Tell me what your character DOES, and I will ask (YOU) to roll a skill check IF a check needs to be made. The next guy who asks for a skill check to search a room or wipe their ass, I guarantee you will fail it, no matter what you roll.
>>97855202Have you considered telling that to your players rather than to anonymous strangers on the Internet?
>>97855202Yeah I hate this shit so much, one of the main reasons I stopped playing 5e. Players are just constantly telling you that they are using skills and then rolling the dice without you even asking, or without even describing what their characters actually doing. It's gotten to the point where I tell them straight up ahead of time if I don't ask you to roll, and you roll for something that I didn't ask for, it's going to be ignored.
>>97855202
>>97855255That seems like a "players don't respect the GM because he's a fag who does shit like blaming a system for his own weaknesses" issue, rather than a system issue.
>>97855202WHAT ISYOUR PERCEPTION ROLL?
>>978553215e is a dogshit system and this doesnt happen in BX.kill yourself
>>97855271This isn't about forcing the players onto a path; it's about players trying to peek behind the proverbial DM screen.
>>97855692It's someone flipping a bitch because they cannot handle a player asking for a roll.
>>97855494Add me to the long list of people who don't respect you.
>be given mechanical skills that are supposed to let you do things>try and use them to do things>gm gets pissed off??????
>>97855803Dont care, havent played with 5e babbys like yourself in years
Rolled 18 (1d20)>>97855202Rolling a skill check to calm the OP
>>97855255Not how 5e works. Only the DM calls for checks.
>>97855918??? thats what I said
>DM can I roll a perception check to search for enemies>WHAT THE FUCK!!!! YOU CANT DO THAT STOP STOP STOP>Sorry DM. My character looks around>...AND?>My character looks around searching for enemies>WHAT KIND OF ENEMIES?>I'm not sure, creatures that seem out of place or approaching us with hostile intent>DEFINE HOSTILE INTENT?>Uh, if they're feral animals they may be gnashing their teeth. If they're humanoid they might have weapons drawn or readied>OK. FINE. YOU MAY NOW ROLL A PERCEPTION CHECK>...14?>*DM checks notes, rolls a die a few times*>YOU SEE...NOTHING! *he smirks*>*nothing actually attacks us*
>>97856041passive perception applies.and if there was something to look for upon first glance, the DM would have already called for it
>>97856041based GM, get fucked gayers
>>97856049Passive Perception doesn't mean "at first glance". Do you think your eyes suddenly become stronger as you level wisdom?
>>97856075No you fucking moron, your pattern recognition does
>>97856075Wisdom is supposed to represent your general awareness of the world. So yes.
>>97856041I genuinely hate DMs that do this. Like I have to puzzle out EXACTLY what my description does and if I don't say it exactly right nothing happens. I'm playing DnD, not Zork.
>>97856081>>97856085If there was nothing to see then why did the DM carry out the order of operation? Many amateur DM's, like yourselves, think that players need to neatly define every single thing they do. That's how you get long sessions of nothing happening.
>>97856094For me it's the DM that makes you go through the process of>setting camp>declaring watch order>rolling perception for each individualHad a DM like that, we got ambushed in the night once over 60+ sessions. Despite that we went through the whole charade at last once or twice a session
>>97856041>DM can I roll a perception check to search for enemiesThat's fine in my book. You said what you want to do. Personally I'd prefer if you specified a little more how you were searching but that post is enough.What sucks is:>"I roll perception"For what?>"I get 17"...>"Well?"The fuck are you trying to percept here?
>>97856110>greasypepperonifart.gif
>>97856124Anything interesting or useful, as the DM you have the most context for what that might be. Do you want the player to rattle off every possible thing that they're looking for when they are checking out a place?
>>97856124>The fuck are you trying to percept here?The rolling of the die. Players who declare they want to roll something just make their character use a gaming set.
>>97856075>Passive Perception doesn't mean "at first glance"thats explicitly what it means>Do you think your eyes suddenly become stronger as you level wisdom?no but your awareness, intuition, and pattern recognition do
>>97856110>why did this fake scenario I made up in my head go the way it did?idk lol
>>97856122Man that's way too much. I can get doing that setup once and assuming every night afterward is the same setup unless there's some change necessary.
