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.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1009619I 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.
You assume WAY too much, and the only explanation is that you've never had real life field work, either as a hunter or in combat.
People have tunnel vision. The hunter up on the deer stand is completely focused on that buck he hopes will get just a dozen yards closer, and ignores what's not in his line of sight. Screw an adventuring party, it's routine for a
platoon to be paying attention to the Thing That's Happening Right In Front Of Them, and not checking six. (Heck, I'm sure in our combat LARP, people got damn sick and tired of me sardonically drawling "There are forty of you standing around, and the only ones here checking six are myself and my squire, who knows I'll rip her a new one if she doesn't.")
People will also ignore the familiar, discount something they already presume they know, and (well) there are those in concealment or trying to be.
Actually, I've got an interesting anecdote about perception. For a number of years, a local TV station in Boston ran a show called "Miller's Court," where Harvard Law professor Arthur Miller would seek to educate the public about the law. The one ep that sticks out in my mind, Miller had selected a jury from the audience, as if about to do a trial, and was talking to them about something or other when a guy ran in from offstage. Beefy brunette, wearing a denim jacket and a stocking cap. The guy proceeds to jump Miller, beat him down, and dashes back off stage. He was on-camera for about ten seconds. Cut to commercial.
They come back, and Miller is getting up and brushing himself off, and saying that now he's going to talk about what the ep is
really about: how much eyewitness testimony is crap. He brings out the four suspects. They're all about as well-matched as you'd get in a police lineup. All are husky guys, all dark haired, but now all are bareheaded and wearing decent suits. And he spends the next half hour interrogating them all, seeking to find out which of them actually did it. He invited the dozen jurors to ask questions, and then polled them at the end to see which guy they thought was the attacker, which took place
fifteen feet in front of them, while they were all staring.
Not a single one of the twelve got the right guy.
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?
Generally speaking, I describe the scene, players ask questions about it and I reveal info as appropriate, but I try not to be a dick about specificity so that it doesn't unfold in a pixel-bitching kind of way. Pixel-bitching's as boring as perception checks, in my opinion.
Various types of perception checks are often a major part of play in many games I've run and played in. Even the first TFT campaign I ran had players focusing on Alertness, Detect Traps talents, and other matters of being observant and smart, backed up by game stats and rolls. Characters having different and quantifiable ability levels in noticing different things makes sense and is one of the more significant stats determining what happens.
That doesn't mean I do pointless rolling, or that I don't give ample descriptions without rolling, of things that should be noticed by the PCs in question.
Quote from: K Peterson;1009322I 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.
Yeah, that's how I roll as well;).
Quote from: Ravenswing;1009639You assume WAY too much, and the only explanation is that you've never had real life field work, either as a hunter or in combat.
People have tunnel vision. The hunter up on the deer stand is completely focused on that buck he hopes will get just a dozen yards closer, and ignores what's not in his line of sight. Screw an adventuring party, it's routine for a platoon to be paying attention to the Thing That's Happening Right In Front Of Them, and not checking six. (Heck, I'm sure in our combat LARP, people got damn sick and tired of me sardonically drawling "There are forty of you standing around, and the only ones here checking six are myself and my squire, who knows I'll rip her a new one if she doesn't.")
People will also ignore the familiar, discount something they already presume they know, and (well) there are those in concealment or trying to be.
Actually, I've got an interesting anecdote about perception. For a number of years, a local TV station in Boston ran a show called "Miller's Court," where Harvard Law professor Arthur Miller would seek to educate the public about the law. The one ep that sticks out in my mind, Miller had selected a jury from the audience, as if about to do a trial, and was talking to them about something or other when a guy ran in from offstage. Beefy brunette, wearing a denim jacket and a stocking cap. The guy proceeds to jump Miller, beat him down, and dashes back off stage. He was on-camera for about ten seconds. Cut to commercial.
