecting a Secret Door. Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it. Characters can also find a secret door by actively searching the location where the door is hidden and succeeding on a Wisdom (Perception) check."

It's the same for traps. You have to actively search the location where the trap is, not some generic "I look for traps." without specifying a location.

What is "a location"?

See, to me, if I had to actively search "the location" where a door is hidden? Then that would mean the room it is in. Not the specific wall it is on. Because it is kind of dumb to know the character is looking for a secret door, but because it is on the west wall and they said they were going to search the south wall, they don't get to roll to find it. Because all this leads to is "I search the South wall for a secret door. I search the East wall for a secret door. I search the North wall for a secret door. I search the West wall for a secret door."

You are searching for a secret door in the same room where there is a secret door? Great, let's roll.

You are searching for a trap in the same room where there is a trap? Great, let's roll.

I'm not going to require them specify "I search the floor for traps. I search the North wall for traps. I search the East Wall for traps..." because it is just obnoxious, and not required by the rules in any way, shape or form.

 

[Celebrim]

no it is based on everytime I say "my character is better then me and I don't know how to describe it" the answer isn't to help narrate, or to make a check but to make them say SOMETHING even if they and you know what they say will not be as good as what the character would do.

So there is so many assumptions I don't even know where to start.

The first is you are stuck in this paradigm of fear where the problem is the characters are really good, or really smart, or really charismatic or something, but the players aren't and the if the players have to role play their characters they will mess up and fail. Let's just let go of that insecurity as having no place at a table of friends who are all rooting for you to succeed.

And the second problem is that I don't know what they say will not be as good as what the character would do. The character might have a 6 Charisma, and the player might be somewhat charismatic. So equally you have to worry that someone will dump stat Charisma and then pretend to be super-charismatic.

But the most important assumption here that is just wrong is that it doesn't matter if you don't know how to describe it well. It doesn't matter if you stutter and stammer. It doesn't matter whether what you say is awkward and hesitant when you are trying to give a stirring speech along the lines of Henry V. That's not important about what you say because your character's skill matters the most. What's important about what you say in as much as is going to inform play is that your statements give me intent, and that it characterizes your character as something other than numbers on paper, and it tells me how to respond. It creates a concrete transcript of play so that when the warden asks the guard, "Why did you let the Scarlett Pimpernell pass?" he doesn't respond, "Because he fast talked me."

How you say it or whether you say it well has very little impact on the difficulty of what you say. The content of what you say can radically alter the difficulty depending on whether you have figured out clues elsewhere that might unlock secrets of the NPCs heart. But I assure you, if you play a high charisma character you won't get outshown in tests of charisma by a low charisma character very often because ultimately what we are going to test when we test fortune is going to be that character's charisma and not the players.

But let's just stop with the whole "The GM's out to get me", or bad experiences from GM's who learned how to play in skill-less systems who then adopted skilled systems but refused to engage with them and kept playing as if the skills didn't inform play. Because while those things can happen, they aren't the sole alternative to how you play.

in a game where the player picks a place to hide and it is someplace the DM thinks is dumb they just don't get a roll

Dude, in my game stealthy players can hide in the shadows of the corner of the room, and the NPC isn't going to see them unless they shine a bright light into the corner and stare there. In my game you can treat the difference between being stealthy and not being stealthy as there is no dumb place a stealthy player can hide because he can hide almost anywhere. Heck, by high level it's possible literally can hide anywhere, including in the open in the middle of the room. Anyone can hide in box, even a kindergartener. If a stealthy character hides in a box, there is a good chance the guard won't see him even if he looks in the box. You have got to get over this idea that I'm just trying to play "gotcha" and make you lose.

(When I was 5 I slept over at a cousin's house and as a prank I hid in the bed that I was sleeping in so that when my aunt came in to wake me she couldn't find me and freaked out. Half of stealth is misdirection.)

in a game where the 2 players of the 20 cha warlock and 8 cha barbarian happen to have the barbarian player be better at coming up with and talking through arguments and better at making friends... so the DM lets him auto pass since he has 'described something that should work'

All the horror stories you've been through only prove that some GMs are bad, and every GM makes mistakes. That's all they prove.

you say I am prioritizing character sheet over character... but the character sheet IS the representation of the character in our real world

In our real world. Let me repeat that. In our real world. The character sheet is an abstraction of the character in the imagined universe. It's a very limited tool for interacting with that imagined character and some of the character's interactions with the imagined universe. But the character in the imagined universe is presumably real, and the character sheet only abstracts out some useful bits of him (or her).

you say I am prioritizing game rules over game fiction... but I would say you prioritize player narration skill over game fiction.

