D&D 5E Is "perception" even a good concept?

[Imaculata]

There's actually no DC until a goal and approach is stated and the DM has determined uncertainty. Modules or the DMG obviously have to give a DC to communicate how easy or hard something is to the reader, but most actually say the specific goal and approach that applies to that DC or it's implied. So it might say "If the character searches the north wall, he or she has a chance to spot the secret door with a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check." The uncertainty here is presumably that someone has taken steps to conceal the door from prying eyes and a standard search requires a check. If the character doesn't search the north wall, then some other DC may apply or the character never had a chance to notice it. If the character exhaustively searches the north wall (spending 10x the usual time on it, maybe), then there's also no DC - the character automatically succeeds.

A similar situation recently came up in my campaign. The players were exploring some ruins on an abandoned island, after previous encountering a pit trap. One of the players stated that while exploring the jungle, he would use a rod to poke the ground in front of him, to look for more pit traps. So the player clearly stated his goal and approach, and as a DM I really didn't see any reason why he wouldn't find the next pit trap this way. And so he did, no check needed. There was no chance for failure, and if there was, that would be just silly. Because the player is obviously taking his time to deliberately look for another pit trap that he expects will be there.

 

[iserith]

A similar situation recently came up in my campaign. The players were exploring some ruins on an abandoned island, after previous encountering a pit trap. One of the players stated that while exploring the jungle, he would use a rod to poke the ground in front of him, to look for more pit traps. So the player clearly stated his goal and approach, and as a DM I really didn't see any reason why he wouldn't find the next pit trap this way. And so he did, no check needed. There was no chance for failure, and if there was, that would be just silly. Because the player is obviously taking his time to deliberately look for another pit trap that he expects will be there.

Good example. This is why the 10' pole is a thing in D&D.

If you're a player, you don't want to roll the dice. I'll never understand players that are all "Can I roll a [whatever] check?" Pay attention. Establish a goal. Describe your approach to achieving that goal clearly and succinctly. "I want to run a pole along the ground in an effort to find and avoid pit traps." Great, brilliant. You automatically succeed at finding all the pit traps. You don't need to roll and that's what you want. Your decisions matter.

It's just unfortunate when the pole hits a tripwire for the deadfall.

(Well, for them.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, it says that in the rules. You don't have to take my word for it.

The rules can say what they want.

There's actually no DC until a goal and approach is stated and the DM has determined uncertainty.

Certainly, if he's calling for a check, he sets the DC (if he hasn't already, or if he's not just abdicating that responsibility in favor of using an adventure as written). If you're comparing a passive score to a DC, and deciding the DC right then, you're just back to deciding success vs failure, though.

I see the line you're painting, of course, I just don't see the value of the distinction. But, then, I don't see the value of comparing DCs instead of making an actual check vs a DC, in fact, I see it as a negative. :shrug:

Some other goal and approach might be automatically successful or fail outright.
There's no pixel-bitching at all though. There's just reasonable specificity as I mentioned in another thread.

I can accept that's what you're aiming for. But, I also know from sad experience back in the day that players react to success & failure, especially if they perceive it as a 'gotchya' because they failed to state just the right action or just the right way. That leads to declaring tons of 'reasonably specific' actions, which is what I'm equating to video-game pixel bitching. Can't search for a secret door and a trap at the same time? Always search for each. Get burned because there was a hidden monster that you didn't find because you were busy looking for secret doors & traps, look for all three, every time.
Gets annoying.

Passives avoid that. When the players aren't driving themselves, and you, crazy with elaborate precautions and repeating phrasings that have granted them alertness in the past, you can just roll a check behind the screen, against a passive score, and off you go. Ramps down the paranoia and obsessive attention to detail.
It was a benefit I noticed even back in 3.0, being able to get away from mapping every square inch and doing 'door drills' and whatnot. ('New School' they called that in another thread...) ;P

Of course, folks can run this however they want. It's just that a lot of other methods for handling passive Perception and the like dissatisfy a lot of people and that's typically because of how they handle it at the table.

