Do you like when the GM hids important info behind basically static scenes asking players to successively roll perception (or some other skill) until someone rolls good enough to find it?

Or do you prefer when the GM just gives the info already, perhaps asking tests just to see how fast players find it, or how much contextualization comes with the info, or if there is some complication, etc. and just go on with the game?

It depends on the setting.

(shrugs)  I do the former.  If no one notices the important thing that they could potentially notice, that's no more an outrage than if they fail to make the DX check to grab the thing they could grab or the Literature check that points out where the stories differ or the parry that might keep the bad guy's rapier from skewering them.  Skills are.

Quote from: Itachi;1009298Do you like when the GM hids important info behind basically static scenes asking players to successively roll perception (or some other skill) until someone rolls good enough to find it?

I have no problem with that, personally.

If the PCs don't find the clue, due to all failing Perception rolls, then they move on. If the only way to solve the scenario is by finding the clue at that point and by missing the clue the PCs cannot solve the scenario then tough.

However, I'd drop other clues that lead to the solution in other ways, so as not to block everything.

Quote from: Itachi;1009298Or do you prefer when the GM just gives the info already, perhaps asking tests just to see how fast players find it, or how much contextualization comes with the info, or if there is some complication, etc. and just go on with the game?

If this happens, I'd either tell the players what they see in the room and let them work it out for themselves. I might ask for an Idea roll if they are struggling to work it out.

I like Perception tests in cases where it would be a challenge to:

• Find something that is well hidden in a "static scene".
• Detect an ambush before the opponents attack.
• Make out the gist of a conversation that is muffled by an obstruction or background noise.

Not in cases where something is obvious, or easily found with a little bit of time and effort searching. That's just stupid shit and a waste of everyone's time.
The key, IMO, is to only require them in challenging situations.

Q: Perception tests. Do you like them?

A: I only let the ref make such rolls, and only  if there's a reason the PC may not notice something. If a player actively describes looking for something, his PC may get a bonus if it's applicable, but I don't think the player should ever know if his PC succeeded or failed because he sees the dice results but rather should learn it by what happens next (or doesn't).

Why should the players/PCs be handed every bit of info thats hidden? Things can be missed, even when they are sitting out in the open.

If a player cant accept that or pitches a bitch then theres the door. Ta ta.

This is the whole fucked up premise for making Gumshoe. Players flipping out because they missed a clue and setting out to "fix" this by making rules where they pretty much allways get the clue.

Quote from: Itachi;1009298Do you like when the GM hids important info behind basically static scenes asking players to successively roll perception (or some other skill) until someone rolls good enough to find it?

Or do you prefer when the GM just gives the info already, perhaps asking tests just to see how fast players find it, or how much contextualization comes with the info, or if there is some complication, etc. and just go on with the game?

That seems like a really skewed way to think about it. Particularly the part where one alternative is presented as asking characters to roll until something is noticed.

In some cases, such as when really someone should notice something, or where for whatever reason the GM desperately wants the PCs to know/notice something, then the GM should no doubt let them know one way or another - and probably better to just dictate they notice that to pretend there was a chance they would not (for example, have it be not that difficult a thing to notice, or have some NPC mention it to them), and certainly not to tell them they need to roll perception in sequence until they do (that does seem silly).

What I prefer, is when there is an actual game situation where some things are not obvious, and so the GM rolls without telling the players what he is rolling for to see whether (and who) notices things that are difficult to notice, or not, based on their characters' abilities, the situation, and what the PCs are doing that affects their perceptions. And, where the game situation develops based on whatever happens, including whether things are noticed to or not and what everyone does, without the GM having some pre-conceived limited idea of what is supposed to happen, certainly not down to the level of needing PCs to notice certain things or else he's going to be put-off because events don't go as he expected. I want my GM to let the game play out however it does, regardless of whether the PCs see stuff or not, survive or not, do what he expects or not, etc.

Quote from: Itachi;1009298Do you like when the GM hids important info behind basically static scenes asking players to successively roll perception (or some other skill) until someone rolls good enough to find it?

Or do you prefer when the GM just gives the info already, perhaps asking tests just to see how fast players find it, or how much contextualization comes with the info, or if there is some complication, etc. and just go on with the game?

Perception (Awareness in the case of my game) is part of the game. Noticing, or not noticing, things is important. I don't have the players roll but I roll myself or, more usually, I check off the next number(s) on a long randomized list and the character notices or not. If the character fails, the player never even knows there was a check. Players who say that there characters are looking for something resembling what I am checking for gain an advantage. No, no one says the character is looking for everything all the time.

Making my Perception roll I see that other people have already sufficiently covered this topic.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

I hate them.

The GM is your PC's eyes and ears. I assume competence. You immediately see and hear the obvious stuff. If you have a moment before the action kicks in, you have time to drink in the scene. PCs are supposed to be veterans of adventurers, so they know what to look for.

If the "did you see the XYZ before it bit your head off" question arises, that's not Perception. That's Save vs. Traps with your WIS bonus.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1009619I hate them.

The GM is your PC's eyes and ears. I assume competence.

Truthfully, you assume too much.  I've been gaming and running various ones for 32 years now, and frankly, I still screw up more often than I succeed.  And sometimes?  A little push is what is needed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1009619I hate them.

The GM is your PC's eyes and ears. I assume competence.

Truthfully, you assume too much.  I've been gaming and running various ones for 32 years now, and frankly, I still screw up more often than I succeed.  And sometimes?  A little push is what is needed.

Rather loaded question structure, but yes, the latter would make more sense. The former becomes needless hoop jumping. I presume that I am all senses to my players, and thus their characters translate that to them as capable and as active as they are.

Thus if you merely look, you get some variance due to acuity (which I may share as secret info via index cards). However if you actively search, and explain how, I will work with you to give relevant info as pertinent. Point being, I have no need to hide the apparently obvious, I am OK with differing PC capacity leading to hidden knowledge, and I will actively support active players investigating.

Interact with the described world -- a.k.a. interact with me, the GM -- that's why I go through the bother to describe it. I won't gate the obvious, I reserve whispered extra to the talented, and I will reward the curious.Throwing dice at a problem before you even know the question means nothing.