I keep trying to tell you this. Player narration skill has very little impact on resolution. Player wisdom to choose a good move, like deciding to flatter a character known for vanity, and deciding to be up front and honest with a character known to hate toadies and yes men, might help a little bit but things like that can be discovered through play using character resources as well (like Investigation). And note, the most important aspect of this is not that it takes away from "the face man". The most important aspect of this is it allows social problems to be overcome if you don't have a face man in the party or allows "rerolls" or "do overs" if the dice cause you to flub a scene the first time. (Come back later with more ammunition and a better plan.) It's a primarily way to prevent social encounters from being a locked door you can't open and to add richness and team play to social challenges in the same way say combat has.

again if we say "I talk my way into the palace" and my character is KNOWN for being a charismatic fast talker... yeah we can skip that no issue.

Only if talking your way into the palace is so trivial for you that you can't fail, or the consequences of failure so low that they don't matter. But even then, I'd still like some idea how the player did it in case it comes up in the fiction. Beyond that, the player himself doesn't necessarily know how easy it is to talk his way into the palace, so he still needs some sort of plan. But even beyond that, "I talk my way into the palace" does nothing to characterize a scene (and make everyone laugh) quite like, "I pretend to be a fruit seller and in disguise get into the kitchens" or "I pretend to be an officious and important noble and intimidate my way through the guards." That's entertainment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I already determined what chances there were to see the hazard (we haven't established yet in the example if it's a pit trap under the rug or an assassin totally hidden by an alcove, out of LOS) from the door. It was not successful. What does the PC do next?

This has nothing to do with the point under discussion. The point under discussion involves the PC choosing to move to the center of the room to look for traps, activating the trap in the center of the room (which at this point we have established, because I've been discussing this example for over 24 hours) and not getting to roll to detect the trap.

You have said they would still get a save, which clarifies a point I acknowledged was unclear, but you have not stated that they still get to roll for their intended action.

We don't know yet. I haven't written up the whole encounter area, or thought through what the assassin was prepared to do, like I would have in an actual game. It is a truism that if a creature is completely out of LOS of another creature, and the second creature moves into a position where the hidden creature is now completely revealed/in LOS of the moving creature, hey, presto, you can see him now! So I need the player to tell me where his character is moving. That way I can fairly rule on whether he now has clear LOS or doesn't.

So you can't understand why people are talking about the assassin stabbing a PC who moved into the "wrong" position, because you have not yet written an encounter involving an Assassin hidden in a room that wants to stab the PCs?

Well, let me help you. The rest of us assumed a hostile creature hiding in a room will attack when it has advantage and will deal massive damage from sneak attack (it is an assassin after all). We finished your encounter writing to help demonstrate why we felt that forcing the PC to move and then acting to that move and their intended roll feels bad (Edit: And NOT their intended roll). If you want to say that the assassin is totally friendly and would rather hug the PCs, that's great, but I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where they stab instead, and can use that to understand our context for why we feel like "right position" and "wrong position" shouldn't matter more than the stated intent of the PC to find hidden threats.

This is again needlessly interpolating a hostile attitude.

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

The material point in the example was simply to illustrate that IF there is a hazard present in the scene, the DM needs some explanation from the characters about what elements of the scene their characters are interacting with, so we can tell whether the PCs have to deal with the hazard or just avoid it. And if there is NO hazard in the scene, skipping past players describing actions telegraphs to them that there was no hazard.

Needlessly interpolating a hostile attitude when you further clarified with traps and hazards on the walls, and the entire point being about which traps the PCs haplessly fall into. Right. Wonder why I keep thinking the hypothetical DM might be slightly hostile.

Also... why is it a problem to skip past a scene if there are no hazards present? You literally do it all the time, I guarantee you. After all, you don't ask which order they leave their rooms in the inn right? You don't ask them if they eat their potatoes before they drink their ale, right? We skip past non-hazards all the time. If the important part was the PCs declaring they go over non-hazardous walls, then it doesn't matter how they did it, they succeeded.


The only problem I can see with it is that the moment you stop and ask, the players are now on alert that something is up. Which can be a good thing. Not only does this mean I'm not wasting my time with them being paranoid about non-hazardous scenes, but it also means that they are more engaged and prepared when those hazards show up. Win-Win as far as I am concerned.

It's not three card monte. I'm not cheating the players. Please stop that.

It is interesting that you are taking a game that does not require cheating and reading into it an accusation of cheating. Three-Card Monte is a game you do not need to cheat at. I used it as an example of the player having three seemingly identical options with little to do but guess which one is safe.

D&D has traps in it. D&D is a game in which the DM has secret information about those traps, and the players need to make smart decisions to avoid them. Or we can run them the naughty word way where they just pop up willy-nilly and inflict damage/force saves without PCs getting a chance to spot them or make smart decisions based on gathered information within the scenario to avoid them.

Maybe the whole palace garden grounds have that poisonous ivy in various spots. Maybe the PCs have opportunity to interrogate a gardener and find out about the ivy. Or to read the groundskeeper's notebook in his little office/maintenance building. Maybe the PCs can use that information to just avoid the ivy-covered walls, or maybe they stumble into them.

