Passive vs Active Perception...

[Swarmkeeper]

Is it passive perception or "active" perception that allows you to notice the same exact thread was started by someone else less than 24 hours earlier?

I know, I know... I'll probably do the same thing one of these days. Feel free to call me on it!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For real, though, PP is to avoid the 10' pole check for traps every square OR to allow for a particularly perceptive character to foil the goblins' ambush attempt (goblins stealth must beat the PC's PP), etc. Perception rolls OTOH are called for when a PC declares a search-like action and the outcome is uncertain (or the DM, once in a while, wants it to APPEAR that an outcome is uncertain... keep 'em on their toes, right?).

 

[Li Shenron]

A big issue here is that every time you ask for a perception check, the players will know something is up even if they roll badly. To fix that, you have to request perception checks all the time, even when there is nothing to see.

You're overreacting... if you have the issue of your players metagaming on a failed perception check, it's enough that you roll their perception check behind the screen.

 

[iserith]

You're overreacting... if you have the issue of your players metagaming on a failed perception check, it's enough that you roll their perception check behind the screen.

I think this concern is an artifact of a very specific style of play, one in which it's likely the players make checks unprompted and/or the DM calls for a check any time the players describe wanting to do something that sounds like it lines up with a proficiency. It's also something that comes up if the DM describes a null result after such checks instead of waiting to call for the check before something could happen on a failure. If those issues aren't a thing at the table, then there's no need to make checks for the players to combat "metagaming."

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is a role playing game. Players play characters in the story. Tell the story, and apply the rules to the story. Don't let the rules tell your story.

My suggestions above do a pretty good job of supporting most stories, but I always ask whether the rules 'make sense' in the story as I apply them.

If the heroes are highly distracted, it should be much harder than normal to notice a trap or secret door. If they're moving slowly and being attentive, it should be more likely that they find it than if they're moving at a causal pace. If the heroes devoted resources (taking the observant feat) focused on being attentive, they should get some bang out of it by finding things people normally miss (like Sherlock). We want the rules to facilitate that, but if they accidentally contradict it - rule against the rules to tell the good story.

And then, if the DM and players disagree on something, the DM should rethink and ask if he is telling the best story - and the players should trust his or her final decision.

It really is that simple.

 

[Satyrn]

I don't go along with the other people who commented that if a PC didn't say they were searching for a secret door that they had no chance to notice it. To me, that's ridiculous. What if the secret was just hidden really badly? There's a doorway that someone hung a curtain in front of, but the curtain keeps billowing from the draft? Or an ogre tried to hide in bushes that were just barely able to cover him? Hidden situations so badly done that you might only assign or roll a DC 8 to find them?

Let me start by saying that like you, I'm pretty sure I'm not "going by the book" either.

For me, I'd handle all those examples of poorly hidden secrets that you gave differently. Like, the sort of thing you'd assign a DC 10 or lower to would be the sort of thing I'd simply rule isn't hidden, even if it was meant to be a secret door. So the players would outright see them.