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

[Reynard]

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.

It could, but that's not how the game works by the rules. There's nothing wrong with that methodology. I don't like it, because I think it's the role of the player to say what they are doing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It could, but that's not how the game works by the rules. There's nothing wrong with that methodology. I don't like it, because I think it's the role of the player to say what they are doing.

Fair enough. I just find it an easy way to adjudicate what is going on when the player doesn't want to offer the specifics you are looking for.

 

[Reynard]

Fair enough. I just find it an easy way to adjudicate what is going on when the player doesn't want to offer the specifics you are looking for.

I would wonder why. The one thing the player is responsible for is interacting with the world through their character. I know a couple people have explained their reasoning in this thread, and I get sometimes people just want to get to.the next thing or are trying to avoid making the wrong choice, but I think that if everyone is playing in good faith and working for everyone else's fun, the core loop is the most rewarding for players and GMs.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Well see, now you’re talking in terms of character action, which is different than “I use my perception skill.” Using your light source to examine something is at least an actual declaration of action, though I don’t really see it revealing anything the description of the environment didn’t already, unless your light hadn’t previously reached whatever you’re trying to examine.

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

Interacting with it physically in some way?

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

It’s not that she needed to mention checking the seams - there could have been any number of other ways she could have found the trap. But I did determine that this action did succeed in her finding it.

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?

From Xanathar’s guide: “Thieves’ tools include a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers.” I imagine the character using those tools to probe the mechanism for the trap, perhaps jamming it or triggering a partial activation or something similar. A certain degree of abstraction is necessary here because neither I nor (presumably) the player know the precise mechanics of the trap or how to disarm it with those tools. The important thing is, I know generally what the character is doing within the fictional space.

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?)

You’re imagining that I have decided in advance on certain actions that will be needed to disarm the trap. This is not the case, and indeed I specifically avoid doing so, because doing so is exactly what leads to the dreaded “gotcha” gameplay.

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?

Well, let’s think it through. Your goal is to disable the trap. You approach is to secure the triggering mechanism in place with glue and duct tape. Can that approach succeed at accomplishing that goal? I certainly think so. Can it fail at accomplishing that goal? Sure, you could accidentally bump it too hard and actually cause the bell to ring. Does failing to accomplish the goal have a consequence? Yes, the bell ringing would be a meaningful consequence, as it would alert nearby enemies (that’s what the trap was designed to do), not to mention the time it would take to apply the tape and glue and wait for the glue to set. So, I would say this would require about 10 minutes (my standard “dungeon turn”) to attempt and require a successful Dexterity check. I’d probably go with DC 10. On a failure, you accidentally trigger the trap.

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?

I’d say something like “when you step closer to look at the seams, you feel something sink under your feet and hear a click. What do you do?” Depending on what the pressure plate triggers and what the player says they do in response, they might be able to avoid the effects of the trap without needing to make a save. For example, if they say “I hold my breath,” they would automatically succeed if the trap releases poison gas, but not if it fires poison darts. Though I would still ask them to make a Dex save in the latter case, because not getting to roll to save because you didn’t blindly guess what the trap would do correctly would suck.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

So, this is a pretty common way I see DMs resolve actions. The player asks to make a check, or states what they want to accomplish but not what their character does to try and accomplish it and the DM calls for a check. Then based on the results of the check, the DM comes up with a narrative explanation for what the character must have done to achieve that outcome. I don’t care for this approach because it leaves the in-fiction action ambiguous until after its success or failure is determined, and it usually requires the DM to be the one to decide what the character did, which I see as an overstepping of their role. I have occasionally seen the player actually suggest a narrative explanation for the result of their check, but even then they usually look to the DM for confirmation that their description is valid, and often the DM will add their own narrative detail. This is, for example, how Matt Mercer does it.

Personally, I prefer the player to give the narrative explanation first, then decide if a roll is even necessary based on that narrative explanation. In this setup, the roll doesn’t determine how well you did; if you say you do it, you do it, and the check is used to determine if any potential consequences of what you did occur.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would wonder why. The one thing the player is responsible for is interacting with the world through their character. I know a couple people have explained their reasoning in this thread, and I get sometimes people just want to get to.the next thing or are trying to avoid making the wrong choice, but I think that if everyone is playing in good faith and working for everyone else's fun, the core loop is the most rewarding for players and GMs.