>>97856122>>setting campwhat?>>declaring watch orderor just roll a die equal to number of party members when its encounter time>>rolling perception for each individualNOOOO YOU CANT JUST ASK AWAKE PCs TO ROLL PERCEPTION
>>97856203NTA but it's less the asking of rolling and more slowing the game down for basically no benefit. Once it's been established what the order is you can pass over it and just do the quick rolls for perception and roll for encounters if needed.
>>97855202>The next guy who asks for a skill check to search a room or wipe their ass, I guarantee you will fail itok, give me an Intimidate check
>>97856232Uh, no? Dont roll unless its called for, simple as.
>>97856232>can I roll for whatever>No>ok
>>97855214fpbp
>walk down hallway>you hit a trap>walk down hallway>I roll perception to look for traps>DM flips the fuck out
>>97856245You have failed to wipe your ass effectively, poop streaks now cover your bum.
>>97855214
>>97855255low t, you should instead instafail it with scaling lasting consequences
The reading comprehension itt is shocking
>>97856812They probably failed the check
>>97855255This. I encounter this shit from time to time while running 5e for randos. Usually, I make fun of them to prevent such behaviour.
>>97855202I can't tell you what my character does. What they actually do depends on a skill check. I can't just declare that I climb the rope and backflip off the cliff to land on the giant and stab his eyeball. That's at least two skill checks, a grapple check and an attack roll. If any of them fail, then my character is not doing the thing. I have to know the results before the narrative is constructed.What you're demanding is that the narrative be constantly interrupted and retconned and refitted to suit constant new contradictions. It's fucking madness.And furthermore, you do not decide whether the check succeeds or fails. You only determine whether it's this skill or that one... in very very very specific circumstances in which there might be ambiguity about which one is more suitable. And it's been years since I've seen such a situation come up. You wanna know why? Because everyone else at this table already knows how the game works, we're better at this than you are, and we only prompt you to comment because otherwise you might as well not even fucking be here.Settle your bitchass little petty tyrant tits right the fuck on down, Jeremy, because you're only allowed to GM after you nagged and begged us to let you try it. And the fact is, that you're still super new to the whole RPG concept, and you're not a good GM you just do not have the knack for it. So if you keep bitching and moaning, not only will you not get to GM again, but you'll be removed from the group permanently and we'll all be relieved to keep playing without your constant spastic lack of emotional regulation, self-awareness, cultural development and just general overall unintelligence.Bitch.
>>97856094You might be. That GM in the example, however, is literally displaying textbook autism. The GM is not a hardcoded string parser. Only a particularly low-functioning autistic moron would behave like that.>roll for initiative>the mooks are adjacent to you because you didn't look around until the exact moment the surprise begins>because do-oh-ho-ho! you didn't say you were looking for goblins, you only stated you were looking for humanoids and goblins are monstrous humanoids!!>fu fu fu fu fu!
>>97856124What do YOU think the players are trying "to percept" there? Please tell us. Tell us what YOU believe the players might be looking for.Because if you DON'T know ... then you are not fucking doing your fucking job.
>>97856860>then my character is not doing the thingWrong you're character tries to do the thing and fails at some point depending on which roll was failed. That's how it works.
>>97856860>you're only allowed to GM after you nagged and begged us to let you try it>So if you keep bitching and moaning, not only will you not get to GM againLol.
>>97856901That's what they said, you absolute imbecile. They are trying to narrate their character because their job as players. It is not your place to narrate what player characters do. That's for the players to do. It is not your job, and you do not have the right to tell players what their character does. That's why they are rolling to checks, to determine whether what they want to do is what their character succeeds in doing or whether they need to construct an alternative description.Again, and I can't stress this enough, you do not get to tell players what their character does. Fucking ever. Period.
>>97856898if their reactions are anything to judge by it's never what I think it is.
