TheRPGSite

I'm Running 5E (Lost Mines of Phendel... on Roll20) and using Perception when they listen at doors and it feels odd. I think in AD&D if they said they were listening I just told them what they heard. I'm thinking of dumping the perception checks except in cases of ambush or something and wanted to know other opinions.

Passive skill checks have been around forever, or at least since elves had an auto chance to detect secret doors just by walking past them. I think they're useful for certain situations where the PCs might know something that the players could not without implying the PCs know, and that's not fun.

I think if it's something you want to use to give the PCs a fighting chance, do it up. Just don't abuse the rolls and expect the players to actively take part in the game. You'll train them to just expect to be told when danger is near instead of trying to find out themselves.

I only ran 5e a handful of times, and it was ages ago, so I can't really answer the poll.

For what it's worth, I use a bit of a hybrid approach. I get the logic behind "if they ask just give it to them", but if it always works then they'll quickly learn to just always ask and it can rob the game of tension.

For actively searching a room/secret doors/traps I generally just use whatever the native check in the game is, or an attribute test if there isn't one. But I'll skip the check if they search in exactly the right way. So if there's a switch behind a stuffed deer head on the wall, and the player says they're moving the head, that's no check. For listening at doors I'm more inclined to gauge the difficulty. If it's something anyone could of heard, then no check. If it's something particularly faint or indistinct, then a check.

For surprise attacks or spotting a trap without actually looking for it, I really prefer something I can roll without referencing the character sheets. The old school surprise roll does the job, but I like better the Dragon Warriors method better, where you just assign a percentage chance of spotting whatever the issue is, and then roll a d100 behind the DM screen.

I'll use them more as a measure for how much they perceive rather than pass/fail for IF they perceive something.

Example if they're listening at the door:
Fumble: you think you can hear something on the other side but not sure.  it's either distant or the door is really thick. (Might even rule they blow their cover)
Fail: you can hear muffled talking on the other side of the door
Pass: you can hear talking and can make out certain words (tell them the words they can make out)
Crit: you can hear three distinct voices discussing (whatever the convo is)

On the other hand, if there is nothing to perceive then it doesn't matter what they roll. If they ask for a check I'll let them roll. It's not gonna change anything.

The main thing I try to stress with my players is to tell me HOW your character is attempting an action.

If you stand in the middle of the room scanning the walls then you're far less likely to find that secret door than if you were running your hands along the walls pushing bricks and checking behind tapestries.

For games where it is a player attribute or skill, whenever possible I delay the roll until it matters.  More often than not, that means the player can roll, with failure immediately meaning that the group was surprised or whatever happens due to that failure.  Occasionally, that doesn't work, such as a group of weak monsters aware of the party, with no intention of revealing themselves. 

The players only roll when I tell them to, not when they decide to look. Like the others, if they describe looking/listening/searching/whatever in a way that should reveal what it is, they either just get it, or at least roll with a bonus. (When the bonus is so high that an average person wouldn't fail, is when I'll just give it to them.)

I do tend to hide a fair amount of treasure.  The players know that I do that as a thing, but other than letting them know that, I don't go out of my way to make it easy to find or remind them of that fact in the moment.  However, as with traps, I also telegraph many things based on the environment.  Heck, sometimes the presence of a trap in an area where it makes no sense is a hint of treasure nearby. There will be faint foot prints ending in a wall, lack of dust in certain spots, etc.  When the player is searching generally, that's what they find, not the secret door.  It's up to them to infer the secret door from those clues.

In short, don't let perception rolls "solve the issue".  Instead, use them to uncover hints, then let the players decide what the characters want to do with those hints.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 02, 2024, 12:57:32 PMI'm Running 5E (Lost Mines of Phendel... on Roll20) and using Perception when they listen at doors and it feels odd. I think in AD&D if they said they were listening I just told them what they heard. I'm thinking of dumping the perception checks except in cases of ambush or something and wanted to know other opinions.

