One of my GMs has us roll for EVERYTHING it seems, regardless of whether there is much point to it.
For example, we were traveling in a caravan with an old NPC spellcaster. The spellcaster had a staff on which hung a shrunken, mummified dog-man-thing. When we came back from adventuring later, he asked us all to make Perception checks when the spellcaster walked by. Apparently they were to notice that the dog-thing had gone missing from his staff--an important plot point of some kind.
This struck me as profoundly stupid. If the guy is walking right in front of us, we should simply see that the dog doll is missing from the staff, no check required. It's a story element, not a skill challenge. There's no such thing as "memory" checks to remember what is there and what wasn't so why should there be a Perception check? Thw whole thing struck me as an inane waste of time. SO many other GMs would simply have told us it was missing and had us ponder the meaning of it.
This is but one example. He has a make unnecessary checks for mundane crap ALL THE TIME.
Any time I bring it up though, I'm just an evil little upstart who is "challenging the GM for no good reason and slowing the game down"--as if all these unnecessary rolls weren't slowing the game down already!
How do I get him to understand why I find it so frustrating?
EDIT: We rotate GMs each week (we each have our own campaign). None of the other GMs do this kind of thing, yet when they are all players, like me, they all side with the GM on the inane rolls. Why might that be?
Do these extra die rolls prevent the story from continuing? I agree that some things don't need die rolls but if the adventure doesn't stop because the DM wants to determine who notices a change then it's not as big of an issue as you are making it.
I don't have people roll for things like that. I just don't think it's wrong so long as the adventure isn't over because we missed something with no idea to even look for the clue.
How do I get him to understand why I find it so frustrating?
You could tell him.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
EDIT: We rotate GMs each week (we each have our own campaign). None of the other GMs do this kind of thing, yet when they are all players, like me, they all side with the GM on the inane rolls. Why might that be?
Possibly because it’s really not worth getting worked up about, I mean really how long does it take to make a perception check. I don’t really see this as a problem.
|
I tend to agree with you; as a Player I don't like making meaningless rolls; as a DM I like telling my Players in a suspicious voice that the thing is missing -- or something is missing and they can't tell exactly what, buhm buhm buhm buhm.
But if the DM likes making you roll to notice the obvious and the other Players don't mind, I don't really see much you can do about it. It's not a horrible DMing thing like railroading, favoritism or turtling -- maybe just accept it as a DM style you don't like and keep playing. But I do feel your pain.
Show him ;)
1. for perception check, it's the GM's roll to roll the dice, so you don't notice a screw up. So if he wants everything rolled, he can roll it himself.
2. if it's not about perception, and you know that the check doesn't matter. Take 1. Just tell him that you're satisfied with having rolled a 1. I don't think that this functions by RAW, but you demanding to introduce it will show him that there is a problem.
I do thing like this a lot to combat metagaming for one.
I have players make random rolls for no reason at all the time. It used to be that anytime I asked players to make a perception test, they would get edgy, paranoid, and fall into a defensive formation. They would start searching for threats, check every door for traps 15 times, etc. Once they figured out that I was doing this when there was literally nothing to notice, they stopped metagaming.
Noticing that something small like that is missing isn't a blatantly obvious thing IMO. If it was your staff, and it went missing, then yes I would expect you would notice, but this is someone else's stuff. Depending on the size and concealment of the item I would put it at a DC15-25 for someone else to notice. Noticing that a bright shiny gem on the staff has changed color, DC 15. Noticing that the guy isn't wearing a pendant that is usually partially concealed in the folds of his robe DC25. I would probably give you a perception check every time you ran into the guy or every day, so eventually you would notice.
I am not sure exactly where I got this from, but remembering something is typically a unmodified int test at our table. The DC is based on how you learned it, how often you were exposed to the information, and how long ago. Something that you heard a vague rumour about a year ago might be a DC 20, while remembering the face of the guy who attacked you last week would be a DC 5. I only use this when the players have forgotten something their characters probably remember. If the players remember it, then I assume their characters remember it.