>>97856124Like >>97856146 says, that's more a problem with perception than necessarily the player. You can't know what's in an area without the GM describing to you, so the perception (or system-equivalent) is a prompt to 'what does my character sense, in the general area, that has enough significance to be worth noting, with the limitation of the following roll'. The roll itself is somewhat of a filter on the useless sensory descriptions of the scene, as you can always highlight irrelevant details or easy misconceptions on a mediocre or bad perception roll, and push those lesser descriptions out on a particularly successful roll.To get after a player for not giving a detailed description of what they're looking for in scene *where you are the agent describing and setting the scene* makes this far more like an old text-parser adventure games with onerous demands to mind-read the developers than any TTRPG should be.
>>97856955We know. We're pointing it out to you so that you can begin to understand that you're fucking awful at being a GM. Like. Really. Sincerely. You're bad at it.
>>97856442This. Perception spam is a consequence of GM's reinforcing the habit by giving too much description for unnecessary bullshit, not enough description to properly set the scene, or by punishing players for merely existing without spamming it.
>>97855202My players luckily never ask, but I make sure to phrase it "what does your character do" instead of "what do you do", which puts them into the narrative mindset rather than the gaming mindset.
>>97857030While I agree with bad gming on descriptionsThis should still be "I look around for things out of place" not "I roll perception"
>>97856065I'm going to steal this
>>97856442dont tell them the specific nature of the trap, just tell them clues if they roll for perception, dont say that they find a trap, just say they notice some tiles are out of place
>>97857287Frankly, what is the difference between the longer 'I look around for things out of place' over 'I roll perception'? Perhaps one might be more flavorful as a description of the activity you are performing, but it means precisely the same thing either way: a narrative tie-in to lead into some perception roll (or system equivalent).If someone is constantly giving double length descriptions of him simply doing the equivalent of 'rolling perception', with no particular impact on how the action is carried out from the description, and doing this on one of the most common actions a character will typically undertake in a TTRPG, I think most would find his verbosity a wasteful use of limited session time.Such detail would be acceptable (even required) if a character were using some novel means of looking around, such as sending a familiar to scout a room, putting on NVGs, checking some futuristic scanning device, or even just lodging a reflective surface under a door frame. But most perception checks are just a character literally moving their eyes and head to scan the vicinity.Again, the issue I would say is perception itself; receiving sensory information from the environment is barely an action at all. If a basic scan of the room would prompt a roll, then it should be done at the moment the PCs perceive the room. If it wouldn't prompt a roll, a perception check should highlight relevant (or apparently relevant) features of the room if attempted.
>>97856860>I can't just declare that I climb the rope and backflip off the cliff to land on the giant and stab his eyeballYes you can you fucking retard that's literally how the game works and if you're playing with a GM who won't let that slide then you're playing with someone who shouldn't be GMing>climb the ropeAny adventurer, period, should be capable of this. The only time it should need a roll is if the situation is dire enough that climbing the rope is somehow difficult for your borderline superhuman athlete of a character.>backflipAutomatically happens. If you're trained in your system's version (I assume you play D&D5e based on the faggotry in your post) of an acrobatics skill, you can do a fucking backflip.>land on the giant Automatically happens if you have the move actions needed to land in that space.>and stab his eyeballAnd NOW you make an attack roll. This is the only moment where making a roll for anything you attempted is actually in need of a roll.
>>97855255It's a new player thing, not really a 5e thing. 5e just gets all the new players because the competition is just as bad and has no brand recognition.
>>97857443>what is the difference betweennarrative focus vs mechanical focus
>>97857479As previously stated, the wording for examining the environment is minimally impactful. From a narrative perspective, the slow scan across a room is mostly a narrator-sided phenomena (meaning the GM's responsibility). Certainly a player could use more flowery language to describe the same action, but does that language change the action, and thus its impact to the overall narrative? In the case of literal perception, probably not.Even in the narrative case, I would rather get into the actual meaningful story, rather than a detailed analysis of the character's eyeballs shifting around in their skull to perform a basic action. What's more important, Krog's candid reminiscence on the violence and brutality of his people, or the specific arc his eyes take when he looks around the carnage? This isn't a narrative vs mechanical issue, its a conservation of detail issue.
>>97855202No, you always forget to add my bonuses if I don't mention it's a skill check, and then gets mad when I correct you and adds some penalty just to counter my bonuses. A thief is stealthier than an armored fighter, learn to GM.
