A potential middle ground for groups more in the middle: Everyone still rolls perception, but the person who rolls highest finds the thing, the person who rolls lowest triggers the trap.
My thoughts: Who finds the x: should be used only for things that are mandatory and not meant to be "hidden". This let's the dice determine which player gets the spotlight and is not a skill check with punishments. Traps should be "triggered" by a specific player who would activate it and get asked for a reactive perception roll to see if that one player would notice. You should not ask for a perception roll just because everyone is in a hallway with a trap. If they are more abstractly walking through an area (no map, no specified scout) then you ask for perception rolls and the lowest that fails is the one who triggers the trap. In other words. Use basic logic. Don't let all your players roll to avoid something for everyone. If everyone is rolling some are going to be punished and some are going to succeed.
Was literally just thinking this, I feel like I’ll incorporate both into my sessions, see how it works :) EDIT: another potential idea is just use their base stats, rewarding putting points into the stat. I can see a session using all three of those depending on the situation and how much control you want to give the players over a situation.
Exactly what I did with my group recently. Highest noticed a threat first with a chance to help, lowest had a second to do something but, with a nat 1, I made them roll a saving throw right away instead.
I usually treat low rolls on perception/investigation rolls as the characters having to take longer to find the thing. Instead of the players rolling several times in a row, I'll take the initial rolls and use it as a framework to describe how the search went for each character. I usually do this for any check that doesn't have a major consequence for failure - sort of like the old "take 10/take 20" rule from 3.5. "You only rolled a 6? Well, it takes you a good ten minutes of searching before you find anything of note...." Your system is pretty cool, though. I may have to give it a try!
I tend to go this route as well. Often, it does little but change the flavor in how the thing gets found and/or the trap gets triggered. Sometimes, though, time is precious and the players know that. This squeezes some drama into those rolls as the players try to optimize by adding guidance or bardic inspiration or whatever to ensure their highest perception character finds the thing as quickly as possible
Smart. Every so often you ask the players to roll, fully expecting success.. and the dice are unforgiving. Then what? So I’ll keep my eyes open for more opportunities to just keep the game moving.
@AnotherDuck indeed! Roll, pass: you jump over the chasm. Fail: you still jump over the chasm, but your chasers gain ground or you bump your knees as you stand back up from your landing and suffer d4 damage. Many tiny things that add small bits of drama here and there and also help with lethality (I'm thinking 5e here, but it applies to pretty much all games, accounting for rule shifts)
Absolutely! This isn’t perception, but Matt Colville made up a good example for this in his Running the Game series (disclaimer: I’ll probably get some details wrong compared to Matt’s version, but the point gets across). The players have a door in front of them and they know enemies are on the other side, so they want to quickly burst through the door and initiate combat, hopefully getting a surprise round off. If you fail your athletics check to kick down the door or whatever, you don’t just fail to kick down the door. That’s kinda boring, since you can just try again, though it does blow your cover to the enemies on the door’s other side. A more interesting condition for failure is successfully kicking the door, but you fail to surprise the enemies on the other side and they beat you in initiative. Perhaps on a nat 1, you even kick a hole in the door and get your leg stuck, putting yourself in an awkward position for the ensuing combat. If you succeed, good job! By successfully sneaking close to the door and suddenly bursting it open, you successfully surprise the enemies!
Edgy DM: aight, so everybody did, got it Chill DM: you can roll to save yourselves or another character of your choice Random DM: OK, *rolls d4*, you did Old DM: did anybody bring a chicken? No?
@@iododendron3416 if it's a swinging blade trap I'd get a bonus from danger sense then just roll to dodge, or use apportation to catch the blade mid air.
The Alexandrian has the 3 Clue Rule. 1. If the only way to progress the game is through this locked door... then that door shouldn't be locked. 2. But if it is locked, give them three clues on how to unlock it before they get there, then it's on them if they ignored the clues. Note: Your clues shouldn't be so obscure that only you knew they were clues.
This is a cool innovation, but I don't think I run the same type of game as a DM that would find a lot of utility for it. With the bad guy's lair example I would have one obvious entrance that is laden with traps and goons, and a second safe and hidden entrance, which the boss uses for their comings and goings. Instead of just relying on the PCs making a check, I would seed some clues prior to arrival, as well as some perceivable on site. And when it absolutely comes down to it, I will keep some secrets hidden behind challenging puzzles. Of course the players may not be able to solve the puzzle, so reserve this solution for secrets that you are okay with the players not finding. It's really fun to pair a puzzle with a timer. Imagine the room is filling with water, and will be completely full within 3 rounds. The players can exit safely with no obstruction, BUT that would mean leaving behind the pirate king's most valuable treasure, that the map they found led them to in the first place. Are the clues to the puzzle on the map? I don't know, that sounds cool to me. Why not?
This works really well for groups/systems that are more narrative in nature. In a game like D&D, it may feel like a cop out to some players. Alternatively, consider the following: 1.) Never call for a roll where failure (or success) means nothing happens. If the character fails to notice the thing, something bad happens that still moves the story forward. This is in the rules for D&D already, though a lot of prewritten adventures forget or ignore it. 2.) Don’t hide the next step of the story behind a secret door or a mandatory success. (You mentioned this philosophy in your video) It may make a lot of sense to you for the dungeon boss to want to hide behind a secret door, but there are plenty of reasons not to. If the dungeon itself is a secret location, why make more secret locations within? Alternatively, maybe the boss is extremely paranoid and hides lots of treasures and hidden passages behind secret doors. In that case, make sure there’s a tell-something that no one would notice if they weren’t looking for it, but once the players see it, it will pop out to them. Give them several opportunities to investigate such markers to find secrets, and then when the boss room is behind a similar spot, it maintains the feel of boss paranoia, but also allows the players to definitely find it. And after all, the boss is going to need to remember where these secret doors are too, right?
To build on your first point using the secret door example: if it's crucial that they find this door, let them find it on a failure as well, and make success "finding the secret door without/before triggering the trap" or something - this way, the story still progresses as planned, and stats and rolls still matter
If it isn't important like more loot, I have them roll and if they fail the DC oh well, I just make something up other than the secret door. Never tell them what they missed either just keep the unimportant stuff to your self, and if it was meant to be found you should not have hidden it in the first place. If you have the boss or enemies hidden behind somewhere, like a secret door/s, use it to surprise the players as they spring out to attack, as suddenly what was a empty room the PC's hear loud crashes in every direction as parts of the walls open up and they find themselves surrounded on all sides, roll initiative.
My thoughta on perception in D&D: Its problem is that typically if you're rolling for something in D&D, that means you've screwed up, or what you're doing is a longshot. The standard DC gives you less than a 50% chance to succeed for a reason. But people don't handle perception that way, and failing at something that obviously wouldn't be very hard feels artificial. Passive perception is also there for a reason but it's hit hard by the first problem, rather than being something players can have by choice, it's essentially a character creation tax. How I handle it: - Assume generally that the PCs are traveling carefully (slowly) in dungeons. They don't need to call "I'm checking for traps!" constantly. They won't be surprised by what they find. (They do need something like a ten-foot pole for this.) Remember rolling is for times when success isn't sure, which isn't true if your only obstacle is time! - If they feel obligated to travel quick (being in dungeons is inherently dangerous, "random" encounters exist for a reason) passive perception kicks in, pray you don't get spiked. (High passive perception becomes an optional way to zip around and avoid encounters rather than an obligation) - Rolling for perception is based on O.G. D&D "perception" stuff that isn't certain. Trying to hear what's behind a door? Roll Perception. Vision is obscured somehow? Trying to see something very far away? Roll Perception. Etc.
You could also make comparative perception checks, so the highest role finds the thing and the lowest role triggers the trap. Similarly the higher 2 rolls notice the ambush and the lower 2 don't.