They come back, and Miller is getting up and brushing himself off, and saying that now he's going to talk about what the ep is really about: how much eyewitness testimony is crap. He brings out the four suspects. They're all about as well-matched as you'd get in a police lineup. All are husky guys, all dark haired, but now all are bareheaded and wearing decent suits. And he spends the next half hour interrogating them all, seeking to find out which of them actually did it. He invited the dozen jurors to ask questions, and then polled them at the end to see which guy they thought was the attacker, which took place fifteen feet in front of them, while they were all staring.
Not a single one of the twelve got the right guy.
This highlights many things about perception. It is more than just seeing, hearing, smelling something, but also understanding what you are perceiving and applying the appropriate importance to it. It is very easy to overlook something in plain sight if you don't understand the significance or are distracted by something of "greater" importance.
"Adventurers are presumed to be competent."
I use Perception tests and the last actions the player narrated in order to setup the next moment of tension. I frame the characters into the new situation via how they can react, and that depends on when they notice things. Did you see the trip wire or is it too late? Any reactive Talents? etc. Most old school *-crawls are written for this kind of simple resolution, thus the 10 minute movement turns in exploration mode. The party enters a space in formation, Perception tests all around determines how quickly they can search the space (1 or more 10 minute turns, 1 check per character searches 2 x 6 yard area - I use 2 yard hexes). Did they notice the noise from the door (horde of giant rats)? Where is everyone when that door is opened and the horde of giant rats encounter happens. Did anyone notice the gold coins wedged in the cracks of the short flight of stairs behind the door the rats poured out of? Are they still there trying to wedge them out with a dagger (a turn) when the next character goes through the door at the bottom of the stairs and triggers *spoilers acid attack*. Do any random encounters happen between these events and if so how much time does the party have to react (Perception test). The positioning of the characters and the flow of this short portion of a published dungeon crawl module depends on Perception tests and the previous player actions.
I use perception tests in the same way I use all things diced for. Is the outcome actually uncertain? Will the outcome actually have a meaningful impact on anything? If yes to both then roll. If the PCs are seacrhing a room for an object that is there and it is just a matter of time, they find it. If they are searching a room for an object and a horde of orcs is breaking down the door, then roll a perception check to see if they find it in time...
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?
Rolls should determine how much of a clue is found/discovered, rather than hiding clues entirely from players.
In my new 5e Stonehell campaign, as GM I've taken to rolling for difficulty vs the PC's Passive Perception. So the players have their highest PP PC the cat girl Bright Star of the East on point with PP 16. She enters a room with a secret door, I roll d20+10 (Hard DC) for the difficulty of spotting it, get 6 and say "You notice a concealed door..."
This has worked really really well and is a case where not having the DCs listed in advance has helped a lot.
I don't mind perception tests for significant things, but I'm dissatisfied with the way they often work. Specifically, I think that good perception (in real life) is a combination of natural talent, trained skill and familiarity with the environment. However, games often seem to get the balance of the factors off. Perception is a little like being a good basketball player or surgeon, in that hard work and skill are indispensable, but there is a minimum talent threshold necessary to be anything better than average. Yeah, I know, many skills are like this. However, in some it is more pronounced than others. For example, if you don't have any prohibiting physical limitations, anyone that sets their mind to it can be a quality carpenter or cook. But, "you can't teach speed or height." Same thing, I think, applies to some of the roots of perception. Every now and then, they do those "problems with witnesses" experiments, and find a natural observer. With any training, these people will always be better at perception than anyone else, and even with no training, better than most. It's that last qualifier that isn't often modeled in games very well.
I have no problem with perception checks.
I like perception checks for many reasons: they help build tension, they are another area of character development that is not combat, they can be a vehicle for providing misinformation, and the randomness makes the game seem less arbitrarily in the GMs control. Also, it's just fun. I remember discovering perception checks with MERP in the early '80s and thinking "wow, this enhances the game." More recently, in my OSR back to basics phase, I went back to pure description for a while, but it didn't enhance the game. I now consider perception checks to be basic component of a good rpg.
I use perception checks all the time. For games that allow for degrees of success - I adjust accordingly. For games that don't, I tend to reward more information based on the stat and sometimes the profession of the character based on the circumstances. For example - in D&D if a player is a Fighter, I might give more detail on searching a barracks for than I would a Druid.