>>97856860> I can't just declare that I climb the rope and backflip off the cliff to land on the giant and stab his eyeball."I try to climb the rope and backflip off the cliff to land on the giant and stab his eyeball."> That's at least two skill checks, a grapple check and an attack roll. "Give me an athletics check to climb the rope" (It's a low-ish difficulty because climbing a rope is pretty easy for most adventurers)"Now roll athletics, if you succeed on this I'll give you a bonus to your attack roll, but it's going to be hard""Awesome, now add this bonus to your attack roll and go ahead and add +1d6 to damage from the momentum because that was fucking cool">If any of them fail, then my character is not doing the thing. "I try to climb the rope and backflip off the cliff to land on the giant and stab his eyeball."(Succeeds the athletics test but fails the acrobatics roll)"Your character vaults up the rope, but as he tries to backflip, the giant grabs the rope, throwing you off balance. You tumble backwards on to the ground taking... (rolls) ....10 points of fall damage but manage to roll on to your feet"You realize every single problem you describe is solve-able with a good GM and a halfway decent system, right? You'd know this if you played games.
>>97857907>No, you always forget to add my bonusesSounds like a you issue. You fail the roll for making it without being asked to btw, and take an extra 1 damage for ignoring the spirit of the rules.
>>97857462That anon is wrong because it's up to the GM to call for a roll with a difficulty relative to its task, and you're wrong for thinking "Letting that slide" is inherently good GMing.Sorry that you never learned to say "no" to your playoids and think your job is arduous because you cater instead of gaming.
>>97857921The spirit of the rules is that characters are good at what they are good at and bad at what they are bad at. You're just lazy because you fail at basic arithmetics and is the last one to calculate 14+3+2.Your OC Donuts Steel setting also sucks.
>>97857907>No, you always forget to add my bonuses???>DM: "You enter the hidden library. Thick dust and cobwebs cover the rotting tomes.">Player: "I look for the necromantic text among the tomes">DM: "Roll investigation">Player rolls, adding relevant modifiers themselves.>>97855202OP you are correct but posting in such a fucking faggoty way that I'm embarrassed to agree with you.
>>97857940>Player rolls, adding relevant modifiers themselves.>Before the player can utter anything the lazy GM says: "you fail because d20 number is lower than DC in my head">Player reminds GM of the modifiers>Lazy GM doesn't want to change the outcome he married to in his head so he makes up some bullshit penalty.
>>97857914This guy gets it>>97857924Kill yourself nogames
>>97857959>I Rolled 17>Sorry DC is 18>I forgot my +2 from race>Oh, says here DC is actually 20
>>97857932>The spirit of the rules is thatYou don't get to decide when to roll, I do.>You're just lazy*Yawn* sure whatever you say, anyways your turn is over as you spend it doing nothing. You take another 1 damage btw.
>>97857959That has nothing to do with declaring your intent (actually roleplaying) rather than calling for a skill roll (zigger vidya addled brain).You're just describing a low trust table where the GM is a railroading cunt.You'd know the difference if you were able to play at high trust tables. I'm guessing there's a reason you aren't.>>97857991>>97857969Bingo.
>>97856124>The fuck are you trying to percept here?Literally anything. It's a make believe game, I must rely on what you TELL ME I CAN SEE to visualize the surroundings and note what may seem important. It's the DMs job to narrate and point out what stands out because I am not allowed to say what does, I'm allowed to be curious and ask what stands out as a general question.
>>97858007>Literally anythingOk. You see exactly what you saw in the scene when I described it 30 seconds ago.Now what?
>>97858000I have high-trust tables where a GM will even remind the player of bonuses he forgot, doesn't stop me from having ever played in bad tables. The only people who cared about a divide between vidiya terms and TTRPG terms outside of character talk were the ones from low trust tables.>>97857985Xactly.>>97857991This is the most roleplaying you had this year.