I think the "crunch vs roleplay" axis is not the relevant one here, but rather the simulationist vs narrativist. Simulationists want to guide the actions of their characters, not their fate, and might find mechanics that give the players agency over the narrative immersion breaking.
Exactly. And D&D is inherently very simulationist, there's other systems that are much better built for narrativist role-playing. Also, there's no chance in hell that a crunchy group of min-maxers, which most probably made a conscious effort to build their characters/party with the maximum chance to avoid traps or find the things (or the opposite: to be excellent in some other feature in exchange for being clumsy or oblivious) - will be fine with that having no relevance, just because of the thrill of the DM giving them the honors of optimizing the heavy handed unwarranted result.
@tulliusexmisc2191 there are plenty of roleplayers who prefer simulationist mechanics, and they would dislike this for different reasons than the crunchy players. I don't really see the similarities.
This is what I was thinking. Some want to decide if they succeed or fail, and some want the dice to decide if they succeed or fail. Essentially, from which side of the meta fence you're playing.
Yeah, having us choose who knows or notices is like deciding who hits and who takes damage, if I wanted to write a story I would, I have my 2d6 here for a reason.
Oh my god, it’s Rodrigo! Hi Rodrigo! Hearing that voice has unlocked many memories of the hours listening to you guys on Critical Hit from the very beginning years ago. Now I have a face to put to the voice. What a thing for the algorithm to serve up.
I will say that with the ambush example and PF2, the default way that initiative is rolled handles that already, and it is Perception unless you are doing something that would plausibly use something else. But dnd, sure.
My house rule is that Wisdom rolls are always done by me in secret. Like, you know if you're underperforming physically, being more awkward than usual, or having a brain fart, but there's no such thing for a gut feeling, which is what Wisdom is about. Plus it makes metagaming Perception and Wisdom impossible.
You are taking away a huge chunk of player agency by doing this, wisdom rolls such as perception and survival are for the players to discover the world and their surroundings and this should be doable by the player at their own volition. This goes even more so with insight since it is for the player to analyse a social situation if they feel the nees to do so
@phill3684 both is best, if players say they're looking for something in particular they can roll, and must roll, every single time they ask whether there's something to find or not. That prevents them from assuming they simply didn't find the thing when they roll a 1. For any other kind of thing just roll passive perception secretly, and I do mean roll cuz 5Es passive perception sucks ass and isn't fun.
It depends entirely on if you consider a failed Wisdom roll be believing something that may or may not be true, or knowing you have no idea. Like failing Insight on a lying NPC can mean either believing them or having no idea whether they're truthful. In the former you don't know if you failed, and in the latter you know you don't know. For Perception, unless it's an illusion, you almost always know you don't see anything.
@@toirendd Yeah I agree with you there, as do most DMs. At least with the active perception checks. I was meerely disagreeing with the original comment suggesting to entirely take away player agency in terms of wisdom
Absolutely love this, I've been doing something kind of similar where my investigator always finds the Secret Door but having someone trigger the Trap sounds hilarious and I'm sure my group would jump at that opportunity.
I do use this at times, it just depends on how likely the thing being perceived is to be looked over. Normally I punish low rolls for perception, and that tends to move things along. Fail the perception check, you won’t just not find the trap, you’ll trigger it and maybe it’ll just open the way out once triggered, maybe the trap going off is their next hint after failing the check. And I don’t call for it if it’s not necessary like any good dm. High perception character? They’re gonna be handed a decent amount by me. Character just moving through the right space to see something, they’ll probably see it, checks are only necessary at my table when there is chance involved with the actions completion.
I do like this, though I also like the crunchiness of rolling. I might mix this mechanic in here and there for less important stuff. I like throwing the ball in the court of the players for travel, imposing random challenges their way and letting them BS their way through it, and if they have a good enough excuse they don't suffer exhaustion or some other effect. if they don't have an excuse they can always brute force it with a skill check or save too. This mechanic reminds me of that, in the sense of throwing the ball in the players court in a more interesting way than just dice rolling, and I generally like that more and want to include more mechanics that are like "tell me how you do this" instead of "roll a die to tell me how well you do it". obviously combat is combat and that's fine as is for the most part, but outside of combat, I love giving skill monkeys and macgyvers room to do their thing.
This is why I am a fan of systems with built in fail forward. :D Also a bit sad that this angle doesn't capture Smokey in the frame but glad for the other cameo.
Oooh a very interesting technique. However I’m not sure about the reception on the RP-heavy side. For some it’s probably fine but I feel in other groups, this will possibly take them out of immersion. I have encountered slight stumbles like that when to-players are reminded of mechanic-based situations. Also a lot of RP-heavy groups enjoy not having that control over the world, and being thrown into the wild with things. Still going to try this out for sure and maybe tweak some stuff on it. I dm for a pretty mechanics/rp mixed group(in terms of leaning towards the extremes of the very beautiful spectrum you showed) so it’s definitely tough sometimes. I think combining this with a dungeon planning strategy of “make sure every player has at x interactions through some invisible or visible token system” could definitely do well. Let them plan ahead for things so that it’s not always the tank taking traps, or the rogue with high stealth finding the secret door with whispers coming from it. Alternatively adding some sort of occasional reward behind the trap or whatever can also be fun, or even swapping them around. “Okay Bard, you find the trap then? You fall through the floor as a trapdoor below you opens. You land roughly on the floor in the middle of a secret stash room covered in gold coins and valuable trinkets(but possibly surrounded by the bandits you were tracking, lying right in the middle of them?)”.
Yep my players would absolutely hate if I did this. They would say “who are you and why are you asking us this?” and accuse me of meta gaming 😂 They would rather everyone triggered the trap and no one found the secret entrance and they would leave and try to figure something else out if it happened “naturally”
nah. perception failure leads to the lowest roller has to make a reflex save as he literally bumbled into it and is about to fall down the stairs/ladder/ominous pit for xDy fall damage. THIS RAILROAD HAS NO BRAKES CHOO CHOO
Huge fan of this approach. In addition to cutting down on rolls it helps put spotlight management into the hands of the players. As a GM who is often tired, it's nice to delegate a bit.
Honestly, I'm not sure I quite like the idea. For one, it's just too immersion breaking for Mr. Secondly, I don't get why people don't explore lost time as a valid consequence for failed perception checks. The rogue fails to pick the lock? Okay then he'll eventually get it open, but not before the bad guy set up extra traps behind him. My point is that Perception doesn't need to halt your story as much as people think.
I agree, I think the trick is coming up with a reasonable consequence on the fly when the whole group fails, yes time passes but what is the consequence of it passing. That's where I sometimes get tripped up anyways 😅
In older DND style games, time was tracked so if players took a lot of time doing something it would impact the characters in different ways that drained resources. The DM would roll for a chance of wandering monsters and light sources and food supplies would dwindle. People could certainly use wandering monsters or an event chart/table to have a few impacts on players making this choice to keep trying.
both Cosmere RPG and Daggerheart have a resource system (Focus and Stress respectively) that let you either pass the test with the roll, or after failing you pay the price and have a lower success. so you do find the item even if you fail the roll, as long as you're willing to pay for it (and then there's a discussion of who pays maybe) but then there's also consequences for not passing it normally.
I will often just use my player's passive perception to decide who finds something, or if it is found at all. I also do this commonly for other skills. I will also instead of having a roll, just ask if the character has proficiency in something, with an automatic success if they do. This rewards character choice without letting the randomness of the dice throw a wrench in something that definitely should happen, at least eventually.
