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

[Charlaquin]

That's fine. But a good amount of this thread seems to be putting down players and DMs who choose to not follow RAW in this instance. If the player just wants to declare a check, roll the dice, and the DM is fine with this, then go for it. I guess I'm just surprised by so many posts here by DM who don't simply shrug their shoulders and go "sure" if a player wants to do so. The game is minimally impacted, and the player is happy. Even though I'm usually a fairly RAW DM, I guess I'm a bit unusual with not minding this at all...

That the game is minimally impacted is the point of contention here. I think pretty much everyone who prefers the players to describe actions rather than just ask to make checks feels it does have a significant impact on their games. It certainly does on mine.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules i quoted specifically say the repeated use of a skill. So, yes, a detailed search every 10 feet.

So it takes hours for the party to go down a 100 foot passage? Because detailed searches of both sides every 10 feet is going to take forever.

So, yes, the PCs are moving slowly and suffer whatever consequences might happen for focusing on searching. The rules do not indicate any different use of the skill, only a different procedure in determining the result of the skill use as a way to save time. Or, when the DM wants to keep the results secret. Again, no changes in the actual way the skill is used in play are indicated.

The absolutely do differentiate between active uses and passive uses. Every physical task is one that can be/is done repeatedly so there could be no ability checks if passive checks invalidated them like you are saying.

 

[Charlaquin]

Were the DMG and PHB written by the same people? The DMG seems to back up the passiveness of things mire like the sage advice, and in contrast to how the PHB seems to read to many.

The DMG feels like passive perception is kind of like AC. You just get to use it when stealthed against by a person or object.

View attachment 256622View attachment 256623View attachment 256624

Most of these are examples of the other way the PHB suggests using passive ability checks: when the DM wants to determine the result secretly.

 

[Reynard]

So it takes hours for the party to go down a 100 foot passage? Because detailed searches of both sides every 10 feet is going to take forever.

I think that is kind of the intent. In other words passive checks aren't meant to give you a free pass on spell durations and wandering monster checks, but just reduce the number of rolls.

The absolutely do differentiate between active uses and passive uses. Every physical task is one that can be/is done repeatedly so there could be no ability checks if passive checks invalidated them like you are saying.

I think we are having a disagreement over something we can't actually determine with certainty re: RAW. I apologize if I got a little insistent. You do you and ill do me and I bet we both have fun games.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Well since this a rant thread...

What the eff is up with separating Investigation and Perception? They're the same damn thing.

 

[Reynard]

Well since this a rant thread...

What the eff is up with separating Investigation and Perception? They're the same damn thing.

I get what they were going for but I don't feel like they stuck the landing. Perception is seeing the bloody knife and the old ledger and the letters from an angry business associate, while investigation is putting them all together to figure out who the next victim is. But that's super narrow, so they expanded it.

it is extra weird for rogues, because they have three separate "I deal with the trap" skills and it ultimately just slows down play.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that those here who say it should never be done and act as if it's some horrible bad thing might just want to consider that some players might prefer to do that, and some DMs are fine with them doing so.

I'm perfectly fine with a table whose process of play includes a proposition filter that accepts bare Moves as proposition without a transcript of play or interaction with the fiction. If there is a table that wants to play that way and it makes them happy, then they can do so.

But that's not my table. You learn to roleplay, and you learn to interact with the fiction, or you can just leave. It's not like I have a shortage of players. If you aren't going to be entertaining*, I'm going to be happier without you and maybe you'll be happier somewhere where they are happy with, "I use Persuade on the Guard" as a proposition.

I will say that players that don't role-play IME are usually players with low self-esteem and who lack confidence in their social skills. And in my experience, prodding them to enter into the role and inhabit it and offer social propositions in character and trust their ability to do so tends to be therapeutic and builds self-confidence. It usually starts out a bit painful, and it usually involves a lot of stuttering at first and people telling me, "I'm not that good at this.", and a lot of me saying, "You're doing fine", but it generally works out. They as I say, "put points on their [real life] character sheet". The build skills and they become better players all around. Arguably my best RPer in my current group started out as the shyest and least confident to act in character.

So I'm not going to apologize for "forcing" players to learn to play well. It's worked out really well over 40 years and it brings me so much joy to watch players come out of their shells and turn into just beautiful role-players with shining moments of awesome.

*No body wants to watch a table with propositions like "I use Persuade on the Guard" and no acting and no engaging transcript of play. Matt Mercer doesn't become famous if he has those players. So why would should I want to participate in that?

 

[Celebrim]

What the eff is up with separating Investigation and Perception? They're the same damn thing.

There is a difference in seeing something and recognizing the importance of what you see. Generally Perception deals with animal instincts and reflexes. It's how good your senses are, how alert you are to the slightest sounds and motions, and so forth. Special Forces operators, snipers, and cats have high Perceptions.

Investigation is the skill of interpreting your perceptions intelligently. It has to do with how much of what you can see you can understand when you attention is focused on it. Hercule Perot and Sherlock Holmes have high Investigation. You can have both, but it's not contradictory to be good at one and bad at the other.

There are often parallel divisions in other systems between "Notice" and "Comprehend".

 

[Umbran]

I will say that players that don't role-play IME are usually players with low self-esteem and who lack confidence in their social skills.

Mod Note:

The insulting assessment of folks who don't play like you needs to stop. Now.

 

[Umbran]

What the eff is up with separating Investigation and Perception? They're the same damn thing.

I have played with them significantly different.

Perception is about noticing details that are difficult for the senses to perceive.
Investigation is about looking at things that are known or easy to perceive, and understanding what they mean.