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

[Cruentus]

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.

It seems that there are only two ways you see play happening: pixel by pixel or "I make a perception check". I'd posit you're missing a lot in between.

From the Basic DnD Rules:

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents."

Saying "I make a perception check" to "avoid wasting my precious time, because anything else is boring and tedious" seems to go against the very first sentences of the Intro. "I roll perception is not "imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react...." I know I don't walk into a room and say (or think) "I roll perception."

 

[Reynard]

example... that paliden rolls a 3 and a 7 with the disadvantage that is a 2 stealth.
maybe they don't get it in fast enough or they made some noise or there foot is sticking out... but the oger cook notices.

Presumably, the PCs could hear the ogre coming and had time to choose their hiding places. I would totally call for rolls if I was also using those checks to further define the situation (which I do sometimes) but absent that it seems strange to make the perfectly hidden character roll.

 

[billd91]

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.

Yeah, I'm with you on that one. I'm done with pixel auditing games. If you're searching something, yeah, you're going to interact with it and if that means your investigation check fails to find the contact-based trap, you're gonna trigger it when you get to that point. If your investigation check was good enough to spot it, then you spot it before interacting with the trapped object/area could have triggered it. We're not going to go 20 questions on whether or not you touched it, opened the bureau, searched under the mattress, whatever.

One thing I will allow is that if you say you're searching the room and specifically call out some place where some goodie is hidden, I'll give you that for free because you called it out.

There are medium points between pixel auditing/policing language about what PCs are doing and how they're doing it and saying "I Greyhawk the room".

 

[tetrasodium]

and I would depend on the skill of the character at my table.
a paliden with 0 dex not prof in full plate "roll" to see if he hides behinde the door well... the expertise 20 dex roge...he ides under that table no roll

You can just move behind the door & hope for the best. Alternately if you were really stumped on what your PC might do you could make some kind of knowledge check (ie wis:stealth or wis:insight) to intuit what would be a good place to hide then say "yea I want to hide in [specific one]" after coming up with options. Of couirse how long you want to spend trying to intuit that will impact the DC & possible results but you would need to decide that not expect me the gm to decide it

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that level of specificity is counter productive, if only because players can convince themselves of thing and run after a red herring. A slightly more general declaration from the rogue of, "I pull out my tools and probe the door for traps," is better, IMO.

I think the majority of the time, yes, it’s best not to be overly specific. But I think there are times when a high degree of specificity is smart play. I would never make it a requirement though.

 

[Cadence]

I think the majority of the time, yes, it’s best not to be overly specific. But I think there are times when a high degree of specificity is smart play. I would never make it a requirement though.

I've become a fan of asking them how much time they're willing to spend doing the search. It feels like if you have a few minutes that the specificity is more important than having as long as it takes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Serious question: why?

because in character 1 is good at hiding and one is bad at it.

this goes back to 2e and into 3e but my group had issues with player knowledge spilling over into the game and giving some player HUGE advantages... and them being rude and using the advantages to steal spotlight. What started as a safe guard rule "Sorry I don't care how swave you are and you can talk around ross's stutter but his high cha sorcerer is STILL more likeable then your low cha barbarian" started us thinking about player vs character skill.

once we started thinking about it (and even long after we split form teh problem players) we kept it. We found people were more willing to stretch out and think about what there character could or could not do not what they could or could not describe. It also helped the DMs figure out when and when not to call for rolls (although we still are not all 100% agreeing on that even these years and editions later).

so in this case (two characters hiding from the oger cook) I would as the DM assess that the rogue that is a master sneak is going to get passed any oger that isn't very special... he just is, his thing is stealth so stealth he just rocks at. the Paladin though stealth is NOT his thing. not only is he not good at it but he has made choices that make it worse (he the player not the character... he put an 8 in dex and has armor that gives disadvantage) so the same way I feel it is doing a dissservice to teh rogue player to not give him his stealth moment, I feel that the Pally player is being given HIS moment too... this is now down to pure luck, and if with disadvantage and a -1 he beats the passive perception of the oger cook that is an AMAZING story we will tell for at least months. if he doesn't that too is just the story of the guy who isn't good at hiding trying to hide.

 

[Charlaquin]

but would it be equally good for a 20th level rogue with maxed out stats and skills and a ton of experence as a 1st level wizard who never stepped foot in a dungeon has no stat or skill bonus to finding traps? does the characters skill matter at all?

Avatar strength does matter, in cases where the action could fail and has meaningful stakes. Player skill also matters, in trying to eliminate the chance of failure and/or stakes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It seems that there are only two ways you see play happening: pixel by pixel or "I make a perception check". I'd posit you're missing a lot in between.

there is alot inbetween if you scroll back you will find I gave examples of both ends of the spectrum and somewhere between. The fact that I do not like being forced to one extreme doesn't mean I don't know the whole range... and sometimes I even CHOOSE to go to the extreme I don;t want to be force to,

From the Basic DnD Rules:

"The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents."

Saying "I make a perception check" to "avoid wasting my precious time, because anything else is boring and tedious" seems to go against the very first sentences of the Intro. "I roll perception is not "imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react...." I know I don't walk into a room and say (or think) "I roll perception."

I don't agree

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Presumably, the PCs could hear the ogre coming and had time to choose their hiding places. I would totally call for rolls if I was also using those checks to further define the situation (which I do sometimes) but absent that it seems strange to make the perfectly hidden character roll.

how perfect he is will be to teh dice to decide. the description of the perfect hiding place is what teh player wanted just like the player always wants to hit or to save... they aren't describing missing either