>>97858051>"This is the most roleplaying you had this year.">He projected angrilySorry that you're a nogames anon. Maybe you should've listened to your GMs and tried to build some rapport so you wouldn't get kicked, kek
>>97858063This entire thread is a projection anon, a gay faggot OP that projects his retarded players (which are probably so due to his own shortcomings as a GM) onto /tg/ so he can use it as a shoutbox to vent his gay frustrations due to not being enough of a man to face his own players. If not then why would this thread even exist?
>>97858080>"I'm projecting? WELL THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS PROJECTING!!!">He deflected angrilyWew. Psychotic breakdown in progress.
>>97858092>Psychotic breakdown in progress.No need to sign
>>97858101no u lol
>>97858007I'm convinced this person has never actually played a roleplaying game.>>97858051>Only people who use video game slop terms are high trust tables because high trust tables sounds like a word I want to associate my perception of myself withNigger not only do you not play games, you don't even know what a high trust table is and reading my post was the first time you've heard of that concept.>>97858063He's samefagging, too.
>>97856041>DM can i roll a perception check>for what>i want to search the room>what are you looking for>what do you mean>your character is searching the room for some thing, what are you looking for>whatever i can find>okay how are you looking>what do you mean>your character has five senses, which are they using>any of them that they need
>>97859148>>okay how are you looking>>what do you mean>>your character has five senses, which are they using>>any of them that they needDont exaggerate. Nobody asks that
>>97859148Normally, the DM would describe the room. >The room appears to be a dust-caked office of sorts with bookcases lining the walls on the north and east sides. A desk is nestled in the opposite corner with a lectern and quills. With the cobwebs and aged clutter, it's clear this room has been in disuse for a long time.Then players could investigate the parts of the room they're interested in. Sifting through bookcases may take a while if they're looking for something particular. The task might go faster with more people. The desk may have a locked drawer or contain a clue needed to solve a puzzle elsewhere. The players don't have to be overtly explicit with their actions>"I'm going to investigate the desk.">"I'll check out the bookcases for something interesting."And then you go from there, explaining what they find, and if something they find requires a skill check, be it a lock, a puzzle, or whatever. It's not rocket science.
>>97855202Sounds like a shitty DM to me. Both describing what you do before and after knowing the result can be fun. Playing with a faggot sperg who only accepts one way to play is never fun thoughtbeit.
Related but adjacent>"I walk there">"I open it">"I do it">"I look around">"We leave">"We agree">"We go">"We prepare"Please, use some adjectives. Just one would be fine.
>>97855202I hate it when a player initiates a skill roll and everyone else starts chirping like birds and wants to do one too. OMG STFU. It's an unpopular stance but only the character whose best at something or in the lead should get to make a check in most situations. EG, if everyone in a company of soldiers got to make a spot check, ambushes would be impossible to succeed in a game. But in real life people in numbers get a sense of safety so at most only the designed scout and the guy at the head of the column would get to roll. Kinda similarly, both a nurse and a surgeon would have a medicine skill but the nurse should be passing a bonus to the surgeon and not rolling themselves. It would be extremely rare for the nurse to save a patient that the surgeon couldn't fix even if they rolled super well.
>>97859375>"I FUCKING walk there">"I FUCKING open it">"I FUCKING do it">"I FUCKING look around">"We FUCKING leave">"We FUCKING agree">"We FUCKING go">"We FUCKING prepare"There does that help?I jest, it definitely does help being a tiny bit more flowery with action descriptions.
>>97859148>>DM can i roll a perception check>>for what>>i want to search the roomOkay, you can roll a check, but next time just say you search the room anon and I'll ask for a check when it's relevant.
>>97858000Why are you bringing russians into the argument unprompted?
>>97855202Can I do a skill check OP?
>>97855202nah
>>97855791Yeah. Players don't ask for rolls.
>>97855863Who are you quoting?
>>97855214Rape.
>>97856041Who are you quoting?
>>97860361There's nothing wrong with a player asking for a roll, they can ask if they can use a skill, and the DM might reply back sure make a roll.
>>97856075When heroes gain hero points, they can spend them to purchase ranks in Perception, or Acute Sense - Vision, or to purchase Thermal Vision, X Ray Vision, Ultra Vision, Low Light Vision, Night Vision, Microscopic Vision, or Telescopic Vision, or to enhance gear with one or more of these powers. So yes, advancement can literally make your eyes more powerful.