Huh. This seems like an interesting way to do it, and there's so much room for play and tension in the decisions. You could even make the choices more random or non-indicative if you need to split them up or single them out at random, or along secret lines. and hey! Exalted mention. Ya, you couldn't do this easily in exalted, but then your players might turn around a perception roll on you by asking you how many mobile, animate beings are in a 5 mile radius, where they are, all of their current heart rates and blood pressures, and if any of them are currently being deceitful, and what their technically audible medical conditions are
What about: describe the trap, let them tell you who would have found it, and then pick 2 characters that may have fallen on the trap for the party to vote? Allows for roleplay, keeping immersion, but also doesn't just make the same optimal guy fall into the trap every time
If there is something they need to find, I don't ask who finds it, they just find it. I would never ask any of my groups, "Who triggers the trap"? Because it would be followed by the longest silence in the history of the game, and I am not about that, I am all about moving things along.
Great advice, the numbers are supposed to support the narrative, ultimately they're arbitrary and your method creates much more opportunities to play their characters. Success moves the event forward, failure moves the event forward, and the rolling of the dice actually matter more.
Most of the players in my crew would be absolutely pissed if I asked them “who triggers the trap” instead of giving them a chance to roll perception. “Who finds the thing?” Is a good question, but if I didn’t give them at least a few seconds to announce their intentions then I would immediately get questions like “Wait, I have a 24 passive perception. Why didn’t I notice that?” “Wait, I would have checked for traps. What stopped me?” “Wait, I didn’t even say I approached the thing. How did I even get near the trap?” To me, it would be better to say: “Who finds the thing?” Let them decide, and then give them 2-3 different perception “hooks.” (Ex.: “You find a wooden door covered in arrows; a runic unknown language is scrawled around the outside of it in haphazard knife marks which stand in stark contrast to the large and friendly silver knob beckoning you in.”) That way the players have many reasons and ways to interact with the thing. If they don’t announce any intention to investigate the door for potential traps, then the trap is triggered. Plus, any one of the hooks I described could be the trap’s catalyst (maybe getting close enough to examine the arrows triggers a pressure plate which flings arrows at the door, maybe reading the runes out loud causes psychic damage, maybe the door releases poison gas when it’s opened - who knows?) so it requires the players to check more than one thing for traps and actually interact with the world. Now my players are primed to both feel tense about the situation (by the description) and are taught to actively interact with the world; rather than just passively expecting me to describe how the world acts upon them.
there's infinitely many types of tables and no advice cover them all. but also players learn from experiences, so if you announced before hand that you'd try a new perception thing, those questions wouldn't even make sense or could be met with "it's the new story-driven way I said I was testing" and then if there was too much resistance it would just mean that you don't have the problem this specific advice is trying to solve: your players already like the experience as is.
This style works for some roleplaying groups and GMs, its great for the "Yes, and..." style of games, but its not my bag. I tend to have the players roll perception and the one with the highest roll finds the thing if it is important. As for traps, well, as the GM you decide how harmful they are and your players should have a general idea of your style of trap damage after a while, so failing to notice the trap is just part of the deal, like being hit by a monster. Also, to be totally honest, when it comes to finding important clues, I just give it to the player who says they're searching closest to it. "I search the cabinet." (Congratulations!) You find the golden egg! "I check the wall for secret doors," and boom! (Congratulations!) you find the secret door! (Or there's no secret door [there].) I use perception checks for traps, and I have players roll after they would have triggered it. So, if there's a pressure plate in the floor, after a player has their character step on that square or past it, then I have them roll perception.... Not before, unless its the first room with traps and a bunch of new players that need to understand there might be traps about. If the player says, "I'm checking the floor for traps." I might tell them, "You notice..." like, "You notice one of the stones is colored slightly differently than the rest." or "You notice holes in the floor." And then they can roll disable traps for further investigation. Most players are savvy enough to figure holes in the floor means spikes, acid, or something is going to come up out of them. Anyway... Or, perception for monsters sneaking up on them. If they succeed, they notice the monsters, if not the monsters get the jump on them. But, if it is something important, they find it by searching where it is or near it, or the highest roll finds it. That way, if the rogue finds the magic ring then he gets to decide whether to hide it from the party or not, and if the cleric finds the magic ring he gets to decide whether to keep it or not, etc. And that's also just part of the game IMO, or how the clue is presented to the party when found, etc.
I'm personally more into the "failing forward" style of things, I ask for rolls for. In your first example finding a way into a place, successful roll gets a good untapped secret way that lets you get the jump on the baddies, Failure means you find the trapped, ambushed way in. I don't put up roadblocks for my players that stop them, more so speed bumps or hurdles. But this is a cool idea for some partys.
In my home brew game all player characters have a set number of magic words they can spend to do important things, including to perceive important clues, events, etc. Spend a word, spot the hidden door. Feel smart and powerful. Get on with the game.
I use passive perception as a minimum. People that don't put any points into it often don't notice the thing. Those that do usually have a high enough passive to find the thing...usually. I still make them roll. They just use their passive if the roll was lower.
In my games I try have rolls/ checks that rather than enabling the party to move forward instead determine how quickly/ easily the party can move forward. I’ll give an example from one of the quests I have planned. The party is delivering something however the bridge that takes them to where they need to go is out, if they don’t have the requisite equipment to clear the gap (grappling hook and rope) than they have a choice circle back and take a detour (meaning they’ll be late and risk travelling during the night or figure out a way to get across (with me giving them a description of the area that gives them clues on how to get across with different checks) if they fail then well it’s back to plan B, they then have a bigger time crunch later in the quest and risk a combat in counter that night.
I have done a similar rule in certain situations... I have 4 players at my table, and I will.have 4 index cards with 4 different results on the cards. I then let the players decide before rolling, how they plan to reveal The results. Random selection by the players based off the highest roll to lowest roll or best result to worst result based off player roll. None of the results are shown until the rolls occur... Now sometimes I show the results, minor details, and let the players determine who gets what result before knowing exactly what will happen. I only do this in random situations I predetermined will be fun for the game, or create a fun scenario or roleplay event. Happens about every other session, and I rotate all 3 types of styles based off the previous game. The players know that all 3 styles get used before we replay any style. It's just another way to add some flavor to your game, and keep things fresh... And YES, I use traditional Perception as well, just situationally
Oooo I like this! It also makes me think about using a group roll as more of a 'draw straws' mechanic, rather than using a target DC. Characters with high bonuses will win MOST of the time, but characters with moderate scores will still have a few moments to shine, with the occasional dump-stat high roll shennanigans ❤️
Here's another way to think about this method, and maybe tune it to your group. If you know someone is going to pass, as in you're going to ask "who finds the thing" and you just have to figure out who, just have them all roll perception and the highest still gets it. Doesn't matter if they rolled a 3, but everyone else rolled 1s. That gives a better chance of players who build to be observant to fill the roll they built for. Likewise, go the other way for triggering the trap. Another option is to get some RP context. Instead of asking "who notices the ambush" ask "who's on point?" and "what are you doing while taking point?" and get an idea of how the group is acting at the moment. Then just do what makes sense position and stats wise. The problem to avoid with this method is you have to make sure your players still have a sense of agency and don't feel railroaded. The players need the opportunity to either outsmart or out skill the GM, even if you're the one giving them the tools to make them feel like they're doing that. And a lot of time you can just do something like passive perception and attribute them not having to roll their prior decision to make a perceptive character (which feels like agency, even if you set the perception check at like 5 and don't tell them).
I just have them guess what to do and then roll til it works and improv off it. Any dice i set or strat i set is for my ease but its always up to the party
An alternative is to base the situation off the character rolls. In this case lower trigger traps. + Higher find the secrets or spot the ambush. But that defeats the purpose of the idea.
Don't ask to roll perception if the PC doesn't look for something, they choose to look THEN you ask for perception. OR The DM rolls for the characters behind the screen for hidden items.