For me the most fun is getting to the end at each point in the loop, so taking time for each player to give a detailed account takes time I'd rather resolving things to move the adventure along.

It is one reason why (as a player or DM) I get frustrated and annoyed when players expound forever or get silly about it. It might be fun for them but it isn't for me. Sometimes is ok, but not all the time. Then I feel like asking them "Can we move this along?"

So, this is a pretty common way I see DMs resolve actions. The player asks to make a check, or states what they want to accomplish but not what their character does to try and accomplish it and the DM calls for a check. Then based on the results of the check, the DM comes up with a narrative explanation for what the character must have done to achieve that outcome. I don’t care for this approach because it leaves the in-fiction action ambiguous until after its success or failure is determined, and it usually requires the DM to be the one to decide what the character did, which I see as an overstepping of their role. I have occasionally seen the player actually suggest a narrative explanation for the result of their check, but even then they usually look to the DM for confirmation that their description is valid, and often the DM will add their own narrative detail. This is, for example, how Matt Mercer does it.

Yep, it is a bit old-school IME. It comes from the fact that (for me anyway) D&D is about the adventure, not the characters. The "how" is not important to me, really, just the "result".

It is the same with attacking. "I attack the XYZ" is common, not "I shift to the side, and swing my gleaming blade back into XYZ!" All that truly matters is the result of the attack (and damage if appropriate) roll.

Personally, I prefer the player to give the narrative explanation first, then decide if a roll is even necessary based on that narrative explanation. In this setup, the roll doesn’t determine how well you did; if you say you do it, you do it, and the check is used to determine if any potential consequences of what you did occur.

If you have more fun with the "narrative approach", more power to you, but for me it becomes tedious after a while.

So, if you have a hidden compartment at the bottom of a chest, and the player says "I examine the bottom of the chest to see if it is a false bottom" are they going to make a check or do you just say, "You find a hidden compartment"???

 

[Reynard]

For me the most fun is getting to the end at each point in the loop, so taking time for each player to give a detailed account takes time I'd rather resolving things to move the adventure along.

It is one reason why (as a player or DM) I get frustrated and annoyed when players expound forever or get silly about it. It might be fun for them but it isn't for me. Sometimes is ok, but not all the time. Then I feel like asking them "Can we move this along?"

Interesting. If it works, it works, but that feels kind of board gamey to me. Also, I can imagine plenty of circumstances where failures lead to harsh consequences-- setting off a trap or bumbling into an ambush -- and players countering with "I didn't say I was doing THAT." Better to have it reasonably clear beforehand, IMO

 

[Charlaquin]

It is one reason why (as a player or DM) I get frustrated and annoyed when players expound forever or get silly about it. It might be fun for them but it isn't for me. Sometimes is ok, but not all the time. Then I feel like asking them "Can we move this along?"


Yep, it is a bit old-school IME. It comes from the fact that (for me anyway) D&D is about the adventure, not the characters. The "how" is not important to me, really, just the "result".

It is the same with attacking. "I attack the XYZ" is common, not "I shift to the side, and swing my gleaming blade back into XYZ!" All that truly matters is the result of the attack (and damage if appropriate) roll.

The thing is “I attack the XYZ” is, in context, enough to determine what you want to accomplish and what your character is doing to accomplish it. Technically “I attack the XYZ with my sword, aiming to kill” would be more complete, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that in combat, the goal of an attack is to kill unless the player specifies otherwise, and if they already have a weapon equipped and don’t specify switching to another weapon, it’s clear from context that they’re attacking with the equipped one.

If you have more fun with the "narrative approach", more power to you, but for me it becomes tedious after a while.

So, if you have a hidden compartment at the bottom of a chest, and the player says "I examine the bottom of the chest to see if it is a false bottom" are they going to make a check or do you just say, "You find a hidden compartment"???

Yeah, that wouldn’t require a roll from me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

“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.

sure it is... just like I could have "Use my rogue skill in picking locks" or "Use my characters skill with ____ tool kit"

now "remind the king of his ancestors bravery is great.... if you (the player remembers the king has a brave ancestor) but "I try to convince the king", "I diplomancy" and "dude, I want that king to listen to us" all get the point across.

 

[Reynard]

I think it is important to note that this isn't about narrative or story or immersion, at least not for me. It's primarily about having enough information to adjudicate the situation, and a little bit about player agency.