The Redundancy of Perception

[McTreble]

This isn't a 4e specific problem, but since I play 4e, I am having the problem in this ruleset.

How do you guys handle perception checks that aren't passive? I have this problem with asking for perception checks from the party and only 2 of 5 get the check. I don;t want to waste time telling them to the side, especially when they'll just tell each other anyway. I mean heroes share info, mostly.

Am I doing this wrong? Any way you guys spice this up, or is it just "one of those things"?

 

[DracoSuave]

This isn't a 4e specific problem, but since I play 4e, I am having the problem in this ruleset.

How do you guys handle perception checks that aren't passive? I have this problem with asking for perception checks from the party and only 2 of 5 get the check. I don;t want to waste time telling them to the side, especially when they'll just tell each other anyway. I mean heroes share info, mostly.

Am I doing this wrong? Any way you guys spice this up, or is it just "one of those things"?

Well, if the players are in a position where sharing info is feasable (yes, combat qualifies, as does most situations they find themselves in) then obviously, it's more expedient just to share it with the table.

There are exceptions, sometimes someone makes a Perceptive character just so he can know things no one else does, but in such a case, a group SHOULD develop another Perceptive character to pick up this guy's slack.

If the revealing of the information would comprimise the characters' position (say it's a delicate diplomatic situation) then taking people aside to mention the king seems to have one barbed tail too many is also the right thing to do. Then have the player roleplay out how they parley that information to his comrades. After all, it's a delicate situation. If the character confronts the King-demon about his demon-ness, the head of the Royal Guard might challenge the obstinate cur to a duel for besmirching his liege's honor. The king might simply go 'You're right' and eat the kingdom. The demon might have the real king killed. The players might get away with it, only to have the king-demon send assassins after them.

But... that sort of situation is rare, if awesome, and most of the time, open reveal of perception info is best.

 

[Ryujin]

You should have the players' Insight and Perception numbers handy, yourself. When the time is appropriate, make the roll. Communicate via note. Quick. Easy. Get in the habit of passing notes for other things, to keep them guessing.

 

[Joshua Randall]

The vast majority of the time, you as the DM should be using the PCs' passive Perception. When the players want to have their PCs actively perceive something, they need to spend a minor action to do, or spend 1 minute listening or searching. (paraphrased from the Perception skill) I'll also quote the following:

In most situations, the DM uses your passive Perception check result to determine if you notice a clue or an imminent danger.

... which backs up the primacy of passive Perception. Since you know everyone's passive result, just use the highest and give out that information to the whole group (unless there is some compelling reason not to, as in the "king is a devil" example above).

In the case that every PC wants to make an active check (say, they suspect an area is trapped and they all start looking around), there is no reason not to share the results with everyone, under normal circumstances.

But remember that if this occurs during combat, the PCs have to spend minor actions to Perceive things, and they must be able to communication with each other to share information. I could imagine situations where this isn't possible: say a PC is dazed, and he uses his one action (a minor) to Perceive a trap -- I might rule that he can't communicate this until next round, even though dazed allows free actions and communicating is normally a free action. This is why we have DMs instead of a computer program running the game: to make judgment calls.

 

[sfedi]

I would recommend you to stick to the principle:

One roll for one situation.

Try always to do as little checks as possible.

In the case of perception, I allow only 1 roll and add each chars modifier to it. The ones that succeed get the info.

As others noted before, whether the PCs can share information in a timely manner or not, affects also how easy some things will be.

 

[the Jester]

When the party makes an active Perception check for something, I get the lowest and highest results and then fill in what people see in between, e.g. if the low is a 12 and the high is 23, I'll tell them, "Everyone notices the black altar up here. If you got a 15, you also note that there are a bowl and a dagger on the alter. The bowl is full of blood. If you got a 20, you also see the silhouette of a figure standing behind the curtains." They'll all know everything almost immediately anyway.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Do you allow multiple re-rolls when using Perception to search or look for possible hidden foes?

If a PC says he wants to search for a secret passage, and rolls poorly (say he gets a result of a 5 after roll+modifiers), do you allow them to reroll? I see two ways you can handle this:

1) The roll represents the character's BEST attempt at searching. The PLAYER might know he rolled poorly, and may assume there is something there that he can't find because of the poor roll, but the CHARACTER should assume he did his best attempt at searching and could find nothing. Therefore, another search (Perception) check could be considered metagamey or out-of-character info and not warranted.

OR

2) The player gets to reroll as many times as they want to. So the player can keep rolling until they feel satisified with the result. Rolling high enough to finally realize that either (a) there is nothing to be found or (b) it is so well hidden, it is out of their league even on the roll of a 20 or (c) they actually find something.

How do most people rule this?

I tend to just let the PCs keep rolling (time permitting) until they are satisified. But I've been thinking about just doing 1 roll. For example, the party Rogue, if he searches for traps and rolls poorly not finding anything, he'll keep the roll and roleplay with it "Nope, no traps here." Even though he could try again until he rolls higher...

 

[the Jester]

Do you allow multiple re-rolls when using Perception to search or look for possible hidden foes?

Sure.

In cases like this (and usually Insight), where the pcs don't know how well they have done, I will often roll for them, however.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Rather than giving a reroll, I simply have them use their passive perception if their roll is lower - after all, it doesn't make much sense to have a lower chance of finding something if you are looking for it then when you aren't.

There may, however, be circumstances where that is not true.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Rather than giving a reroll, I simply have them use their passive perception if their roll is lower - after all, it doesn't make much sense to have a lower chance of finding something if you are looking for it then when you aren't.

There may, however, be circumstances where that is not true.

Well, if the player's Passive Perception was high enough to find a secret door, why are they rolling in the first place?