>>97856122So what? You can't decide your watch order and preparations after you get ambushed. The whole point of precautions is that they're normally not necessary. I don't expect to fires in my house on a regular basis, but I still take precautions against them.
>>97856146You don't roll to see things. If you see something, the GM will tell you. Besides refereeing rules, the GM's is to communicate to the players what their characters experience with their senses.
>>97856442I think you meant to say, you walk down the hallway, and then you let the GM know you're searching for traps. And he tells you what to roll, if a roll is required.
>>97856860"I attempt to backflip off the cliff to land on the giant and stab it in the eye."Make an attack roll. With one success after the defense roll, you successfully injure the giant, but miss the eye, dealing 1 damage. With at least two successes, you can choose whether you want to inflict damage, or apply the Blind combat stunt, one page of duration per two successes.
>>97857443The difference is THERE IS NO ROLL TO SEE THINGS. When you see things, the GM describes them. Perception is for opposing Covert rolls.
>>97857959Why are you playing with someone you don't think you can trust to apply the rules fairly?
>>97858007Why do you think you need to roll for that?
>>97859375No thanks, I signed up for a game, not improv night. The gay club is down the street if you're lost.
>>97855202guilty of this, but mainly because the game has become really mechanical and not RP-y
>>97860383Wrong.
>>97860474Mechanics are roleplaying and roleplaying is mechanics.
>>97860451Is that not entirely system and GM dependent? One could easily have a test against some static value than the hiding skills of an unapparent hiding entity? And what are the hiding skills of an object that is merely misplaced or displaced rather than specifically hidden? Objects go missing all the time without intent from an individual, are these mysteriously not worth a perception-check or equivalent? Even outside of this, surely a more perceptive character would notice things that other characters do not readily see, regardless of if the object were intentionally hidden or not?Further, the entire argument you make is predicated on formality, and an essentially needless one as, 'I need a detailed and specific description for how you look around a room'. In combat, an essential, 'I attack the man with my sword' identifies all the key elements necessary to adjudicate a roll to determine success or failure. Similarly, I could describe exactly how my character's eyeballs roll in their head to determine the position of objects, but this has next-to-no mechanical or narrative bearing. While perhaps it is a table's formality to provide such a description for the act of passively absorbing sensory information, I reject such a notion as being horribly tied to situationally pointless ritual.
>>97860524Objects can't hide. They may BE HIDDEN by someone. And that person made a Covert roll when they did so that determines how good of a job they did. If vines and trees have grown up around an ancient stone door, you wouldn't have a roll to see that. The players have eyes. Imagine the scene, and tell them what they see. If it is completely obscured, then you might describe a thick wall of plant life. If not, you might describe a heavy stone slab mostly covered by recent growth. It's up to you. And then, IF the players decide this is interesting to them, they might decide to interact with this in some way, and then you describe what happens as a result of that. That's all there is to it.
>>97860548Again, surely an object that has been rendered difficult to perceive by some fact of existence, whether or not that fact of existence is sentient, has value in determining whether or not the player character can perceive it?Saying that an eagle-eyed player character must go through the same rigamarole of poking every object until something happens rather than getting some kind of basic hint is blatant madness. Surely, some characters are gifted better vision than others? And this allows you to elaborate on what their character internally experiences, in much the same way as a character's knowledge might result in more or less detailed descriptions of objects they perceive.Again, this seems like a deep commitment to an unnecessary formality. And your entire basis for your argument again seems deeply system dependent. No system I run (or have even heard of) has a 'Covert' roll.
>>97860608I'm not going to have a conversation with you if you're going to continue arguing with things that don't appear in my posts. Write a new comment that engages with what I actually said, and I'll be happy to discuss the topic with you. Or don't, and talk to yourself. I don't really care either way, it's up to you.
I don't play TTRPGs (because they are fucking gay) and this whole thread just confirms how fucking gay they all are by your faggot ass responses
See how he throws a tantrum as soon as he can't be dishonest? kek
>>97860548>If vines and trees have grown up around an ancient stone door, you wouldn't have a roll to see that.Tomb Raider hid doorways like that, and you wouldn't SEE them you would have to think to bump into it. In an RPG, there's nothing wrong with making a roll.