I usually have my players roll for stuff and the result tells me how long it takes. In your example about finding the hidden door, the one with the highest result finds the thing but it might still take the group some ingame time, which may result in changed conditions further down the adventure (as the npcs have more time to prepare etc)
When I put in the game something the players absolutely have to find or notice, I tend to use Perception rolls differently, more like the old "monster lore" Knowledge checks in 3rd edition: the roll is not to actually find the thing, it's to establish who notice it or how well they notice it. They would notice in any case. Another different way to use Perception rolls would be with that other old 3rd edition's optional rule, the complex skill rolls, so that the party has either to reach a minimum number of successes collectively or pass a certain number of rolls before missing another number. And depending on the result, you could still ask either "who find the thing" or "who triggers the thing" to those who succeed or fail respectively.
NEVER roll perception. The proficiency system was first introduced in 2nd Edition, and ever since, it's been a crutch for both DMs and players. So much so, that nobody even describes the area, or asks about their surroundings. The first thing players do is roll perception, whether the DM calls for a roll or not. If you want everything to be determined by the dice, just roll up 4-5 characters, and play by yourself. Or just get your friends together and play craps. It's the same thing! The entire skills system is overused, abused, and overrated. The DM gives a description of the area, usually presents a map of some kind, and the players investigate and interact with it. _That's_ how it was meant to be played.
If you are gonna have them take a perception test that they need to pass have them roll it like a contest. Then have the player with the highest roll be the first character to notice whatever it is.
1-This gives me the idea that I can ask for perception multiple times and it is not about if they find it but about how long the enemy has to buff before their arrival. I am sure some would complain that takes away the stealth skill. 2-Another hindrance can be the more perception checks are failed, the more hours go by meaning the "breakfast" spell you cast when you left the campsite may no m anger be in effect. The same with multitude of failed lock pick attempts or efforts to swim across a river.
I would recommend only one round of perception rolls, and the highest result - or if you rpefer, the median - determines how well the enemy are able to prepare.
Just have them makes rolls before the game begins to create a number pool per character recorded randomly by the DM. When needed, check a number behind your DM screen in their pool and see if they succeed and then cross it off.
Pbta rpg games tought me that a failed roll does not always mean you don't do the thing. It means you have a consequence occur. Eg: "roll to find an entrance." Players roll crap. "You discover the entrance.not through your efforts, but because a group of orcs rush you from within it. What do you do?" "I jump from the police car onto the terrorists truck....crap, rolled a 4" "You barely make it and pull yourself up. Your relief dissappears instantly when faced with the barrel of a Shotgun....'don't move pig' says the masked man".
Passive perception exists for this reason. If anyone rolls lower than their passive just use their passive. I do agree with not asking for perception checks because of passive. Tell the players they can roll if they want to try and get a better roll or to hit the DC for obviously higher challenges. That way secrets are still secrets unless discovered and progress that's meant to be found can be done passively (baring a group that everyone said bonk to wisdom)
I do this: I make my players roll perception if there is actually something to hear (usually with a sneak roll on the other side) or if I need to build tension somehow, but I try to not abuse this (in a streak of high rolls they should be able to detect what's going on too quickly). It depends on the enviroment, but they should be able to listen, see and smell what's happening nearby without a roll. So if there is something, I simpliy tell them; if they ask, its an automatic success (unless they're distracted somehow). Plus, secret door should be optional (and more on search/investigation rolls than perception, unless players are able to come out with something unusual/clever).
"You failed your Perception, you don't find anything out of place," sucks when the scenario relies on succeeding on that roll to allow the PCs to continue. However, rolling to see how much of what resources are expended (hit points, time, money, worsening condition, opprtunities, etc.) before you notice said thing adds tension and drama without having a bad roll grind the scenario to a screeching halt.
First thing, perception should be renamed Awareness. Because it's not about how good you can see that thing 10 miles away. It's about do you realise something is going on. Also there is often (in DnD) an overlap of perception and investigation. For exemple, you may not have seen the trap or the ambushed ennemies, but did your character saw the area and thought : "hey, that would be a nice spot for an ambush" and raised his general awareness and prepared themselves even without clear knowledge of the exact setup. Perception is not always about what you see or hear, its sometimes a feeling, like something is odd, out of place. Sometimes perception is even about what you DON'T see or hear. like "why is the forest so silent suddendly ?", "Why is this area dry ? a car must have been parked here" etc And yes, having relatives rolls instead of DC is good to avoid the "everybody fails", while still keeping the stat relevant. You have higher perception means you are less likely to be the one who set off the trap. Which also means that on the other hand, if you want to be the guy who tanks the traps, you should dump your perception.
Skip perception, leave obvious clues there is a secret door/trap/whatever. Players can then tell you how they feel along the wall for seams, look behind the only tapestry, or puzzle out what triggers the ominous blade trap in the wall of the room covered in dried blood.
I'm in favour of tailoring what they try to whether and what they roll. Failure means success after consequence if it's necessary for progress, or just a consequence if it's something extra like loot. "I search the room for a hidden door." "Roll Perception (hard)." "I search the floor for a hidden door." "Roll Perception/Investigation, whichever is higher (easy)." "I look under the rug." "You find a hidden trapdoor."
@@kylegraywolf Yeah, allowing the players to play more like they want, but rewarding more detailed descriptions of what they attempt to push them towards a playstyle more interactive with the world, as opposed to more abstract rolling. Of course, also discuss this with the players. Communication solves most issues faster.
I like this mechanic as a sometimes thing (in 5e). But my players with high perception usually want tha to show up in the game. Therefore I relly heavelt in passive skills. I totally agree with roling less to play more! And I see this idea shining in other systems such as fate and hacks!
A potential middle ground for groups more in the middle: Everyone still rolls perception, but the person who rolls highest finds the thing, the person who rolls lowest triggers the trap.
This is exactly the middle ground I thought about.
*furiously scribbling notes*
My thoughts:
Who finds the x: should be used only for things that are mandatory and not meant to be "hidden". This let's the dice determine which player gets the spotlight and is not a skill check with punishments.
Traps should be "triggered" by a specific player who would activate it and get asked for a reactive perception roll to see if that one player would notice.
You should not ask for a perception roll just because everyone is in a hallway with a trap.
If they are more abstractly walking through an area (no map, no specified scout) then you ask for perception rolls and the lowest that fails is the one who triggers the trap.
In other words. Use basic logic. Don't let all your players roll to avoid something for everyone. If everyone is rolling some are going to be punished and some are going to succeed.
Was literally just thinking this, I feel like I’ll incorporate both into my sessions, see how it works :)
EDIT: another potential idea is just use their base stats, rewarding putting points into the stat. I can see a session using all three of those depending on the situation and how much control you want to give the players over a situation.
Exactly what I did with my group recently. Highest noticed a threat first with a chance to help, lowest had a second to do something but, with a nat 1, I made them roll a saving throw right away instead.
this is the format youtube was meant for
I usually treat low rolls on perception/investigation rolls as the characters having to take longer to find the thing. Instead of the players rolling several times in a row, I'll take the initial rolls and use it as a framework to describe how the search went for each character. I usually do this for any check that doesn't have a major consequence for failure - sort of like the old "take 10/take 20" rule from 3.5.
"You only rolled a 6? Well, it takes you a good ten minutes of searching before you find anything of note...."
Your system is pretty cool, though. I may have to give it a try!
I tend to go this route as well. Often, it does little but change the flavor in how the thing gets found and/or the trap gets triggered. Sometimes, though, time is precious and the players know that. This squeezes some drama into those rolls as the players try to optimize by adding guidance or bardic inspiration or whatever to ensure their highest perception character finds the thing as quickly as possible
Life is jazzier with a cat
I have 10
My go to is to never ask for a roll which failure doesn't somehow still move things forward.
Smart. Every so often you ask the players to roll, fully expecting success.. and the dice are unforgiving. Then what?
So I’ll keep my eyes open for more opportunities to just keep the game moving.
Succeed? Go ahead. Fail? Trigger a trap/take so long you get ambushed, then go ahead.