Nod. I find the standard resolution satisfying, as a DM, I can move things along, set things up, or call for checks when it's appropriate. My issue is with what passes for a check. d20 vs DC gives a reasonable, if sadly flat distribution. d20 vs d20 is too swingy; DC vs DC has no swing at all.

I see no issue with resolving uncertainty with an actual d20 vs DC check: if in response to a player action, I set a DC, if a PC is the object, 'passives' act as a DC, and I can decide on the bonus to apply.

I do see (or rather, have long since developed an aversion to, having seen it so much back in the day), an issue with players declaring elaborate plans & precautions, explicitly describing every step of everything they do, and examining every square inch of an environment. It's just tedious.

....

Oh, another tangent about rolls. Group checks. Like passives, they've been useful in heading off some old issues. One thing I never cared for after 3.0 introduced knowledge checks was the fail-and-pile-on phenomenon. One character asks a question, the DM calls for a knowledge check, the player craps out, then everyone else, whether they're particularly good at the skill or not jumps in and rolls, typically someone, not always someone who makes sense, succeeds. BA makes this a particularly seductive, and particularly obnoxious, as it's that much more likely to work, and to have an out-of-character success. Group checks suggested an alternative. When everyone piles onto a knowledge check, it becomes a group check, if more than half fail, they can't sort the right answers some may have come up with from the general confusion, and no useful information is gained.

Of course, 5e also gives the easy answer of just narrating success/failure.

 

[iserith]

The rules can say what they want.

Certainly, if he's calling for a check, he sets the DC (if he hasn't already, or if he's not just abdicating that responsibility in favor of using an adventure as written). If you're comparing a passive score to a DC, and deciding the DC right then, you're just back to deciding success vs failure, though.

I see the line you're painting, of course, I just don't see the value of the distinction. But, then, I don't see the value of comparing DCs instead of making an actual check vs a DC, in fact, I see it as a negative. :shrug:

The DC is set without reference to the passive score of the character but rather the stated goal and approach. It goes back to that whole consistency thing, too. A typical search while exploring might have a standardized DC of 15 for secret doors that lead to a useful short cut or safe room or DC 20 for one that hides treasure. Canny players start to figure out the bounds and can plan accordingly - "Put the cleric with the 16 Wis and Perception training on secret door search and have the barbarian Work Together to bump the cleric's passive to 20." Both of them are surprised when the gargoyles attack from hiding, but they will always find the secret doors. That's a fair trade-off in my view.

You say later that you see comparing passive score to DC as negative because there's no "swing." What's the upside of having that swing? There's certainly none for the player so far as I can see.

I can accept that's what you're aiming for. But, I also know from sad experience back in the day that players react to success & failure, especially if they perceive it as a 'gotchya' because they failed to state just the right action or just the right way. That leads to declaring tons of 'reasonably specific' actions, which is what I'm equating to video-game pixel bitching. Can't search for a secret door and a trap at the same time? Always search for each. Get burned because there was a hidden monster that you didn't find because you were busy looking for secret doors & traps, look for all three, every time.
Gets annoying.

Passives avoid that. When the players aren't driving themselves, and you, crazy with elaborate precautions and repeating phrasings that have granted them alertness in the past, you can just roll a check behind the screen, against a passive score, and off you go. Ramps down the paranoia and obsessive attention to detail.
It was a benefit I noticed even back in 3.0, being able to get away from mapping every square inch and doing 'door drills' and whatnot. ('New School' they called that in another thread...) ;P

I'm not so sure that passives do avoid that though. Much of that tedious play experience is in my view due to a DM who doesn't telegraph and wants to play gotcha. Perhaps passive scores mitigate DMs who require unreasonable specificity to some extent - but only to the extent the DM uses them to mitigate the behavior for which the DM is responsible! Mechanics can't solve problems the DMs and players create themselves.

And if the players want to declare more actions to cover all their bases, that's okay in my opinion. It takes time, a precious resource. I'll be rolling wandering monster checks or the prince or princess is going to be that much closer to being sacrificed to the Worm Sultan or whatever. In practice, this doesn't happen because time matters and there are five people in the party (more or less). It's not all on one person to do all the exploring. Which seems fitting in a team game.

