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

[GMforPowergamers]

A question, how does "I make a perception check..." NOT qualify under this exact circumstance?

Translated from the jargon it means " I use every resource available to me under the circumstances, to perceive what is around me." It is EXPRESSLY asking for an active surveillance of the area. And can be pictured easily by the DM as such.

Sure, the player is technically asking for a roll, but really they are asking for the DM to provide all available information the character (at whatever level of perception he is capable of) can glean. So the DM may not actually require one.

It's a perfectly fine, if general, action declaration.

I am sure no player would mind "Oh, an active perception give you X Y and Z with no rolls" or a "make a roll" but if you don't give me a roll and then spring a trap (like say an assassin attacking) I am going to ask why I didn't get a roll... and the answer will determine if I continue to play in that campaign.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t know how to answer that. It is self-evident to me that this is not enough information about in-fiction activity to translate into a visual medium like film.

you do realize to some of us it is fine... we can imagine an active looking and a passive noticing.

That’s far too vague. If this was the direction in a script, how would one depict it in film?

close up of the eyes of my character then zoom over to the shadow that the assassin then my character reacts to or doesn't react to the danger.

And here we seem to have arrived back at “the player is asking for information the DM (should have) already given them as part of the description of the environment.

except a passive perception of 13 and an active perception check where I roll 11 or higher on the d20 would be VERY different information.

if the assassin has 17 stealth check and I roll a 15+3 I get an 18 and notice her. IF I roll a 7 nothing changes

I disagree. It does not tell me anything substantive about what the character is actually doing. It gives me nothing to visualize.

I am looking actively for danger

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes. This. Both of these sentences contain both what the player hopes to achieve and what the character is doing to try to make it happen. This is all I’m asking for.

yet "I use my characters skill in perception to actively look for danger" isn't enough why?

 

[Mort]

I don’t know how to answer that. It is self-evident to me that this is not enough information about in-fiction activity to translate into a visual medium like film.

How is "I actively try to perceive my surroundings using all resources available to me..." Not specific enough?

It means I am focusing my attention by visually checking what is around me, at the cost of some other action.

It's also pretty easy to visualize. The character stops and surveys the area. Something an actor or director can easily with with.

That’s far too vague. If this was the direction in a script, how would one depict it in film?

As above, the character stops and looks around focusing on the various things around them. Seems extraordinarily straight forward.

And here we seem to have arrived back at “the player is asking for information the DM (should have) already given them as part of the description of the environment.

Not necessarily. The character has stopped and declared they are actively heavily focused and looking around perceiving what they can. This is quite different than just a passive interaction.

I disagree. It does not tell me anything substantive about what the character is actually doing. It gives me nothing to visualize.

Again, why not?

Stopping, and actively looking around to perceive all that one can is a fairly specific action. It is significantly more than just passively interacting with the environment.

It is also distinguishable from other actions the character might take such as searching the area (which generally involves physically interacting with it vs. just looking it over) or hiding (which, again, generally involves physical interaction over just visual examination).

My point is, it seems the bar on action declarations seems to be being set too high. Often something seemingly general (such as the op example) is sufficient if the DM just goes with it. And if the DM really does believe it's too general a simple "can you elaborate on what exactly your doing?" Is usually sufficient to elicit a response "good enough" to move forward.

 

[Charlaquin]

yet "I use my characters skill in perception to actively look for danger" isn't enough why?

“remind [the king] of his ancestors' bravery” and “use my thieves’ tools” are both things the character is doing in the fictional space. “Use my character’s skill in perception” is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

How is "I actively try to perceive my surroundings using all resources available to me..." Not specific enough?

“All resources available to me” is literally the opposite of specific.

It means I am focusing my attention by visually checking what is around me, at the cost of some other action.

It's also pretty easy to visualize. The character stops and surveys the area. Something an actor or director can easily with with.

As above, the character stops and looks around focusing on the various things around them. Seems extraordinarily straight forward.

Not necessarily. The character has stopped and declared they are actively heavily focused and looking around perceiving what they can. This is quite different than just a passive interaction.
Again, why not?

Stopping, and actively looking around to perceive all that one can is a fairly specific action. It is significantly more than just passively interacting with the environment.

Ok, so the character is looking around. Yes, this is indeed something that could be represented visually, and would result in… stuff the DM should have already included in the description of the environment, because it’s the DM’s job to act as the characters’ eyes, ears, noses, etc.

It is also distinguishable from other actions the character might take such as searching the area (which generally involves physically interacting with it vs. just looking it over)

Yes, ok, that interaction, that’s something that could result in new information. But physically interacting how? I would need more specifics to visualize the activity.

or hiding (which, again, generally involves physical interaction over just visual examination).

Sure, hiding where? That’s crucial information for visualizing the scene.

My point is, it seems the bar on action declarations seems to be being set too high. Often something seemingly general (such as the op example) is sufficient if the DM just goes with it. And if the DM really does believe it's too general a simple "can you elaborate on what exactly your doing?" Is usually sufficient to elicit a response "good enough" to move forward.

I would certainly think asking for such elaboration would be sufficient, yes, and in my real life experience it has been. But for whatever reason when I say that here I get grilled to the third degree and insinuated to be trying to trap players into gotchas.

 

[Imaculata]

I've taught my players that if they ask for a check, they are asking for a chance to fail. Not every action has a chance to fail. Often you just automatically succeed. Checks are for when there is uncertainty regarding success, which is for me as a DM to decide.

 

[Cadence]

Yes. This. Both of these sentences contain both what the player hopes to achieve and what the character is doing to try to make it happen. This is all I’m asking for.

Is saying one is using the thieves tools to disarm the trap any more specific than they are using their eyes and a good light source to search everything near the door for traps?

How else would a thief check something for traps besides using their eyes?

So do they need to mention they are checking the seams to make it clear they are finding the lever trap?

What do you envision in your mind when they say they use their their thieves tools to disarm the trap? Do we even know what thieves tools are in any particularly specific way that the picture everyone envisions are vaguely the same? If they say they use their thieves tools, but a hammer and spike or some rope would be needed do they auto-fail for not mentioning they use those too? (How do you disarm a lever when you only see the end of it in a crack using standard thieves tools?)

If mentioning the seam where the trap was was can give an auto success in finding it, can mentioning doing something to the lever (I duct tape it and super-glue it in place) give an auto-success on disarming it?

What happens if they say they're searching the seams but the trap actually a pressure plate under the carpet in front of the door --that they'd need to step on to check the seams?

 

[Reynard]

How is "I actively try to perceive my surroundings using all resources available to me..." Not specific enough?

It's a subtle difference in some circumstances, but for me I, as GM, need to where you are and what you are doing. It can be as simple as "I peer into the room from the hallway." I know where you are and what action you're taking, so I can effectively adjudicate.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's a subtle difference in some circumstances, but for me I, as GM, need to where you are and what you are doing. It can be as simple as "I peer into the room from the hallway." I know where you are and what action you're taking, so I can effectively adjudicate.

Doesn't the result of the roll sort of decide how well you search, for example?

If a player says, "I make a perception check" (I assume their position in the scenario is already established) that is very vague and (as I said upthread) I generally interpret that to mean the character is looking around and so I give them general information.

Now, suppose they roll a total of 25. Inside the room, you have a secret door with DC 20. Can't the roll justify that whatever the character was actually doing while "perceiving" resulted in them finding the secret door???

In such a case, "just looking around" with such a good roll, could easily mean the PC spots the crack in the wall that leads to the secret door being discovered.