@AnotherDuck indeed! Roll, pass: you jump over the chasm.
Fail: you still jump over the chasm, but your chasers gain ground or you bump your knees as you stand back up from your landing and suffer d4 damage.
Many tiny things that add small bits of drama here and there and also help with lethality (I'm thinking 5e here, but it applies to pretty much all games, accounting for rule shifts)
Absolutely! This isn’t perception, but Matt Colville made up a good example for this in his Running the Game series (disclaimer: I’ll probably get some details wrong compared to Matt’s version, but the point gets across).
The players have a door in front of them and they know enemies are on the other side, so they want to quickly burst through the door and initiate combat, hopefully getting a surprise round off. If you fail your athletics check to kick down the door or whatever, you don’t just fail to kick down the door. That’s kinda boring, since you can just try again, though it does blow your cover to the enemies on the door’s other side. A more interesting condition for failure is successfully kicking the door, but you fail to surprise the enemies on the other side and they beat you in initiative. Perhaps on a nat 1, you even kick a hole in the door and get your leg stuck, putting yourself in an awkward position for the ensuing combat. If you succeed, good job! By successfully sneaking close to the door and suddenly bursting it open, you successfully surprise the enemies!
Who fell in the trap?
Players: *Silence*
The goblin who was sneaking up on the party.
Edgy DM: aight, so everybody did, got it
Chill DM: you can roll to save yourselves or another character of your choice
Random DM: OK, *rolls d4*, you did
Old DM: did anybody bring a chicken? No?
I have parkour, feather fall, danger sense and maxxed awareness, I'll take it but do I have a chance to grip the edge, reduce the damage or anything?
@stm7810 why would you want to grip the edge of a swinging blade trap?
@@iododendron3416 if it's a swinging blade trap I'd get a bonus from danger sense then just roll to dodge, or use apportation to catch the blade mid air.
surprise cat intermission!!
There's no surprise about a cat barging in on a video. It's what cats do. Source: I watch RUclips.
The Alexandrian has the 3 Clue Rule. 1. If the only way to progress the game is through this locked door... then that door shouldn't be locked. 2. But if it is locked, give them three clues on how to unlock it before they get there, then it's on them if they ignored the clues.
Note: Your clues shouldn't be so obscure that only you knew they were clues.
Gandalf: Meklon!
GM: The door doesn't open.
Gandalf: AW C'MON!!!!
This is a cool innovation, but I don't think I run the same type of game as a DM that would find a lot of utility for it.
With the bad guy's lair example I would have one obvious entrance that is laden with traps and goons, and a second safe and hidden entrance, which the boss uses for their comings and goings. Instead of just relying on the PCs making a check, I would seed some clues prior to arrival, as well as some perceivable on site.
And when it absolutely comes down to it, I will keep some secrets hidden behind challenging puzzles. Of course the players may not be able to solve the puzzle, so reserve this solution for secrets that you are okay with the players not finding.
It's really fun to pair a puzzle with a timer. Imagine the room is filling with water, and will be completely full within 3 rounds. The players can exit safely with no obstruction, BUT that would mean leaving behind the pirate king's most valuable treasure, that the map they found led them to in the first place. Are the clues to the puzzle on the map? I don't know, that sounds cool to me. Why not?
This works really well for groups/systems that are more narrative in nature. In a game like D&D, it may feel like a cop out to some players. Alternatively, consider the following:
1.) Never call for a roll where failure (or success) means nothing happens. If the character fails to notice the thing, something bad happens that still moves the story forward. This is in the rules for D&D already, though a lot of prewritten adventures forget or ignore it.
2.) Don’t hide the next step of the story behind a secret door or a mandatory success. (You mentioned this philosophy in your video) It may make a lot of sense to you for the dungeon boss to want to hide behind a secret door, but there are plenty of reasons not to. If the dungeon itself is a secret location, why make more secret locations within? Alternatively, maybe the boss is extremely paranoid and hides lots of treasures and hidden passages behind secret doors. In that case, make sure there’s a tell-something that no one would notice if they weren’t looking for it, but once the players see it, it will pop out to them. Give them several opportunities to investigate such markers to find secrets, and then when the boss room is behind a similar spot, it maintains the feel of boss paranoia, but also allows the players to definitely find it. And after all, the boss is going to need to remember where these secret doors are too, right?
To build on your first point using the secret door example: if it's crucial that they find this door, let them find it on a failure as well, and make success "finding the secret door without/before triggering the trap" or something - this way, the story still progresses as planned, and stats and rolls still matter
"If you already have a secret location... then why hide the elevator?" -- Captain America
If it isn't important like more loot, I have them roll and if they fail the DC oh well, I just make something up other than the secret door.
Never tell them what they missed either just keep the unimportant stuff to your self, and if it was meant to be found you should not have hidden it in the first place.
If you have the boss or enemies hidden behind somewhere, like a secret door/s, use it to surprise the players as they spring out to attack, as suddenly what was a empty room the PC's hear loud crashes in every direction as parts of the walls open up and they find themselves surrounded on all sides, roll initiative.
My thoughta on perception in D&D:
Its problem is that typically if you're rolling for something in D&D, that means you've screwed up, or what you're doing is a longshot. The standard DC gives you less than a 50% chance to succeed for a reason. But people don't handle perception that way, and failing at something that obviously wouldn't be very hard feels artificial.
Passive perception is also there for a reason but it's hit hard by the first problem, rather than being something players can have by choice, it's essentially a character creation tax.
How I handle it:
- Assume generally that the PCs are traveling carefully (slowly) in dungeons. They don't need to call "I'm checking for traps!" constantly. They won't be surprised by what they find. (They do need something like a ten-foot pole for this.) Remember rolling is for times when success isn't sure, which isn't true if your only obstacle is time!
- If they feel obligated to travel quick (being in dungeons is inherently dangerous, "random" encounters exist for a reason) passive perception kicks in, pray you don't get spiked. (High passive perception becomes an optional way to zip around and avoid encounters rather than an obligation)
- Rolling for perception is based on O.G. D&D "perception" stuff that isn't certain. Trying to hear what's behind a door? Roll Perception. Vision is obscured somehow? Trying to see something very far away? Roll Perception. Etc.
You could also make comparative perception checks, so the highest role finds the thing and the lowest role triggers the trap. Similarly the higher 2 rolls notice the ambush and the lower 2 don't.
Roleplaying AND an interrupting cat??? Dagnabbit, I'm in! Am I really that easy?
I think the "crunch vs roleplay" axis is not the relevant one here, but rather the simulationist vs narrativist.
Simulationists want to guide the actions of their characters, not their fate, and might find mechanics that give the players agency over the narrative immersion breaking.
Exactly. And D&D is inherently very simulationist, there's other systems that are much better built for narrativist role-playing.
Also, there's no chance in hell that a crunchy group of min-maxers, which most probably made a conscious effort to build their characters/party with the maximum chance to avoid traps or find the things (or the opposite: to be excellent in some other feature in exchange for being clumsy or oblivious) - will be fine with that having no relevance, just because of the thrill of the DM giving them the honors of optimizing the heavy handed unwarranted result.
I would say for practical purposes those axes are almost the same, only one or two degrees apart.
@tulliusexmisc2191 there are plenty of roleplayers who prefer simulationist mechanics, and they would dislike this for different reasons than the crunchy players. I don't really see the similarities.
This is what I was thinking. Some want to decide if they succeed or fail, and some want the dice to decide if they succeed or fail. Essentially, from which side of the meta fence you're playing.
Yeah, having us choose who knows or notices is like deciding who hits and who takes damage, if I wanted to write a story I would, I have my 2d6 here for a reason.
Oh my god, it’s Rodrigo! Hi Rodrigo! Hearing that voice has unlocked many memories of the hours listening to you guys on Critical Hit from the very beginning years ago. Now I have a face to put to the voice. What a thing for the algorithm to serve up.
