Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Perception Checks

The DM describes anything: a room, an opponent, a landscape, the thorn in the player's foot ... and the player answers, "I want to make a perception check."

Effectively, the player is asking, "I want more information than you're giving me."  By using the perception roll, the player means to use the rules of the game to force the DM to give more information; or, in the case of looking for a weak spot in the armor of an opponent, a flaw in a non-player's argument or evidence of some kind, the player wishes to force the DM to give the player an advantage.

So DM's learn to describe part of what the player ought to see, knowing the players will make a perception check, so that the DM can then tell the rest of the story.

This is terrible, terrible game design.

My dictionary defines perception as "the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses."  In other words, if the player character HAS senses, they should already be aware of anything that they are capable of seeing or hearing merely by being present in a given space.  There should never be a need for a "check."  Can I see?  Then I see it.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

If, as a DM, I don't say that the enemy's armor has a weak point, then either A) you don't see it; or B) all armor has weak points, you always see it and it makes no difference to your ability to hit an opponent because it is assumed your level always permits you to take the best advantages of your enemies' weaknesses as you are able.

If, as a player, you are in a darkened room, and I don't describe the homonculous in the corner because it is hidden, then you don't see it, no matter how hard you roll the dice or how hard you skin your eyes in an attempt to see something you don't know is there.  If, on the other hand, you move forward, to where you will see it, then you will see it, and there is no need to make any sort of roll whatsoever.

You can't perceive something you don't perceive.  If you perceive it, then I am duty bound as a DM to tell you that you see it.  That is my responsibility, not because you rolled a die but because you see it.

If you see something and you don't know what it is, that is because you don't know what it is, not because you have inaccurately perceived it.  If you don't know what it is, all the perception rolls in the world will not give you knowledge you do not have.  If you do know what it is, there is no need for a roll.

If the thing has concealed itself so that it appears as something other than it appears to be, then that is a roll related to the thing's ability to conceal itself, NOT as a matter of your ability to perceive it.  If it can conceal itself as something than it is not, then you will perceive it as something it is not.

More information is obtained by changing your physical position; by using your other senses to investigate it or by poking at it with a stick of by some other test.  In other words, by taking an action, which the player designates.  NOT by looking harder or hearing harder without actually changing anything about the situation you've already perceived.

I'm sure I used this picture once before, but it applies so fuck it.
Occasionally, a character will be focused on something and may not see a monster enter a room, or may not notice movement of some other form.  Under those circumstances, I do use an intelligence check to determine the character's awareness or alertness to that change; however, this never applies to any situation where the player may come to harm.  Situations of that kind deserve a surprise roll, for which I will simply say, "Roll a d6," without explaining why.  I say it.  Not the player.  How would the player know to make a roll about something the player cannot possibly know anything about?

If the player is surprised, then it is too late to know why; and if the player is not surprised, I will say, "This happens [description] and you're not surprised.  Please take action."

Since I describe the new situation, there still is no need for a perception check.

The perception check makes no sense to me.

14 comments:

  1. I absolutely agree on the common misuse of the perception check.

    To me, a perception check is a thorough search, spending time to search for something. Whenever a perception check is rolled, time ticks off, 10-minute spells end, and monsters might wander into the room. Otherwise, I just use passive perception (or taking 10 or whatever). If you see it, you see it. If not, sorry, but if you want to find every single thing in the game, put more points into perception with your next character.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jon,

    I'm not talking about misuse. If your character searches a room in my world, you will find EVERYTHING you are ABLE to find. If you're not able to find it, you won't find it. To find it, you would need a special knowledge of a kind your character either possesses ~ in which case you'd find more ~ or doesn't possess ~ in which case you find what others find.

    There is never any reason why a check in that situation would be viable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's say you walk into a room with ten thousand books and you need to find one. Finding it in 10 minutes IS a random check ... but that's not perception! That is simply number of books whose titles you can look at in 10 minutes divided by number of books.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If there's an order to the books, such as one might find in a private library, then an Intelligence check might be appropriate to figure out the order and locate the book you want (within a given time frame).

    But what if I put a knife to the library owner's throat? What sort of skill does it take to convince him to tell me where the damned book is?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Promise me, for sanity's sake, you'll take some time off before delving into "Insight" checks and "Can I tell if they're hiding anything?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I were a player in my world ...

    Player: "Alexis, does my 17 wisdom as a cleric that has haunted many a library recognize the book, and thus perhaps the physical size of the book?"

    DM: "That's awfully unlikely."

    Player: "But given that it is the 17th century, and there aren't that many books, wouldn't I at least be able to guess that the 'History of Norway' might be made of a particular color of leather or might not be that big, since the book does cover the history of a country that only has a written culture of about 700 years? It's not exactly the history of Rome."

    DM: "Hm. Okay, I'll give you 17 out of 100."

    Fighter: "Does that mean I get a 13 out of 100 for my wisdom?"

    DM: "Have you spent your time in libraries? NO. The cleric can have a roll ~ and ONLY the cleric."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll happily admit I've been guilty of asking for this sort of perception check when DMing before - but it only took a matter of time before I realised this does create an unhelpful pattern of behaviour (mine and players') and I resisted it from then on.