 

[Wiseblood]

I can see how it might not be a great mechanic, but if the game is to model archetypes that are meant to be good at noticing or finding things or hard to sneak up on, or whatever, the concept of a perception ability that can be better for such characters than others would seem to be needed.

I also think that such archetypes should be supported. I just think the perception skill is a square peg in a round hole.

Older editions had different mechanics for determining surprise. They also had different mechanics for encounter distance. I am not impying that they were better but they were not constrained by unifying mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The DC is set without reference to the passive score of the character but rather the stated goal and approach.

Nod. But the capabilities of the character are something to consider, so ignoring that is an issue - and also necessary, because, if you admit to knowing the passive #, you're back to deciding success/failure.

It just seems a poor model of 'uncertainty.'

You say later that you see comparing passive score to DC as negative because there's no "swing." What's the upside of having that swing? There's certainly none for the player so far as I can see.

The upside of 'swing' for the players is that they have a chance of succeeding when their passive is slightly lower than the DC, I suppose. The point of it, though, is that uncertainty. I can already narrate success or failure without calling for a check.

I'm not so sure that passives do avoid that though.

They certainly help. The 5e model does have an impetus towards the paranoia of the past, because the players do need to trust the DM's rulings, and not try to manipulate or second guess him (even though the pay-off for doing so may seem high), so any help is appreciated.

It also makes sense to me in theory, and it matches my experience starting promptly when I was introduced to 'taking 10' with 3.0, and staying fairly consistent in the WotC era.

And if the players want to declare more actions to cover all their bases, that's okay in my opinion. It takes time, a precious resource. I'll be rolling wandering monster checks or the prince or princess is going to be that much closer to being sacrificed to the Worm Sultan or whatever.

Nod. Time pressure is the magic bullet vs the resting elephant, too, so that's efficient.

Older editions had different mechanics for determining surprise. They also had different mechanics for encounter distance. I am not impying that they were better but they were not constrained by unifying mechanics.

The early versions of the game were often needlessly complex, yeah. ;P
And 1e surprise, IIRC, favored a couple of races and classes (and plenty of monsters).

Skills cover a lot more, with a single mechanic, so less complication overall, and more customizeability, so you can be alert, even if you're not an elf or whatever.

I also think that such archetypes should be supported. I just think the perception skill is a square peg in a round hole.

Any other ideas for rounding it off?

 

[Lanefan]

If the DC of a secret door is SO high that the Expertise Perception Rogue cannot find it with passive perception, then it won't be found.

Not even with an active search? Seems odd, or at least a counterintuitive way of defining 'passive'...

Always or never based on the DC. It sounds like an entitlement type of thing to auto succeed because the players declare that they are going to repeatedly do something.

In other words, an updated version of that awful take-20 mechanic from 3e. Not a fan at all.

Alternatively, the Rogue tries to search for secret doors once (instead of repeatedly searching over and over again). The DM allow him to roll an active roll.

First thing: why is the player rolling this at all? Should be a DM roll...

He rolls a 2 on the D20 and the player knows that he screwed up.

...and here's exactly why. The character (and thus player) should realistically have no way of knowing why they failed to find something, only that the attempt came up dry.

So, he then tries to do so with help from another player. Even if the DM rolls in secret for the Rogue, if he misses, he just asks to re-do it with another player's help. It just becomes a big mess IMO. If neither of those work, the players just decide (if there is no time crunch) to attempt it passively by doing it over and over again with help. If the DC is too high, auto fail. Too low, auto success.

Simple solution: don't allow retries unless something is materially different - a different combination of characters searching, a different time of day (maybe the secret can only be found at night), the searcher has gained a level, or whatever. But each time a roll is made, that's assumed to be the absolute best you can do given that particular situation.

Lan-"good ol' 1e rationales still hold up after all this time"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Passives avoid that. When the players aren't driving themselves, and you, crazy with elaborate precautions and repeating phrasings that have granted them alertness in the past, you can just roll a check behind the screen, against a passive score, and off you go. Ramps down the paranoia and obsessive attention to detail.
It was a benefit I noticed even back in 3.0, being able to get away from mapping every square inch and doing 'door drills' and whatnot. ('New School' they called that in another thread...) ;P

You see a feature where I see a bug.