I like perception checks and I use them. I will mention some issues I've seen with them.
1) Players roll openly. If they fumble, then the players know they missed something big - which is a dump of out-of-character information. It can be difficult to play as if you don't know there's something you missed.
2) GM rolls in secret for the players. The players can't tell if their perception skills/abilities are having an effect.
In general, despite #1, I like rolling for perception. Players really like it when it is explicit that their skills are giving them extra information. I tend to give a lot of information on a good skill roll, and players like that. It makes the skilled character feel more competent.
EDITED TO ADD: Some sucky GMs will leave off obvious information if the player fails a perception roll, which I find is annoying. On a failed roll, the player should still get everything that a skilled, watchful, and intelligent person would ordinarily see. They just don't get extra information.
Also, I am very firm about not giving rerolls. If they miss something, they miss it and will just have to do without that information. They can't angle for more checks by saying like "I look around the room again. Do I notice anything more?"
Quote from: jhkim;1010317I like perception checks and I use them. I will mention some issues I've seen with them.
1) Players roll openly. If they fumble, then the players know they missed something big - which is a dump of out-of-character information. It can be difficult to play as if you don't know there's something you missed.
2) GM rolls in secret for the players. The players can't tell if their perception skills/abilities are having an effect.
In general, despite #1, I like rolling for perception. Players really like it when it is explicit that their skills are giving them extra information. I tend to give a lot of information on a good skill roll, and players like that. It makes the skilled character feel more competent.
EDITED TO ADD: Some sucky GMs will leave off obvious information if the player fails a perception roll, which I find is annoying. On a failed roll, the player should still get everything that a skilled, watchful, and intelligent person would ordinarily see. They just don't get extra information.
Also, I am very firm about not giving rerolls. If they miss something, they miss it and will just have to do without that information. They can't angle for more checks by saying like "I look around the room again. Do I notice anything more?"
This is why I think it is good for a GM to occasionally ask for a roll when there is actually nothing needing a roll. Whether successful or not, when players roll they will change their behavior based on what they think they were rolling for and how good they did. If they know that sometimes a roll is just a roll, it can reduce the we spend two hours searching the empty room syndrome (they rolled so obviously there is something hidden there right?).
On the re-roll sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not. Obviously searching for an hour is going to result in a better chance of finding something than a quick visual scan while moving through the room. Why they are taking the extra time is the big question, do they have a legitimate reason to spend additional time? If they know the wizard ran into this empty room with only the one door then there is a fairly reasonable chance there is a secret door, magic portal, concealed hiding spot etc in the room. But some random unremarkable room that they started searching after Dimwit the Obtuse rolled medium low on when the GM asked for a roll? Yeah, not so much.
In my ideal world, there would be two different kinds of perception tests. I'll use D&D terms to elaborate. Assume that base perception is an attribute/ability, similar to strength or dexterity. Then there are two types of tests:
1. Saving throws -- reactive tests to notice something important that is happening right now. If you fail, there are no retries, because the window to notice has already passed and we are into the action. Players roll these tests.
2. Searching tests -- active tests to find things that are suspected of being in the area. Search as long as you like. GM rolls these tests, using rerolls only if the player activities warrant such.
This is more or less how I run D&D games now (within the limits of the existing mechanics, because lazy GM), though sometimes for convenience, I'll use a cursory, "reactive" test as an initial "search" to see if anything pops. The players get to roll, but all the roll does is tell them whether they spotted anything for free or not. Usually, though, I just skip that test and tell them anything that isn't exactly obvious, but close enough for characters of their ability. (That is, not exactly the passive perception of D&D 5E, but something close to it.)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010430Assume that base perception is an attribute/ability, similar to strength or dexterity. Then there are two types of tests:
1. Saving throws -- reactive tests to notice something important that is happening right now. If you fail, there are no retries, because the window to notice has already passed and we are into the action. Players roll these tests.
2. Searching tests -- active tests to find things that are suspected of being in the area. Search as long as you like. GM rolls these tests, using rerolls only if the player activities warrant such.