My approach is to give more or less info based on the check.
Obvious stuff doesn't need a check, but a successful perception check will give them more info.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 02, 2024, 04:39:47 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 02, 2024, 12:57:32 PMI'm Running 5E (Lost Mines of Phendel... on Roll20) and using Perception when they listen at doors and it feels odd. I think in AD&D if they said they were listening I just told them what they heard. I'm thinking of dumping the perception checks except in cases of ambush or something and wanted to know other opinions.

My approach is to give more or less info based on the check.
Obvious stuff doesn't need a check, but a successful perception check will give them more info.

Quote from: Nakana on June 02, 2024, 03:11:19 PMI'll use them more as a measure for how much they perceive rather than pass/fail for IF they perceive something.

Example if they're listening at the door:
Fumble: you think you can hear something on the other side but not sure.  it's either distant or the door is really thick. (Might even rule they blow their cover)
Fail: you can hear muffled talking on the other side of the door
Pass: you can hear talking and can make out certain words (tell them the words they can make out)
Crit: you can hear three distinct voices discussing (whatever the convo is)

On the other hand, if there is nothing to perceive then it doesn't matter what they roll. If they ask for a check I'll let them roll. It's not gonna change anything.

The main thing I try to stress with my players is to tell me HOW your character is attempting an action.

If you stand in the middle of the room scanning the walls then you're far less likely to find that secret door than if you were running your hands along the walls pushing bricks and checking behind tapestries.

I tend to fall into those camps too. It isn't a binary yes or no check, it is a gauge on the specific info gained. Also, I give different classes different info - a fighter knows the strengths weaknesses of the opponent, a thief gets the weak spot to use the back attack &/or general value/quality of equipment (or the fact that there is a bulging coin purse hidden) etc.

Also, and I picked this up from running Call of Cthluhu / Traveller games with more investigation or heist planning, I use it as a measure of how long it takes to get the needed information &/or if they find the 'additional special information' . They HAVE to get x clue for the adventure to progress, so they will get it even with a fail - it just might take longer then planned to get it, or they tip their hand to the bad guys that someone is digging into their evil plans (a fail it forward mindset). However, a successful check and they get the info needed quicker or without leaving evidence they were there. A better success they get X info, but also Y something that makes that basic needed info better or more useful. A crit, and they get X&Y which is more than they need to make the perfect plan, but they also get A which gives them background info which isn't critical to the mission, but answers some of the 'why/how' questions the players may have, or it gives them clues and foreshadowing for what is going on.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 02, 2024, 04:39:47 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 02, 2024, 12:57:32 PMI'm Running 5E (Lost Mines of Phendel... on Roll20) and using Perception when they listen at doors and it feels odd. I think in AD&D if they said they were listening I just told them what they heard. I'm thinking of dumping the perception checks except in cases of ambush or something and wanted to know other opinions.

My approach is to give more or less info based on the check.
Obvious stuff doesn't need a check, but a successful perception check will give them more info.

I agree.

In general, I don't want to force players into micro-managed declarations like saying over and over "I look for traps." -- which effectively is like "I look at the hall ahead of me before I go down it." If players have to repetitively say they're looking for things like ambush, traps, or secret doors - then it's annoying.

I want to reward players thinking creatively of something that isn't obvious, but I don't want to encourage micromanaging. I will assume that without saying, the PCs will use basic caution and watchfulness. In the poll, I said for option #2 (listening at doors, spotting secret doors, and traps) - but actually, I wouldn't normally roll for listening at a door. If the players say they look through a hole or listen at a place or anything like that, I'll normally just tell them what they hear. The roll is based on the circumstance.

Also, agreeing with Lurker that better success can be how long the search takes. If the players are searching for a secret door that they're pretty sure is there, I don't like either of:

(1) They have to keep rolling over and over until they get a success, or
(2) If they roll one failure, they will never find it no matter how long and hard they search.

I think the better approach is that the roll should be how quickly they find it. If there's no pressure and they're willing to take the time, then I'll just say they find it without a roll.

Perception rolls don't add much to the game, and are pretty vestigial beyond providing an opposing value/roll for combat stealth.