All you can do is try to discuss it with him civilly, or bow out of his games when he is running.
I have to say, in the particular example you provided, I would ask for a Perception check IF one of my players didn't ask, "Does he still have his funky dog head thing?" or even "Does anything look out of place?" I would say that's the kind of thing that's easy to overlook and would go for a die roll check to give the characters the benefit of the doubt to give them a chance of noticing.
Constant die rolls can be annoying but different GMs have different styles. If the GM is having you roll to make sure you remember to eat breakfast and see if you remember your mom's name, that's stupid. If it is actually important to the plot I can see why he might want to roll dice. I would deal with it on a case by case basis and if something really doesn't make sense, to, as calmly as possible, say, for example, "Hey my character has a +14 to Perception and you know from his background he pays attention to people's weapons. Wouldn't it make sense that he has a good chance of noticing something like that without making a roll?"
Someone, please come along and say this in a way that makes sense.
One, let him know you find it annoying. That said...the example you gave actually sounds exactly like something listed in one of the Adventure Paths, asking for a roll and all. I'm not going to say which one, but it was there, so I can understand it. *shrugs*
Do these extra die rolls prevent the story from continuing?
It hasn't yet, but in the above example it certainly would have, had everyone failed. (The clue revealed to us that he lied to us earlier in the adventure and from there we found that he was a traitor or some such.)
On one hand, the GM makes the DC so low that someone is guaranteed to see it. In that case, why roll at all? On the other hand, the party risks failure and the adventure comes to a grinding halt.
Seems like a bad situation considering the GM imposed it.
I have players make random rolls for no reason at all the time. It used to be that anytime I asked players to make a perception test, they would get edgy, paranoid, and fall into a defensive formation. They would start searching for threats, check every door for traps 15 times, etc. Once they figured out that I was doing this when there was literally nothing to notice, they stopped metagaming.
It's certainly not that.
|
|
EDIT: We rotate GMs each week (we each have our own campaign). None of the other GMs do this kind of thing, yet when they are all players, like me, they all side with the GM on the inane rolls.
Couple of (hopefully) insightful questions/observations:
1) You're the only player in your group complaining about this. Not only that, when the subject comes up within your group, the other players all side with the DM in question. Doesn't that tell you something?2) Why are you complaining to us instead of talking to your DM about?
3) You've opened quite a few threads like this on a periodic basis; threads where you complain about what your GM/group/players doing things that you don't like for various reasons. Do you feel like you need your opinion validated by a bunch of strangers on the internet?
4) Is there any way you can get the rest of your group to come here and post about all your idiosyncrasies when you're wearing the DM hat? I have a feeling that would be insightful.
I'm mostly joking with you here RD, but I'm also trying to help you out. If I were your DM, I'd be more than a little put out that you came here and complained about me to the public at large instead of just talking to me offline, or sending me an email, or something like that. I'd be annoyed if you came to me after the fact to tell me that like 1000 random strangers on the internet thought I was wrong too (you know, based totally on your side of the story and all).
Really though, maybe your DM has good reason for doing things the way he does.
-Skeld
On one hand, the GM makes the DC so low that someone is guaranteed to see it. In that case, why roll at all? On the other hand, the party risks failure and the adventure comes to a grinding halt.
Perhaps you were going to get multiple chances to notice? In that case it wasn't a case of "Did we notice?", but rather "How long will it take for the party to notice?"
I am kinda with the rest of the group. I have been with DMs who didn't make use of skill check, and when you are playing the skill monkey(bard or rogue), it makes you feel kinda useless. Skill checks are these guys moment in the spotlight, and if you handwave or gloss over easy skill checks then these guys never get to shine. It gives them a chance to announce to the rest of the table "18 + 12, I go a 30 on my perception test, what did I notice?" That is not must different than when the paladin gets a crit and does 50+ damage in a single hit.