That sounds like a useful approach.
It seems to me like D&D and some other games may not give enough tips on how to use perception checks. In The Labyrinth (which I started with, and GURPS) go into some detail on handling perception checks and repeated attempts.
It almost always creates some sort of issue if you tell the players a perception check is happening unless it's about to be obvious what it's for and they're not going to be given any chance to react. So don't do that. Do roll for them. Do roll for other things without telling them what you're doing. Do roll for nothing (or for things you think of at the moment, like hmm, does the NPC follower notice decide to mention that he has noticed one PC going through the group's loot pile?) from time to time, just to keep them guessing. There should be no "is the GM taking my abilities into account?" if the GM does do that enough, and is letting players know various appropriate information, and GM rolling secretly does not mean players can't prompt the GM for whether they notice anything given their PC's abilities, etc.
And unless there is a group agreement that they hate spot checks and don't want play to involve having to say how/where they search for stuff, there should be a difference between what PCs notice when they walk into a place and glance around, compared to if they take time to search carefully, or all day long. One way to do that is with multiple rolls. If you don't want multiple rolls, another way is to roll once and remember the rolled value, and if they spend more time after the original glance around, tell them the result with a +1 or +2 tacked on to the original roll. Of course, it works best if the GM and/or game designers have thought through the actual math involved with multiple PCs and multiple attempts, and have playtested it to the point that the GM knows what to roll for those cases to give satisfactory results. If it's some half-assed d20 system where PCs can get stacked modifiers and/or a 10-PC group will almost always see everything, then there's a game mechanic issue in how perception checks are being resolved.
I use perception rolls, but try to use them sparingly. I don't call for one in every room the party enters. But I might call for one if there's something hidden and there's no reason for the party to specific looking for that item. I'll call for one to spot an ambush, trap, or other similar situations. I actually call for them after-the-fact if someone doesn't remember a detail from something their character noticed earlier - I don't ask them to roll perception at the time they met Mr. X, but when they later try to recall whether I described him with a red or black vest and don't recall it from the time (or bother writing it down if they thought it was important!).
I definitely think that perception rolls aren't the problem when adventures get derailed because the party couldn't find a clue to go forward. Rather, I think that's an issue with adventure design. However, the presentation of how to use perception rolls could improve in pretty much every game I've ever read.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1010372On the re-roll sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not. Obviously searching for an hour is going to result in a better chance of finding something than a quick visual scan while moving through the room. Why they are taking the extra time is the big question, do they have a legitimate reason to spend additional time? If they know the wizard ran into this empty room with only the one door then there is a fairly reasonable chance there is a secret door, magic portal, concealed hiding spot etc in the room. But some random unremarkable room that they started searching after Dimwit the Obtuse rolled medium low on when the GM asked for a roll? Yeah, not so much.
I prefer to simply leave their roll as it stands - what is called "Let It Ride" from Burning Wheel. If they rolled low, then they did poorly. They can find more stuff by spending more time searching, but they don't get a new roll - it just shifts their result to do better than previously.
Here's my view on rerolls. If they rolled very high, then a reroll is basically useless to them. They won't find anything more by searching more. If they rolled very low, then a reroll is vital. They need to spend more time and then they'll do a lot better. As I prefer it, they've always got a shot at finding out more if they spend more time.
Quote from: Skarg;1010441It almost always creates some sort of issue if you tell the players a perception check is happening unless it's about to be obvious what it's for and they're not going to be given any chance to react. So don't do that. Do roll for them. Do roll for other things without telling them what you're doing. Do roll for nothing (or for things you think of at the moment, like hmm, does the NPC follower notice decide to mention that he has noticed one PC going through the group's loot pile?) from time to time, just to keep them guessing. There should be no "is the GM taking my abilities into account?" if the GM does do that enough, and is letting players know various appropriate information, and GM rolling secretly does not mean players can't prompt the GM for whether they notice anything given their PC's abilities, etc.