2008 Podcast Jumpscare!
The music cut-ins are really distracting.
They're also funny
I am amused by a spectrum of roleplay that runs from Smosh Games to Pokemon Challenges. 😅
I will say that with the ambush example and PF2, the default way that initiative is rolled handles that already, and it is Perception unless you are doing something that would plausibly use something else. But dnd, sure.
Brilliant. I’m using this next session!
Love the format.
Liked for content, comment for kitty
My house rule is that Wisdom rolls are always done by me in secret. Like, you know if you're underperforming physically, being more awkward than usual, or having a brain fart, but there's no such thing for a gut feeling, which is what Wisdom is about. Plus it makes metagaming Perception and Wisdom impossible.
You are taking away a huge chunk of player agency by doing this, wisdom rolls such as perception and survival are for the players to discover the world and their surroundings and this should be doable by the player at their own volition.
This goes even more so with insight since it is for the player to analyse a social situation if they feel the nees to do so
@phill3684 both is best, if players say they're looking for something in particular they can roll, and must roll, every single time they ask whether there's something to find or not. That prevents them from assuming they simply didn't find the thing when they roll a 1. For any other kind of thing just roll passive perception secretly, and I do mean roll cuz 5Es passive perception sucks ass and isn't fun.
It depends entirely on if you consider a failed Wisdom roll be believing something that may or may not be true, or knowing you have no idea. Like failing Insight on a lying NPC can mean either believing them or having no idea whether they're truthful. In the former you don't know if you failed, and in the latter you know you don't know. For Perception, unless it's an illusion, you almost always know you don't see anything.
@@toirendd Yeah I agree with you there, as do most DMs.
At least with the active perception checks.
I was meerely disagreeing with the original comment suggesting to entirely take away player agency in terms of wisdom
Absolutely love this, I've been doing something kind of similar where my investigator always finds the Secret Door but having someone trigger the Trap sounds hilarious and I'm sure my group would jump at that opportunity.
when your kitty purred I instinctively tried to locate my cats lmao
Good idea. Thanks for sharing this.
Definitely a good technique to have in my DM tool belt :)
I do use this at times, it just depends on how likely the thing being perceived is to be looked over.
Normally I punish low rolls for perception, and that tends to move things along.
Fail the perception check, you won’t just not find the trap, you’ll trigger it and maybe it’ll just open the way out once triggered, maybe the trap going off is their next hint after failing the check.
And I don’t call for it if it’s not necessary like any good dm.
High perception character? They’re gonna be handed a decent amount by me. Character just moving through the right space to see something, they’ll probably see it, checks are only necessary at my table when there is chance involved with the actions completion.
Brilliant! I'm gonna use this immediately.
I do like this, though I also like the crunchiness of rolling. I might mix this mechanic in here and there for less important stuff.
I like throwing the ball in the court of the players for travel, imposing random challenges their way and letting them BS their way through it, and if they have a good enough excuse they don't suffer exhaustion or some other effect. if they don't have an excuse they can always brute force it with a skill check or save too. This mechanic reminds me of that, in the sense of throwing the ball in the players court in a more interesting way than just dice rolling, and I generally like that more and want to include more mechanics that are like "tell me how you do this" instead of "roll a die to tell me how well you do it". obviously combat is combat and that's fine as is for the most part, but outside of combat, I love giving skill monkeys and macgyvers room to do their thing.
This is what I like about some of the PbtA modeled games, where mixed success or failure are just as important as success
This is why I am a fan of systems with built in fail forward. :D
Also a bit sad that this angle doesn't capture Smokey in the frame but glad for the other cameo.
Oooh a very interesting technique. However I’m not sure about the reception on the RP-heavy side. For some it’s probably fine but I feel in other groups, this will possibly take them out of immersion. I have encountered slight stumbles like that when to-players are reminded of mechanic-based situations. Also a lot of RP-heavy groups enjoy not having that control over the world, and being thrown into the wild with things. Still going to try this out for sure and maybe tweak some stuff on it. I dm for a pretty mechanics/rp mixed group(in terms of leaning towards the extremes of the very beautiful spectrum you showed) so it’s definitely tough sometimes. I think combining this with a dungeon planning strategy of “make sure every player has at x interactions through some invisible or visible token system” could definitely do well. Let them plan ahead for things so that it’s not always the tank taking traps, or the rogue with high stealth finding the secret door with whispers coming from it. Alternatively adding some sort of occasional reward behind the trap or whatever can also be fun, or even swapping them around. “Okay Bard, you find the trap then? You fall through the floor as a trapdoor below you opens. You land roughly on the floor in the middle of a secret stash room covered in gold coins and valuable trinkets(but possibly surrounded by the bandits you were tracking, lying right in the middle of them?)”.
Yep my players would absolutely hate if I did this. They would say “who are you and why are you asking us this?” and accuse me of meta gaming 😂 They would rather everyone triggered the trap and no one found the secret entrance and they would leave and try to figure something else out if it happened “naturally”
But but I have find and remove traps at 88%
I mean I’m not a genius or an expert but I could also see numbers people enjoying finding the most likely person to trigger a trap.
nah. perception failure leads to the lowest roller has to make a reflex save as he literally bumbled into it and is about to fall down the stairs/ladder/ominous pit for xDy fall damage. THIS RAILROAD HAS NO BRAKES CHOO CHOO
Love the nod to perception by adding music to when the cat is in the scene. I think I perceive what you did there
Huge fan of this approach. In addition to cutting down on rolls it helps put spotlight management into the hands of the players. As a GM who is often tired, it's nice to delegate a bit.
Very interesting video. Definitely sharing this with the group
I applaud any RUclipsr who responds to cat emergencies with affection and attention!😅 This is also a pretty good idea.
Interesting idea. I might bust this out for situations where nobody rolls the target number on perception.
Honestly, I'm not sure I quite like the idea. For one, it's just too immersion breaking for Mr. Secondly, I don't get why people don't explore lost time as a valid consequence for failed perception checks. The rogue fails to pick the lock? Okay then he'll eventually get it open, but not before the bad guy set up extra traps behind him. My point is that Perception doesn't need to halt your story as much as people think.
I agree, I think the trick is coming up with a reasonable consequence on the fly when the whole group fails, yes time passes but what is the consequence of it passing. That's where I sometimes get tripped up anyways 😅
I like your idea of traps but what else could be consequences?
In older DND style games, time was tracked so if players took a lot of time doing something it would impact the characters in different ways that drained resources. The DM would roll for a chance of wandering monsters and light sources and food supplies would dwindle. People could certainly use wandering monsters or an event chart/table to have a few impacts on players making this choice to keep trying.
@@samurguybriyongtan146 thanks for the ideas!
That works best in games with more strictly defined rules for tracking time
Honestly, having come up in the 80’s with AD&D I think one of the big problems with this is the movement away from
“Because I’m the DM, that’s why.”
Great idea! You could probably do this with other kinds of rolls as well.
Brilliant, thank you!
both Cosmere RPG and Daggerheart have a resource system (Focus and Stress respectively) that let you either pass the test with the roll, or after failing you pay the price and have a lower success. so you do find the item even if you fail the roll, as long as you're willing to pay for it (and then there's a discussion of who pays maybe) but then there's also consequences for not passing it normally.
I will often just use my player's passive perception to decide who finds something, or if it is found at all. I also do this commonly for other skills.
I will also instead of having a roll, just ask if the character has proficiency in something, with an automatic success if they do. This rewards character choice without letting the randomness of the dice throw a wrench in something that definitely should happen, at least eventually.
I'm just here for the cat
I love how even if everyone has Passive Perception,, Campaigns require you to make thousands of Perception Checks for no reason.
When I'm starting my campaign later next year, I'm going to be tracking that heavily.
@@ShadowDreamer100 Best of luck.