Plot-relevant stuff you never want to players to completely miss. Player might not have the skills to grasp the significance of a thing -- there's a mysterious spilled potion in the study that none of the players can identify, but maybe the alchemist in town can -- but if you're not giving them the clue at all they're just dead-ended. That's bad design.

I would completely remove the Perception roll from all my games if I could, but I'm pretty sure my players would still "roll perception" no matter what. (Which, TBF, I am okay with. Excess dice rolling at least means a player is engaged.)

Passive Perception scores (i.e. "Taking 10" on the check) have long been my go to since it means anything less than that value is something you just tell the party they notice.

This includes ambushes unless the party is specifically taking the extra time to keep their senses peeled for them (the ambushers still need to roll better than the passive perception to successfully ambush).

Beyond that though, I generally only require rolls if they're actively searching for something (including ambushes as before) though this generally slows any progress to a crawl (basically 5' per round/50' per minute).

Forgot option 5: Never.

Here's a useful GM trick for perception checks and similar situations:

Keep a large marble in your dice bag. This is the "D1" and it makes a distinctive sound when rolled.

When your players are barking up the wrong tree, start rolling the D1.

My general rule with all skills is: if you have the skill, you do not need to roll to do the skill, you need to roll to see how well or quickly you perform the skill. If you don't care how well or quickly you do it, no need for a roll at all!

But there are situations where your character wants to do things well or quickly, so you have to roll. That's why you rarely roll for cooking dinner, but almost always roll for combat.

Likewise, perception. Spend enough time looking and you'll find whatever you're looking for. But find it quickly, and/or a lot of details about the thing? That's a different matter.

This minimises dice rolls and keeps the game moving.

Perception is a pretty bad mechanic. If you have 6 players at your table vs 2 players at your table it completely changes the chances for players to find whatever. I've also seem GM's frustrated when players missed a perception roll to find Important Plot Device X. And does it feel good as a GM when the players roll bad and miss the secret door leading to the good loot?

Surprise in older D&D was a d6 roll for each side and if you manually searched the right wall/object, you found the secret. For a GM it felt a lot better watching players miss loot/important stuff if they just ignored your room description: "The wall to the right has odd scrape marks on the floor near it."

Quote from: Dracones on June 05, 2024, 11:05:03 PMPerception is a pretty bad mechanic. If you have 6 players at your table vs 2 players at your table it completely changes the chances for players to find whatever.

That's easily fixable.  You do just one check by whoever has the best chance

Quote from: Dracones on June 05, 2024, 11:05:03 PMPerception is a pretty bad mechanic. If you have 6 players at your table vs 2 players at your table it completely changes the chances for players to find whatever.

I don't mind this. More people searching means more eyes on the situation. Makes sense for the odds to change.

QuoteI've also seem GM's frustrated when players missed a perception roll to find Important Plot Device X. And does it feel good as a GM when the players roll bad and miss the secret door leading to the good loot?

Anything critical to advancing the adventure should not be gated behind a single dice roll like a perception check. Bottlenecking in general is poor adventure design.

Hiding optional loot behind a perception check is ok with me. I do this often and there's a certain kind of "gambling" psychology going on. Like getting a lucky jackpot when they do make it.

Perception checks should almost always be passive. You either notice or hear something or you don't.  If you're actively trying to search for something,  or discover a trap, or whatever,  that should almost always be an Investigation roll.

If you don't do the above when running 5e, Perception rolls will be spammed all session long.

Perception checks are like any other check.

Avoid the extremes, only roll when the result is not obvious.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/02/perception-check-roll-playing-versus.html

Example.

There are six statues in a room with painting, furniture, etc. One of the statues (a mermaid) has a single (and valuable) emerald eye, but this is somewhat concealed by darkness, painting, etc.

"I search the room for treasure" would find nothing (no roll). "I search the statues' eyes" or "I examine the mermaid statue" would automatically succeed. "I examine the statues for something strange" would generate a perception check.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 10, 2024, 10:18:18 AMExample.

There are six statues in a room with painting, furniture, etc. One of the statues (a mermaid) has a single (and valuable) emerald eye, but this is somewhat concealed by darkness, painting, etc.