I agree that this avoids some issues, but it also can reduce fun, in my experience. A lot of players really like rolling their own dice, and the feeling of success. It makes more explicit and tactile when their character is doing well. I like it when players have fun, and I find that the benefit outweighs the drawbacks.
Quote from: jhkim;1010539I prefer to simply leave their roll as it stands - what is called "Let It Ride" from Burning Wheel. If they rolled low, then they did poorly. They can find more stuff by spending more time searching, but they don't get a new roll - it just shifts their result to do better than previously.
Here's my view on rerolls. If they rolled very high, then a reroll is basically useless to them. They won't find anything more by searching more. If they rolled very low, then a reroll is vital. They need to spend more time and then they'll do a lot better. As I prefer it, they've always got a shot at finding out more if they spend more time.
I agree that this avoids some issues, but it also can reduce fun, in my experience. A lot of players really like rolling their own dice, and the feeling of success. It makes more explicit and tactile when their character is doing well. I like it when players have fun, and I find that the benefit outweighs the drawbacks.
That makes sense, I'm not familiar with burning wheel, but I have no problem with a system that allows for modifying the difficulty level in place of triggering a new roll.
While continued searching is almost certainly driven by out of character knowledge (GM made us roll there must be something here), in a way it kind of handles the fumble thing too. It could be justified in character as that bad roll sent them on a wild goose chase, "Grok felt breeze, there must be a secret door" as they spend the next 7 hours searching hoping to lower the difficulty until their crummy roll succeeds. Then again maybe there was nothing to find after all and they are just increasing the odds of something nasty finding them.
Quote from: Skarg;1010441It seems to me like D&D and some other games may not give enough tips on how to use perception checks. In The Labyrinth (which I started with, and GURPS) go into some detail on handling perception checks and repeated attempts.
It almost always creates some sort of issue if you tell the players a perception check is happening unless it's about to be obvious what it's for and they're not going to be given any chance to react. So don't do that. Do roll for them. Do roll for other things without telling them what you're doing. Do roll for nothing (or for things you think of at the moment, like hmm, does the NPC follower notice decide to mention that he has noticed one PC going through the group's loot pile?) from time to time, just to keep them guessing. There should be no "is the GM taking my abilities into account?" if the GM does do that enough, and is letting players know various appropriate information, and GM rolling secretly does not mean players can't prompt the GM for whether they notice anything given their PC's abilities, etc.
And unless there is a group agreement that they hate spot checks and don't want play to involve having to say how/where they search for stuff, there should be a difference between what PCs notice when they walk into a place and glance around, compared to if they take time to search carefully, or all day long. One way to do that is with multiple rolls. If you don't want multiple rolls, another way is to roll once and remember the rolled value, and if they spend more time after the original glance around, tell them the result with a +1 or +2 tacked on to the original roll. Of course, it works best if the GM and/or game designers have thought through the actual math involved with multiple PCs and multiple attempts, and have playtested it to the point that the GM knows what to roll for those cases to give satisfactory results. If it's some half-assed d20 system where PCs can get stacked modifiers and/or a 10-PC group will almost always see everything, then there's a game mechanic issue in how perception checks are being resolved.
I have every character's Awareness score, modified by level, on my cheat sheet. Under the Awareness score is a long list of dice roll results that I get off of the web. I list fifty but the most anyone used last night was fifteen. If something was easy to spot, I give the character five rolls and check off rolls until he or she makes it or has made five failed roles and fails. If it is tougher, the character gets three rolls. There were no one roll or "you have to make two in two tries" checks last night. OK, the players don't get to roll dice but it goes faster, no dice fall of tables and no one has the "he made us roll" information.
Ah, I use pre-rolled Random Encounter results like that. Check for random encounters when the players spend time searching - Perception test take a "move" (1/2 of a 10 minute turn - NOT 6 seconds), and every 1-2 turns (depending on hazard levels) there's a RE check. If it comes up positive I use the top item on my pre-rolled list and cross it off.
I will note that there are ways perception can be done wrong; for example it's awful if you just have everyone rolling perception over and over until someone gets it, or something like that. Perception generally should work in the sense of either you get something or you don't; though there can be exceptions.