This is actually groundbreaking advice. I'm adopting immediately.
Minis look amazing and will be stealing them too 😂
www.retrogrademinis.com/
This is my favorite way to start first sessions actually or at least in a similar way I do this
Huh. This seems like an interesting way to do it, and there's so much room for play and tension in the decisions. You could even make the choices more random or non-indicative if you need to split them up or single them out at random, or along secret lines.
and hey! Exalted mention. Ya, you couldn't do this easily in exalted, but then your players might turn around a perception roll on you by asking you how many mobile, animate beings are in a 5 mile radius, where they are, all of their current heart rates and blood pressures, and if any of them are currently being deceitful, and what their technically audible medical conditions are
freakin' Twilights.
What about: describe the trap, let them tell you who would have found it, and then pick 2 characters that may have fallen on the trap for the party to vote?
Allows for roleplay, keeping immersion, but also doesn't just make the same optimal guy fall into the trap every time
Totally, also, Ideally you're not hitting them with the same kind of trap every time either.
Ironically, I was laying down and watching youtube sideways when I discovered this video
The random music made me think I was schizophrenic
If there is something they need to find, I don't ask who finds it, they just find it.
I would never ask any of my groups, "Who triggers the trap"?
Because it would be followed by the longest silence in the history of the game, and I am not about that, I am all about moving things along.
Awesome video and concept. The jazz cat makes it the bomb!
Great advice, the numbers are supposed to support the narrative, ultimately they're arbitrary and your method creates much more opportunities to play their characters. Success moves the event forward, failure moves the event forward, and the rolling of the dice actually matter more.
Most of the players in my crew would be absolutely pissed if I asked them “who triggers the trap” instead of giving them a chance to roll perception. “Who finds the thing?” Is a good question, but if I didn’t give them at least a few seconds to announce their intentions then I would immediately get questions like “Wait, I have a 24 passive perception. Why didn’t I notice that?” “Wait, I would have checked for traps. What stopped me?” “Wait, I didn’t even say I approached the thing. How did I even get near the trap?”
To me, it would be better to say: “Who finds the thing?” Let them decide, and then give them 2-3 different perception “hooks.” (Ex.: “You find a wooden door covered in arrows; a runic unknown language is scrawled around the outside of it in haphazard knife marks which stand in stark contrast to the large and friendly silver knob beckoning you in.”) That way the players have many reasons and ways to interact with the thing. If they don’t announce any intention to investigate the door for potential traps, then the trap is triggered. Plus, any one of the hooks I described could be the trap’s catalyst (maybe getting close enough to examine the arrows triggers a pressure plate which flings arrows at the door, maybe reading the runes out loud causes psychic damage, maybe the door releases poison gas when it’s opened - who knows?) so it requires the players to check more than one thing for traps and actually interact with the world. Now my players are primed to both feel tense about the situation (by the description) and are taught to actively interact with the world; rather than just passively expecting me to describe how the world acts upon them.
there's infinitely many types of tables and no advice cover them all. but also players learn from experiences, so if you announced before hand that you'd try a new perception thing, those questions wouldn't even make sense or could be met with "it's the new story-driven way I said I was testing" and then if there was too much resistance it would just mean that you don't have the problem this specific advice is trying to solve: your players already like the experience as is.
GREAT VIDEO!!! i laughed quite hard every time the drums came up
Random question: What are the game sprites used in the video from?
www.retrogrademinis.com/
This style works for some roleplaying groups and GMs, its great for the "Yes, and..." style of games, but its not my bag. I tend to have the players roll perception and the one with the highest roll finds the thing if it is important. As for traps, well, as the GM you decide how harmful they are and your players should have a general idea of your style of trap damage after a while, so failing to notice the trap is just part of the deal, like being hit by a monster.
Also, to be totally honest, when it comes to finding important clues, I just give it to the player who says they're searching closest to it. "I search the cabinet." (Congratulations!) You find the golden egg!
"I check the wall for secret doors," and boom! (Congratulations!) you find the secret door! (Or there's no secret door [there].)
I use perception checks for traps, and I have players roll after they would have triggered it. So, if there's a pressure plate in the floor, after a player has their character step on that square or past it, then I have them roll perception.... Not before, unless its the first room with traps and a bunch of new players that need to understand there might be traps about.
If the player says, "I'm checking the floor for traps." I might tell them, "You notice..." like, "You notice one of the stones is colored slightly differently than the rest." or "You notice holes in the floor." And then they can roll disable traps for further investigation. Most players are savvy enough to figure holes in the floor means spikes, acid, or something is going to come up out of them.
Anyway... Or, perception for monsters sneaking up on them. If they succeed, they notice the monsters, if not the monsters get the jump on them.
But, if it is something important, they find it by searching where it is or near it, or the highest roll finds it. That way, if the rogue finds the magic ring then he gets to decide whether to hide it from the party or not, and if the cleric finds the magic ring he gets to decide whether to keep it or not, etc. And that's also just part of the game IMO, or how the clue is presented to the party when found, etc.
I'm personally more into the "failing forward" style of things, I ask for rolls for. In your first example finding a way into a place, successful roll gets a good untapped secret way that lets you get the jump on the baddies, Failure means you find the trapped, ambushed way in. I don't put up roadblocks for my players that stop them, more so speed bumps or hurdles. But this is a cool idea for some partys.
quality content man, dont stop brotha keep making vids, subbed!
I love this approach!
In my home brew game all player characters have a set number of magic words they can spend to do important things, including to perceive important clues, events, etc. Spend a word, spot the hidden door. Feel smart and powerful. Get on with the game.
I have been finding success with the way Shadowdark handles it, which isn’t too different from this.
I use passive perception as a minimum. People that don't put any points into it often don't notice the thing. Those that do usually have a high enough passive to find the thing...usually. I still make them roll. They just use their passive if the roll was lower.
In my games I try have rolls/ checks that rather than enabling the party to move forward instead determine how quickly/ easily the party can move forward.
I’ll give an example from one of the quests I have planned.
The party is delivering something however the bridge that takes them to where they need to go is out, if they don’t have the requisite equipment to clear the gap (grappling hook and rope) than they have a choice circle back and take a detour (meaning they’ll be late and risk travelling during the night or figure out a way to get across (with me giving them a description of the area that gives them clues on how to get across with different checks) if they fail then well it’s back to plan B, they then have a bigger time crunch later in the quest and risk a combat in counter that night.
I have done a similar rule in certain situations... I have 4 players at my table, and I will.have 4 index cards with 4 different results on the cards. I then let the players decide before rolling, how they plan to reveal The results. Random selection by the players based off the highest roll to lowest roll or best result to worst result based off player roll. None of the results are shown until the rolls occur... Now sometimes I show the results, minor details, and let the players determine who gets what result before knowing exactly what will happen. I only do this in random situations I predetermined will be fun for the game, or create a fun scenario or roleplay event. Happens about every other session, and I rotate all 3 types of styles based off the previous game. The players know that all 3 styles get used before we replay any style. It's just another way to add some flavor to your game, and keep things fresh... And YES, I use traditional Perception as well, just situationally
Weird that Surprise has changed twice now, to Flat-footed and Off guard.
Oooo I like this!
It also makes me think about using a group roll as more of a 'draw straws' mechanic, rather than using a target DC. Characters with high bonuses will win MOST of the time, but characters with moderate scores will still have a few moments to shine, with the occasional dump-stat high roll shennanigans ❤️
I love the content but why are you lying on a sofa? 😂 keep on keeping on!
only way the cat will agree to be in a video.
Here's another way to think about this method, and maybe tune it to your group. If you know someone is going to pass, as in you're going to ask "who finds the thing" and you just have to figure out who, just have them all roll perception and the highest still gets it. Doesn't matter if they rolled a 3, but everyone else rolled 1s. That gives a better chance of players who build to be observant to fill the roll they built for. Likewise, go the other way for triggering the trap.