Maybe poison ivy is such a minor nuisance I don't bother to put it in my games

Honestly, it seems this entire discussion has resolved around traps, which all of these discussions end up revolving around, and I think just illustrates that traps are a pain and barely worth the effort to include in the game at all. I'd much prefer the occasional set-piece puzzle trap over a player interrogating gardeners to make sure there are no patches of poison ivy on any walls they might possibly climb.

Also, I love how it is always a player needing to make "smart" decisions. This language always pops up and it is always problematic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Are you inside of or outside of the 45° cone of vision?

Is your shape matching the expected shape of the angle of vision, or are you creating odd contours which will draw the eye?

Have you matched your breathing to common patterns so the subtle shift of movement won't draw attention?


Ask masters of stealth, and they will give you a LOT more than "get behind something, don't move, don't make noise". Things that a +17 master of stealth knows to do, that you do not, because you are not a +17 master of stealth.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm going to assume as little extra context as possible.

If there is a danger, but you simply are not aware of it, I will allow you roll a skill to notice that danger (likely perception) and additionally assume you have taken the dodge action if we were to begin combat, until the start of your turn in combat or you take a different action. This will likely not give the attacker disadvantage, as they have advantage from being hidden, but it does make it a straight roll.

If there is no danger, I would note that you have drawn your weapons, tell you stand tensely looking around for a few moments, but nothing happens and nothing seems like it is going to happen, and ask what you do next.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree



If the drawers and mattress pulling are helping me find traps? Sure, I don't really care if you want to spend a little purple prose on me being extra cautious.



What is "a location"?

See, to me, if I had to actively search "the location" where a door is hidden? Then that would mean the room it is in. Not the specific wall it is on. Because it is kind of dumb to know the character is looking for a secret door, but because it is on the west wall and they said they were going to search the south wall, they don't get to roll to find it. Because all this leads to is "I search the South wall for a secret door. I search the East wall for a secret door. I search the North wall for a secret door. I search the West wall for a secret door."

You are searching for a secret door in the same room where there is a secret door? Great, let's roll.

You are searching for a trap in the same room where there is a trap? Great, let's roll.

I'm not going to require them specify "I search the floor for traps. I search the North wall for traps. I search the East Wall for traps..." because it is just obnoxious, and not required by the rules in any way, shape or form.

While I would not be upset if a DM ran it the way you describe, to me location means the east wall, south wall, north wall, floor, etc.

 

[Chaosmancer]

While I would not be upset if a DM ran it the way you describe, to me location means the east wall, south wall, north wall, floor, etc.

That's fair. To me location means room. Because I'm imaging it like a grid-based map.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

this is 100% immersion breaking for me...

again... we had someone earlier in the thread drop the idea of someone useing something from an old movie that the DM thought was dumb (I don't dissagree... it was not a good plan) but the DM in the example let the player (that in the example would have a great roll if given a roll) do it without warning them even if the character should at least in theory know better.

any time a player says "My character has a good skill, but i don't know how to do this" the DM should (if they care about immersion or character skill) do somthinge... maybe just give the roll, maybe help by advisiing "Well you know hiding in x or y is okay but you are sure if you hide in z it will almost gurantee"

Immersion is something that's probably based on the group's collective feeling. At my table, we avoid a lot of these problems by narrating after the roll. It will certainly feel extremely gamey to you, but it works for us: using the diplomacy example, rolling a 34 will let the character talk past the guard, and then the player narrates. If the player has the skill to come up with a very good argument on why he should be let inside, it works well, if he doesn't, then the character's natural confidence and charisma complemented the poor argument of "Err... let me pass, morons, don't you know who I am?". If it's 3, then well, it doesn't work and the skilled player can narrate something that won't work, like hesitating, sputtering and contradicting himself slightly to raise suspicion. People good at narrating good use of skills will generally be able to narrate less-than-optimal use of the same skill in my table's experience. Same with Stealth. Everyone roll Stealth, the 34-rolling rogue his expertly hiding under the table, despite lack of tablecloth and the ogre sitting to eat a meal (description is how you make the difference between a cartoony scene and a scene with an awesome thief being supremely stealthy). The 3-rollling barbarians feet will stick out from under the curtain. The best roller had located the ideal place relative to his skill level, the one who failed didn't but in many case where there is no blatant answer to a problem, we use the result of the roll to help narrate the scene.

I get that you're helping the player identify the ideal hiding spot but we would find the "where do you hide?" "what my character would deem the best place to hide to be?" "behind the curtain" "ok, then there." to be tedious after a while.


We sometimes have the reverse. The Erol Flynn mention reminds me of a situation where the player said "I have enough movement to walk down the stairs and get to the bad guy and stab him... Is it realistic [we use that word to mean genre-appropriate often] to jump, catch the chandelier and lower right beside him to stab him instead?" Depending on the tone of the campaign it would be "sure" or "you'd need an acrobatic roll, but you'd get advantage on the attack roll" (and the dice result would determine the narration of the effectiveness of catching the chandelier) or maybe "you know that it is taking risk for little gain in the fight, as an experienced fighter. But these exchanges are rare and we find them immersion-breaking.