Quote from: jhkim;1010539I agree that this (GM rolling PC perception) avoids some issues, but it also can reduce fun, in my experience. A lot of players really like rolling their own dice, and the feeling of success. It makes more explicit and tactile when their character is doing well. I like it when players have fun, and I find that the benefit outweighs the drawbacks.
This. Part of the reason why I like perception checks is the player anticipation of "what's out there?" Players enjoy making their perception rolls, and the issues that GM rolling solves, like a player knowing that their character failed a perception roll, aren't a worthwhile trade for that fun, in my experience.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1011338I will note that there are ways perception can be done wrong; for example it's awful if you just have everyone rolling perception over and over until someone gets it, or something like that. Perception generally should work in the sense of either you get something or you don't; though there can be exceptions.
Yeah, I've seen GMs derail their own game by denying critical info on a failed perception check, or make perception worthless by giving the info on a failed check anyway. The trick in making them an effective tool is knowing when to call for a perception roll, and when not to.
Quote from: Madprofessor;1011601Yeah, I've seen GMs derail their own game by denying critical info on a failed perception check, or make perception worthless by giving the info on a failed check anyway. The trick in making them an effective tool is knowing when to call for a perception roll, and when not to.
Do you mean the only way to obtain or ascertain the critical information was via successful perception roll? If so, that's just shitty planning and maybe the game was better off dying there than being dragged out to see how else the ref could ruin his own devices.
Quote from: Dumarest;1011746Do you mean the only way to obtain or ascertain the critical information was via successful perception roll? If so, that's just shitty planning and maybe the game was better off dying there than being dragged out to see how else the ref could ruin his own devices.
I've heard about CoC published scenarios that suffer from this problem frequently. If that's correct, then it seems that we've set people up to think this is a good idea. To be clear, I think it's a horrible idea.
Also, I'm a huge Chaosium fanboy, but only played a handful of CoC games in my life as the genre really doesn't interest me. I've just read this complaint multiple times, so it does seem that allowing failed perception rolls kill an adventure or stall it is more common than it should be.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1011338I will note that there are ways perception can be done wrong; for example it's awful if you just have everyone rolling perception over and over until someone gets it, or something like that. Perception generally should work in the sense of either you get something or you don't; though there can be exceptions.
I'm going to have a hard time with vocabulary on this, so bear with me. I don't find that there are any... non-combat resolution mechanics (roughly "skills") that I've ever found particularly satisfactory in a way that works well all the time (or if misused, mis-written, or poorly applied). Rolling perception over and over until someone gets it is a great example. The stealthy character trying to hide in the room with the perceptive character where each of them roll their checks each round until the perceiver rolls near 20 and the stealthier rolls near 1 (or whatever, depending on system) is the logical extreme of this. Using social skill test instead of actually roleplaying is another iconic example. But other less common ones as well. Climbing-- having the same chance of climbing a 12' wall and a 1000' cliff makes no sense, but rolling every 'round' is just a recipe for falling (or in reality just never using the climb skill to climb anything you can't survive falling off of). Having set, in-the-book success metrics (like the skill DCs in 3e D&D) is usually a bad idea because the designers rarely can anticipate what the median scores games will be played at, but free-form just invites threshold creep (once players start repeatedly succeeding by 5 or more, 5 or more becomes the new threshold for success). I have never found a skill/resolution system where the best advise isn't "be a good GM in the first place"... which is fine for me since I and the GMs I play with are experienced, but for a newbie seems like it must be really frustrating.
Quote from: RMS;1011817I've heard about CoC published scenarios that suffer from this problem frequently.
Some have problems. How much of a problem varies. Part of how much of a problem you think this is depends on whether you think it is OK for the PCs to fail and then die and go insane. In some scenarios the stakes are much higher and failure might end a campaign. As in some mad, bad cultists animate the actual Egyptian Sphinx which goes stomping across Egypt to gods know where crushing everything and everyone in it's path. If that occurs in the year 1925 that probably means that the year 1926 will be significantly different in game than in was in our history and thus your campaign either becomes something other than traditional Call of Cthulhu or you end the campaign right there and start over with what is essentially a variant time line. Or I suppose the GM could make up some lame-ass solution that shows that the PCs efforts were never really important. But then the (sucky) campaign ends as the rightfully pissed off players vote with their feet.