Another option is to get some RP context. Instead of asking "who notices the ambush" ask "who's on point?" and "what are you doing while taking point?" and get an idea of how the group is acting at the moment. Then just do what makes sense position and stats wise.
The problem to avoid with this method is you have to make sure your players still have a sense of agency and don't feel railroaded. The players need the opportunity to either outsmart or out skill the GM, even if you're the one giving them the tools to make them feel like they're doing that. And a lot of time you can just do something like passive perception and attribute them not having to roll their prior decision to make a perceptive character (which feels like agency, even if you set the perception check at like 5 and don't tell them).
I just have them guess what to do and then roll til it works and improv off it. Any dice i set or strat i set is for my ease but its always up to the party
1:30 the secret sauce
My idea of a roll is to determine how long it takes to solve the problem
An alternative is to base the situation off the character rolls.
In this case lower trigger traps. + Higher find the secrets or spot the ambush.
But that defeats the purpose of the idea.
Don't ask to roll perception if the PC doesn't look for something, they choose to look THEN you ask for perception. OR The DM rolls for the characters behind the screen for hidden items.
I usually have my players roll for stuff and the result tells me how long it takes. In your example about finding the hidden door, the one with the highest result finds the thing but it might still take the group some ingame time, which may result in changed conditions further down the adventure (as the npcs have more time to prepare etc)
Interesting. Might give it a try.
Concise, intuitive, well done!
Ok but why do parties even walk into ambushes like that at all? I would always send a scout, or better yet two scouts.
Sounds like 2 players who spot the ambush.
@ not just. Ideally they should spot the ambush before they are seen OR if they don’t will still be able to disengage quickly.
This will only work if everyone at your table are not even slightly egoistic / egocentric
When I put in the game something the players absolutely have to find or notice, I tend to use Perception rolls differently, more like the old "monster lore" Knowledge checks in 3rd edition: the roll is not to actually find the thing, it's to establish who notice it or how well they notice it. They would notice in any case.
Another different way to use Perception rolls would be with that other old 3rd edition's optional rule, the complex skill rolls, so that the party has either to reach a minimum number of successes collectively or pass a certain number of rolls before missing another number.
And depending on the result, you could still ask either "who find the thing" or "who triggers the thing" to those who succeed or fail respectively.
wow that cat has his own soundtrack
is she a main character?
She definitely acts like she is.
I’ve found that players boost their Passive Perception, usually into the range of 18-20+, removing the need to roll, with such a high passive score.
NEVER roll perception. The proficiency system was first introduced in 2nd Edition, and ever since, it's been a crutch for both DMs and players. So much so, that nobody even describes the area, or asks about their surroundings. The first thing players do is roll perception, whether the DM calls for a roll or not. If you want everything to be determined by the dice, just roll up 4-5 characters, and play by yourself. Or just get your friends together and play craps. It's the same thing!
The entire skills system is overused, abused, and overrated. The DM gives a description of the area, usually presents a map of some kind, and the players investigate and interact with it. _That's_ how it was meant to be played.
Sounds like you want to play a different system, or with different players.
If you are gonna have them take a perception test that they need to pass have them roll it like a contest. Then have the player with the highest roll be the first character to notice whatever it is.
1-This gives me the idea that I can ask for perception multiple times and it is not about if they find it but about how long the enemy has to buff before their arrival. I am sure some would complain that takes away the stealth skill.
2-Another hindrance can be the more perception checks are failed, the more hours go by meaning the "breakfast" spell you cast when you left the campsite may no m anger be in effect. The same with multitude of failed lock pick attempts or efforts to swim across a river.
I would recommend only one round of perception rolls, and the highest result - or if you rpefer, the median - determines how well the enemy are able to prepare.
Alright stop at 00:32
Just have them makes rolls before the game begins to create a number pool per character recorded randomly by the DM. When needed, check a number behind your DM screen in their pool and see if they succeed and then cross it off.
inserts with kitty are too good xDD love the tips too!
Pbta rpg games tought me that a failed roll does not always mean you don't do the thing. It means you have a consequence occur.
Eg: "roll to find an entrance."
Players roll crap.
"You discover the entrance.not through your efforts, but because a group of orcs rush you from within it. What do you do?"
"I jump from the police car onto the terrorists truck....crap, rolled a 4"
"You barely make it and pull yourself up. Your relief dissappears instantly when faced with the barrel of a Shotgun....'don't move pig' says the masked man".
Passive perception exists for this reason. If anyone rolls lower than their passive just use their passive. I do agree with not asking for perception checks because of passive. Tell the players they can roll if they want to try and get a better roll or to hit the DC for obviously higher challenges. That way secrets are still secrets unless discovered and progress that's meant to be found can be done passively (baring a group that everyone said bonk to wisdom)
I do this: I make my players roll perception if there is actually something to hear (usually with a sneak roll on the other side) or if I need to build tension somehow, but I try to not abuse this (in a streak of high rolls they should be able to detect what's going on too quickly).
It depends on the enviroment, but they should be able to listen, see and smell what's happening nearby without a roll. So if there is something, I simpliy tell them; if they ask, its an automatic success (unless they're distracted somehow).
Plus, secret door should be optional (and more on search/investigation rolls than perception, unless players are able to come out with something unusual/clever).
"You failed your Perception, you don't find anything out of place," sucks when the scenario relies on succeeding on that roll to allow the PCs to continue.
However, rolling to see how much of what resources are expended (hit points, time, money, worsening condition, opprtunities, etc.) before you notice said thing adds tension and drama without having a bad roll grind the scenario to a screeching halt.
🐱
First thing, perception should be renamed Awareness. Because it's not about how good you can see that thing 10 miles away. It's about do you realise something is going on. Also there is often (in DnD) an overlap of perception and investigation. For exemple, you may not have seen the trap or the ambushed ennemies, but did your character saw the area and thought : "hey, that would be a nice spot for an ambush" and raised his general awareness and prepared themselves even without clear knowledge of the exact setup.
Perception is not always about what you see or hear, its sometimes a feeling, like something is odd, out of place. Sometimes perception is even about what you DON'T see or hear. like "why is the forest so silent suddendly ?", "Why is this area dry ? a car must have been parked here" etc
And yes, having relatives rolls instead of DC is good to avoid the "everybody fails", while still keeping the stat relevant. You have higher perception means you are less likely to be the one who set off the trap. Which also means that on the other hand, if you want to be the guy who tanks the traps, you should dump your perception.
Skip perception, leave obvious clues there is a secret door/trap/whatever. Players can then tell you how they feel along the wall for seams, look behind the only tapestry, or puzzle out what triggers the ominous blade trap in the wall of the room covered in dried blood.
I'm in favour of tailoring what they try to whether and what they roll. Failure means success after consequence if it's necessary for progress, or just a consequence if it's something extra like loot.
"I search the room for a hidden door." "Roll Perception (hard)."
"I search the floor for a hidden door." "Roll Perception/Investigation, whichever is higher (easy)."
"I look under the rug." "You find a hidden trapdoor."
@@AnotherDuck Ahh I see, you merge the two together. A good way to push them in the direction of making targeted decisions.
@@kylegraywolf Yeah, allowing the players to play more like they want, but rewarding more detailed descriptions of what they attempt to push them towards a playstyle more interactive with the world, as opposed to more abstract rolling.
Of course, also discuss this with the players. Communication solves most issues faster.
@ totally agree. I like your method to give them more choices and push for more than “I search the room”.
If everyone rolls and everyone fails, then no-one sees the thing. And they move onto something else?
I like this mechanic as a sometimes thing (in 5e). But my players with high perception usually want tha to show up in the game. Therefore I relly heavelt in passive skills. I totally agree with roling less to play more! And I see this idea shining in other systems such as fate and hacks!