    To make a point of the lengths I've seen some people go to on this:
    Many years ago I joined a Star Wars game for just one session. Having just arrived in a new star system, I asked the DM what we/the ship could see/detect around us.
    "Perception check" was the reply, a roll I promptly failed.
    "You see nothing!"
    I paused - surely we can see SOMETHING? There is a star, planets. etc out there? I repeat that I look out a window.
    He considers this for a moment, before going on to describe a massive fleet battle taking place not far from us, dozens of spaceships all shooting at each other...
    This set the general tone of the game, for me at least. Needless to say I never bothered to ask to join their campaign for any more sessions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I completely agree with everything you've said here. How would you compare and contrast this with "I search for secret doors?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sterling,

    I have learned that if you don't incorporate a secret door into your campaign for three to four years at a time, the players stop asking about it. Adopting a deadpan look in your eyes, pausing, not rolling dice, and saying clearly, "There are no secret doors in the room," seems to steadily wear players down.

    But that has to be a really hard pause, and your deadpan look has to express your total lack of respect for them as human beings, if you really want to get the point across.

    When I introduce a secret door, there is either a definite clue in the structure that a secret door exists (walls not lining up, air movement, that kind of thing) or I deliberately put the suggestion into the thoughts of my players when I want them to search; this can be done so subtly the players don't realize they've been primed. There is some terrific research on how humans can be primed that's worth reading.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a whole lot to take in, but at the very least is very good food for thought. I sincerely want to thank you for that.

    I do not think you rembember me. In any case I am the guy who tried to argue about "armor weak points via extremely convoluted percepcion checks ( I may be very well deluding myself by claming this, but if that is why there is passage about that in the post, again thank you for the consideration. I am truly humbled that I was semi useful for an argument of yours, if only to make you coil in anger and point at me as to how not to do things).

    I want to confess that I was taken aback by the severity of you retorts and only now have I found the courage to speak again. Nevertheless, I could not stop thinking about your insights and the plethora of possibilities they offer to me, someone who is very ignorant of both the topics you discuss and basic framework on which they are bulit upon. Hopefully your experience will lead the way as to peel away that little my little.

    I think my disconnection at your arguments comes from a determinated context I shied away to share before. You see, I lack both the means and the interest to play in group, so everything I have been "planning" is basically to play alone with various iterations of yes and no oracles. Basically, you literally make up EVERYTHING on the spot.

    I have decided to automatize the process as much as possible, while my input is just a recollection of what was asked, what was answered and what was resolved. The how is based on the interpretation of the rules´ interaction while following a format very akin to acts in stage play, which are composed of various scenes.

    This is why I felt so compelled to describe my scenario as, you put it, so convoluted,
    because I am always blind to everything and the only way to unfold it little by little is by asking and to "check perceive" piece by piece, and I wanted to resolve that as mathematically as possible so I could enjoy the results as intricately as possible.

    I am sure that this is not even playing, or even thinking, according to your standards. In fact I am as bold as to accept that is the epitome of make believe, because I am basically pretending to watch or write a movie or book play read itself.

    So, in this kind of situation, could percepcion checks be viable means to build and resolve what might be obvious in group play?

    Best regards.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fherp,

    I appreciate that I've provided you with some insight. Of course I remember you.

    I would suggest strongly that you read the notes above the comment window and that you make every effort to remain on topic. This is not the place to speak at length about your campaign or your issues with the game you're designing, none of which has anything to do with the topic above. You might consider writing your own blog, where you can set the topic yourself.

    I believe that your disconnection with my arguments comes from your situation, where you have stated to me, unpublished due to the length of your comments and their failure to make sense, that you're opposed to participating in RPGs with other persons and that you are, in fact, under the influence of a family and religion that, in the opinion of this blog-writer, appear to be from your statements extremely abusive to your person and your human rights.

    I would prefer you did not discuss your perspective on this blog again. I strongly encourage you to seek outside help from your situation as swiftly as you are able.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have a question, Alexis. How would you handle a situation in which a character is being followed by someone who wishes to avoid detection? For example, the player characters are being shadowed in a busy marketplace by a spy. The players have not declared that they're looking over their shoulders, but maybe the spy may do something that a character could perceive, or not.

    This maybe the only situation in which an opposed check (perception vs stealth) could be useful, I think. I would like to knowyour thoughts about this.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ramón,

    If you look at the stealth rule on my wiki, https://tao-dndwiki.blogspot.com/search?q=stealth, you'll see that I solve that problem differently.

    In your example, let's suppose the spy is a 3rd level thief. It is full day, it's an exterior urban environment (outside), the spy is wearing ordinary clothing, the spy's appearance is ordinary and none of the players are on guard or sleeping. Finally, the thief in the party possesses stealth (under observer). This makes the spy's base adjustment a total of -5 against a roll of 3d6 that represents the number of hexes between the party and the spy.

    The DM rolls, getting a 10 result; -5 adjusts this to 5. This is how close the spy can approach without being noticed, a total of 25 feet and well outside of being able to perform a backstab. As a DM, I might tell the party, "You get the feeling you're being watched," but as they look around, I'd tell them everything is normal.

    Then the spy approaches one hex closer; and I say to the thief (who is the only one who can notice, since all the other characters are 2 less on the chart than the player thief is), "You suddenly realize the guy in the green cloak has been following you."

    The party never makes a roll. They don't have to say they're being "watchful" because I always assume they are, within the limits of this rule. If someone approaches, it is my responsibity to inform the party if the approach fails (and I decide how close the enemy is BEFORE I roll the dice). If the party uses stealth, then they declare how close they get and I let them know if they're seen.

    I've used this a couple of years now and it works like a charm. Everyone is relaxed, they know they're as safe as they can be at their level as they climb up in levels, they're pretty damn sure that most ordinary NPCs haven't a hope of getting close to their thief, assassin or monk without being noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you so much for such a detailed answer. It seems a very fast method. Now I'm thinking on how to adapt it to my own game of Vampire. Good food for thought.

    ReplyDelete