Quote from: RMS;1011817I've heard about CoC published scenarios that suffer from this problem frequently. If that's correct, then it seems that we've set people up to think this is a good idea. To be clear, I think it's a horrible idea.
Also, I'm a huge Chaosium fanboy, but only played a handful of CoC games in my life as the genre really doesn't interest me. I've just read this complaint multiple times, so it does seem that allowing failed perception rolls kill an adventure or stall it is more common than it should be.
I've read about a few modules that assume the PCs will do X to achieve Y and otherwise can't get to Z. My impression is (1) that's not well made and I wouldn't buy it (but I don't buy modules anyway) and (2) did the ref not read it before running it? He should have found the problems and worked up workarounds...or just not run the module at all and maybe borrow the best ideas from it.
Quote from: Dumarest;1012001I've read about a few modules that assume the PCs will do X to achieve Y and otherwise can't get to Z. My impression is (1) that's not well made and I wouldn't buy it (but I don't buy modules anyway) and (2) did the ref not read it before running it? He should have found the problems and worked up workarounds...or just not run the module at all and maybe borrow the best ideas from it.
I completely agree with you. However, if someone is learning how to write their adventures based on published module by
professional game designers then it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that those same people think it's a good idea to put such silly checks in their own games......and years later we read their players complain about those on internet forums.
After all, someone wrote and was paid to produce those things, presumably!
Quote from: RMS;1012010I completely agree with you. However, if someone is learning how to write their adventures based on published module by professional game designers then it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that those same people think it's a good idea to put such silly checks in their own games......and years later we read their players complain about those on internet forums.
After all, someone wrote and was paid to produce those things, presumably!
Well, for sure, and it helps that a large percentage of nerds seem to be completist collectors who have to buy every product to feel whole. Plus I wonder is some people buy and play a flawed module of that nature and assume the problem is their playing and not the module, for surely no one would write and publish a module with a chokepoint like that!
I often think "professional game designer" is the main reason why there are so many lackluster games and modules out there.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011844I'm going to have a hard time with vocabulary on this, so bear with me. I don't find that there are any... non-combat resolution mechanics (roughly "skills") that I've ever found particularly satisfactory in a way that works well all the time (or if misused, mis-written, or poorly applied). Rolling perception over and over until someone gets it is a great example. The stealthy character trying to hide in the room with the perceptive character where each of them roll their checks each round until the perceiver rolls near 20 and the stealthier rolls near 1 (or whatever, depending on system) is the logical extreme of this. Using social skill test instead of actually roleplaying is another iconic example. But other less common ones as well. Climbing-- having the same chance of climbing a 12' wall and a 1000' cliff makes no sense, but rolling every 'round' is just a recipe for falling (or in reality just never using the climb skill to climb anything you can't survive falling off of). Having set, in-the-book success metrics (like the skill DCs in 3e D&D) is usually a bad idea because the designers rarely can anticipate what the median scores games will be played at, but free-form just invites threshold creep (once players start repeatedly succeeding by 5 or more, 5 or more becomes the new threshold for success). I have never found a skill/resolution system where the best advise isn't "be a good GM in the first place"... which is fine for me since I and the GMs I play with are experienced, but for a newbie seems like it must be really frustrating.
One of the big problems is GMs thinking they MUST make players roll for:
a) things that PCs should just automatically succeed at
b) things that PCs should just automatically fail at no matter how good their 'skill' is
Quote from: RMS;1011817I've heard about CoC published scenarios that suffer from this problem frequently. If that's correct, then it seems that we've set people up to think this is a good idea. To be clear, I think it's a horrible idea.
CoC has produced most of history's greatest published adventures. It's also produced a shitload of bad gamer habits.