>>97860185>"I balefully walk there">"I ruefully open it">"I deterministically do it">mfwI've had the odd occasion of players forgetting that they don't need to understand what they're doing, they need me to understand it, and when everyone's tired it escalates quickly. It's not a big problem, but always a grind when it happens.
>>97861068Wrong.
>>97861145None of those are adjectives.
>>97860682>I DONT LIKE THINGThank you for your input.
>>97861183Adverbs are a conspiracy cooked up by big grammar
>>97856860this is a pasta, right?
>>97855202Proactive players are a byproduct of being well-versed in the world.In the beginning, every setting is more game than world to players, and GMs.
>>97856860god damn, OP is not going to recover from this
>>97861576Why would he need to? Everything in it is wrong.
>>97856860>There is no do, only tryMaster Anon 2026
>>97861602Then OP should go back to the drawing board and fix it lol
>>97856124>players know there are hidden items in rooms sometimes, so their incentivized to search rooms>also incentivized by retard gms to be as vague as possible, since the treasure could be anywhere. >If they say "i search the bookcase" when the treasure is in the desk they get fucked >act indignant when your players try to shortcut the process a bit
>>97855202Perception should purely be passive (like AC). Otherwise you incentivize players to say "i look around " every 5 seconds.
>>97863349They can search both, assuming the time economy allows for it, i.e., the building isn't on fire or they're being chased by the boogie man.
>>97863358>gm room description set [furniture]>pc room search set [furniture]Surely you can speed it up a bit? Instead of restating the room description with "i search" at the front?
>>97863372in this >>97859320 case. After the GM gives the room description, you could have something like this with 4 players.>1st player says "I'll go search the bookcases.">2nd player says "I'll go help them.">3rd player says "I check the desk.">4th player says "I'll chill out and brew some potions while they're fucking around in this room."Then, as the GM, you tell them what they find or don't find. If Dice rolls are needed, you let the respective player know. It's really that shrimple. I feel like a lot of people are trying to overcomplicate a very simple process.
>>97855202As long as the player is right, why should it matter? It feels like you're needlessly bogging down the game with all this Mother-May-I bullshit. I shouldn't need to be a DM whisperer to pull one of the most basic mechanical levers I have access to.
>>97855202THE PLAYER'S HANDBOOK MAKE ME ROOL FOR EVERYTHING FUCK YOU
This isn't a video game where you "pull levers", it's a roleplaying game. You fail to understand the basic premise of how the game is played. See, you only roll dice when there's a reasonable likelihood of failure. Players and characters don't have access to that knowledge at all times. The DM does. The DM is the person who knows when a roll is called for. Just fucking try roleplaying for once and you might be surprised that you still get to roll dice."Mother-may-I" bullshit comes from literal retards like you who constantly ask the GM "Can I roll history to know this place? Can I roll perception to see what is around me? Can I roll insight to know what to do?" Non, stop. You know this, it's common at bush-league 5e FLGS tables that you attend.
>>97863669That's where theory immediately fails in the face of actual practice.Because you end up with the 3 int barbarian somehow knowing all kinds of things that he shouldn't know because no one's forced him to check a knowledge skill. Or the wizard with the personality of a rock who charms and lies his ass off all the time because no one forced him to roll bluff or diplomacy. Or the halfling thief who carries out every last scrap of furniture from the mansion because no one bothered to ask how the fuck she's carrying it all and it turns out she should have been heavily encumbered just from the leather armor she's been wearing.So the actual practice of playing the game is that the numbers on your character's sheet exist specifically to control and manage the improv theater... because players will always just get away shit they shouldn't otherwise. Now if you say the GM should be requiring checks when there's a reasonable likelihood of failure... then you're back where we all started. You haven't solved anything, you've only pretended that you did because you've never actually played the game to see how it works in reality. You haven't provided some wise, keen insight, you little nooblet. We're all way past that point in development.
>>97863452Why even bother playing the game. The say you won. There's no possibility of failure, because the players always win eventually. So just say you won and skip the whole game thing.