"I search the room for treasure" would find nothing (no roll). "I search the statues' eyes" or "I examine the mermaid statue" would automatically succeed. "I examine the statues for something strange" would generate a perception check.

The question is what player behavior is encouraged. Should players be encouraged to repeat back the contents of the room? I.e. "I search the dryad statue." "I search the satyr statue." etc. until they get to the mermaid?

That does help emphasize the description. However, some players might find it repetitive.

It is up to the players, I think. It doesn't need to be repetitive - "I search each statue thoroughly for 10 minutes" is an automatic success IMO.

Now its up to the DM to describe the statues as appropriate until the PCs find the eye. The DM can encourage the level of detail with questions: "you notice there is a satyr, a dryad... which do you examine first?".

In short: it is always a matter of shades of gray, never should be "I always roll perception" or "I never roll perception ".

Quote from: Monero on June 09, 2024, 09:45:14 PMPerception rolls will be spammed all session long.

Well it is the only roll players call for after all.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 10, 2024, 10:18:18 AMonly roll when the result is not obvious.

Obvious by whose definition?

This really is the heart of the issue, and given the sole source of perception in trad games is GM description they effectively have complete control. And if you've ever studied the magician's force you'll know exactly how complete that control is.

So if you want your players to notice a thing, just have them notice a thing. What do you have to gain with rolling beyond wasted time?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 10, 2024, 10:18:18 AMPerception checks are like any other check.

Avoid the extremes, only roll when the result is not obvious.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/02/perception-check-roll-playing-versus.html

Example.

There are six statues in a room with painting, furniture, etc. One of the statues (a mermaid) has a single (and valuable) emerald eye, but this is somewhat concealed by darkness, painting, etc.

"I search the room for treasure" would find nothing (no roll). "I search the statues' eyes" or "I examine the mermaid statue" would automatically succeed. "I examine the statues for something strange" would generate a perception check.

Greetings!

Yep! I agree, Eric Diaz! Keep things simple, straightforward, and consistent.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

If the item is important to the plot, then discovering it should be automatic.

In which case, the perception check merely determines which player character finds it.

I wrote a commentary on this exact issue recently for a magazine which I won't shill here, but the general idea is that the question of do I or do I not see a monster is one of the most fundamental mechanics in TTRPGs. There many ways to approach it mechanically, and personally I like 5e's passive skill scores for this while saving hard "roll the dice" skill checks for when a player specifically mentions they are looking for something. Just raising the question to your players instills a sense of tension, their imaginations will fill in the possibilities of what they MIGHT be missing out on.

I'm a very observant person in real life. If the wife or kids are missing something, I'm usually the one who finds it.  I don't like the mechanics for perception checks and they have crept in to being used far too frequently at some tables.
I think maybe only using it for enemies that are hiding, and secret doors/compartments is about as far as I'd go for perception, otherwise players find things when they say they're searching around.
Instead of using failed rolls as a pressure point for failure, I keep turns/time behind the scenes and have random encounters be the pressure point for actions/time spent.

This question is even more meaningful in a game like Rolemaster where "perception" is a group of skills rather than just one...and then there are all the "sitational awareness" skills and such. My friend loved it, I wasn't nearly so taken by it as it just seemed a way to suck up development points even faster.

I like perception rolls, but it sounds like I handle them a bit differently.  A location will often have a bunch of things to notice with different numerical difficulty.  The guy with the best perception rolls (or I do it for a secret, passive check) and he notices everything with a difficulty less than the roll.  You can get a bit of a bonus by spending more time on it.

In a recent playtest I ran, the guy with the high skill loved being Sherlock Homes and finding the subtle clues. 

You don't put things necessary for the adventure to progress behind any single check, of course.  That's just bad design.  If the players need some info there should be multiple ways to get at it.

Obvious sights and sounds should be obvious.

Hidden things are hidden and require finding.

Subtle things might be missed by those not paying close enough attention, but noticed by those whose awareness is greater than their peers.

AKA, roll the dice when it adds something to the game, but the rest of the time, put yourself in the place of the character and describe what their senses are telling them.