I do see (or rather, have long since developed an aversion to, having seen it so much back in the day), an issue with players declaring elaborate plans & precautions, explicitly describing every step of everything they do, and examining every square inch of an environment. It's just tedious.

Perhaps, but it's also part of what exploring a dangerous place would entail; and therefore realistically demands a lot of attention.

Once a party's adventured together for a while some SOPs tend to emerge and things get a bit more streamlined. But those SOPs might not be the same from one party/campaign to the next, so neither DM nor players should make any assumptions going in.

Oh, another tangent about rolls. Group checks. Like passives, they've been useful in heading off some old issues. One thing I never cared for after 3.0 introduced knowledge checks was the fail-and-pile-on phenomenon. One character asks a question, the DM calls for a knowledge check, the player craps out, then everyone else, whether they're particularly good at the skill or not jumps in and rolls, typically someone, not always someone who makes sense, succeeds.

This one's easy to fix: the character who originally asks gets a roll, then if there's anyone in the party who in theory might have knowledge of such things they get a roll, then a generic (and very difficult) roll is given to the rest of the party as a group. Simple.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Nod. But the capabilities of the character are something to consider, so ignoring that is an issue - and also necessary, because, if you admit to knowing the passive #, you're back to deciding success/failure.

It just seems a poor model of 'uncertainty.'

The capabilities of the character come into play during the mechanical resolution. The DC is determined by just how well the approach is going to achieve the goal. If the goal is to negotiate the release of prisoners and the approach is to offer something the captors want in exchange, then the DC is X (provided that's an uncertain outcome). Then the check will determine how effective the character is. The Cha 8 guy will do worse than the Cha 16 guy, on average.

This is also how to maintain fairness between the thespian player who makes a great speech during that negotiation and the introvert who makes the same attempt via a third-person statement. They both get boiled down to the same goal and approach and have the same DC. I try to go for consistency and fairness at every level.

The upside of 'swing' for the players is that they have a chance of succeeding when their passive is slightly lower than the DC, I suppose. The point of it, though, is that uncertainty. I can already narrate success or failure without calling for a check.

They certainly help. The 5e model does have an impetus towards the paranoia of the past, because the players do need to trust the DM's rulings, and not try to manipulate or second guess him (even though the pay-off for doing so may seem high), so any help is appreciated.

It also makes sense to me in theory, and it matches my experience starting promptly when I was introduced to 'taking 10' with 3.0, and staying fairly consistent in the WotC era.

One wonders if those eschewing passive checks (whether they use my way or yours) doesn't prefer a certain tedium you and I don't care for.

Nod. Time pressure is the magic bullet vs the resting elephant, too, so that's efficient.

Hell yeah it is!

 

[Tony Vargas]

One wonders if those eschewing passive checks (whether they use my way or yours) doesn't prefer a certain tedium you and I don't care for.

If not prefer, outright, at least have become very comfortable with...

You see a feature where I see a bug.

Amusing. It's usually the other-way-round.

Perhaps, but it's also part of what exploring a dangerous place would entail; and therefore realistically demands a lot of attention.

From the people doing it, certainly. Just like crossing a desert requires a lot of walking the players don't have to actually engage in, themselves. One of the perks of an RPG is getting to do stuff you wouldn't normally, another is not having to do other stuff...

Once a party's adventured together for a while some SOPs tend to emerge and things get a bit more streamlined.

Nod. Back in the day we had 'door drill' - every door got the same treatment. It streamlines the slog. It adds nothing, though.

This one's easy to fix: the character who originally asks gets a roll, then if there's anyone in the party who in theory might have knowledge of such things they get a roll, then a generic (and very difficult) roll is given to the rest of the party as a group.

That's not a fix, that's a re-statement of the issue. Bug/feature, again.

(What'd be a good portmanteau of 'bug' and 'feature?' Beature? 'Bugure?' Fug?)