"b) things that PCs should just automatically fail at no matter how good their 'skill' is "
Perception can be an ingame skill too however, makes the "automatically fail at no matter how good their 'skill' is" not a sustainable claim, as everyone can roll a critical success, like even against invisible enemies you notice the pushed away branches or the pressure on the grass from the feet.
Also, I'm almost blind with 8 dioptre glasses in RL, so I rather prefer to roll for things than be expected to see things, but that's just me.
Don't ever have the players roll if you don't want a random result. This should be somewhere in the opening paragraph of every DMG for every game ever published.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1012882One of the big problems is GMs thinking they MUST make players roll for:
a) things that PCs should just automatically succeed at
b) things that PCs should just automatically fail at no matter how good their 'skill' is
This is a true statement that I feel targets the exact other end of the spectrum of resolution mechanics than my main issue. I'm talking about areas where there
is as real chance of both success or failure,
but the determination of how to adjudicate whether one succeeds or fails is challenging. Usually because the same method (such as roll 1D20 and get below your score in this) is expected to work the same for uncontested and contested situations,
or (or more challengingly,
and), it is an ongoing activity, and the decision about how often one should be made to roll is in question.
Quote from: Dumarest;1011746Do you mean the only way to obtain or ascertain the critical information was via successful perception roll? If so, that's just shitty planning and maybe the game was better off dying there than being dragged out to see how else the ref could ruin his own devices.
I think Gumshoe was written to avoid that issue. But I haven't played it so I can't say more; maybe someone else has?
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011844I'm going to have a hard time with vocabulary on this, so bear with me. I don't find that there are any... non-combat resolution mechanics (roughly "skills") that I've ever found particularly satisfactory in a way that works well all the time (or if misused, mis-written, or poorly applied). Rolling perception over and over until someone gets it is a great example. The stealthy character trying to hide in the room with the perceptive character where each of them roll their checks each round until the perceiver rolls near 20 and the stealthier rolls near 1 (or whatever, depending on system) is the logical extreme of this. Using social skill test instead of actually roleplaying is another iconic example. But other less common ones as well. Climbing-- having the same chance of climbing a 12' wall and a 1000' cliff makes no sense, but rolling every 'round' is just a recipe for falling (or in reality just never using the climb skill to climb anything you can't survive falling off of). Having set, in-the-book success metrics (like the skill DCs in 3e D&D) is usually a bad idea because the designers rarely can anticipate what the median scores games will be played at, but free-form just invites threshold creep (once players start repeatedly succeeding by 5 or more, 5 or more becomes the new threshold for success). I have never found a skill/resolution system where the best advise isn't "be a good GM in the first place"... which is fine for me since I and the GMs I play with are experienced, but for a newbie seems like it must be really frustrating.
Hmm. My wizard was nearly killed in a shipwreck caused by a severe storm because there were what I thought an absurd number of strength checks (or saving throws, some of them) needed. Fortunately the very strong paladin saved my wizard. But arguably one (especially a bookish wizard with no relevant spells) should be likely to die in a shipwreck.
Anyone who has a chance of climbing a 1000' cliff should automatically climb a 12' wall, and conversely anyone who might fail to climb a 12' wall should certainly fail to climb the 1000' cliff. But I can represent both a short climb or a longer one with either a single roll with varying DC or a varying number of rolls against the same DC; if I have a feeling as to how hard it should be, it's easier to set the DC for a single roll on d20 to get that than for multiple rolls. But multiple rolls amplifies the difference in skill levels, which is sometimes what I want.
I don't think the "contest until someone fails" is so bad; the number of rolls until the stealthy character is found determines how long the search took, and it should be automatic if there is no reason the amount of time matters. The social skill test doesn't make sense in the same way, unless you're modeling some of the threads at this site; my NPCs lose interest and end the conversation after a few checks, unless the PCs are constantly ramping up the offers (which would be roleplaying).
Regarding the comment about in-the-book success metrics, the bounded accuracy of D&D 5e seems to help with that; the range of bonuses doesn't vary that much between very low level and very high level characters, and less so within a small range of levels.
But despite all my quibbling, I see the point in general, and I don't have a good answer for how often repeated rolls should happen.