Couple of (hopefully) insightful questions/observations:
1) You're the only player in your group complaining about this. Not only that, when the subject comes up within your group, the other players all side with the DM in question. Doesn't that tell you something?
2) Why are you complaining to us instead of talking to your DM about?
3) You've opened quite a few threads like this on a periodic basis; threads where you complain about what your GM/group/players doing things that you don't like for various reasons. Do you feel like you need your opinion validated by a bunch of strangers on the internet?
4) Is there any way you can get the rest of your group to come here and post about all your idiosyncrasies when you're wearing the DM hat? I have a feeling that would be insightful.I'm mostly joking with you here RD, but I'm also trying to help you out. If I were your DM, I'd be more than a little put out that you came here and complained about me to the public at large instead of just talking to me offline, or sending me an email, or something like that. I'd be annoyed if you came to me after the fact to tell me that like 1000 random strangers on the internet thought I was wrong too (you know, based totally on your side of the story and all).
Really though, maybe your DM has good reason for doing things the way he does.
-Skeld
Joking or not, here are some serious answers:
1) It tells me they don't have a problem with it. Doesn't mean it's not a problem.
2) Tried that already (and usually do that BEFORE coming to the forums). Usually, if I bring it up in game I ALWAYS end up being the bad guy for interrupting the game. If I bring it up afterwards, the GM usually blows me off or gives me a half-hearted effort because he's tired.
3) Do I need my opinions validated by the internet? Absolutely. It helps to not feel so alone.
4) Probably not. They have a pretty negative opinion of the forums (they suspect you are a bad influence on me). What's more, I've said some things on here about them that I know would tick them off should they ever see them. I don't want that.
If the GM has a good reason for doing things the way he does, he usually isn't very open about it.
|
You could try telling him that since your character wouldn't know that he failed to notice something, you'd feel better not knowing either. Then ask him to make any passive Perception checks secretly, and only reveal information to the players if they succeed.
Convince the GM to make all of those unnecessary rolls, and you'll probably feel much better.
You might also try to convince him that he should make all passive skill checks for the group.
Just a thought...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the adventure your GM is running (I think) and it is actually a part of the story, or rather a potential hint. From your description of events, it seems like the hint wouldn't mean much to you, but my party picked up on it, and they had to roll perception as well.
By giving you a chance to notice the change, you were being given the chance to get a hint. The possibility of missing the hint is what makes this a roleplaying game and not story-time.
If your party is composed of oblivious characters who have never trained in perception (like the party I GM for) why exactly should you notice a seemingly insignificant detail?
On one hand, the GM makes the DC so low that someone is guaranteed to see it. In that case, why roll at all? On the other hand, the party risks failure and the adventure comes to a grinding halt.
Is that not the least bit similar to any given combat?
Skill checks are these guys moment in the spotlight, and if you handwave or gloss over easy skill checks then these guys never get to shine.
I agree, however, even Skill checks can be unsatisfactory for me sometimes. You set up a situation so that the person who took that really obscure Skill gets a chance and they blow their roll. Worse yet, some untrained character rolls a natural 20 and outshines the trained guy.
I have flirted with the idea of giving 'vital' knowledge to the character with the highest Skill.
1) It tells me they don't have a problem with it. Doesn't mean it's not a problem.
I would agree. The fact that it bothers you enough to come here and post is proof enough it is a problem. However, just as it is a valid problem, it may not be their problem.
For instance, I hate class based systems. I could go on and on about all the 'problems' there are with class based systems. They are valid complaints about classes. So, whose problems are they?
One of my GMs has us roll for EVERYTHING it seems, regardless of whether there is much point to it.
Really this seems to me to be a non issue. Noticing OTHER peoples stuff is never as innate as a lot of folks think. Like if a coworker shaves a mustache and it takes you a week to realise it as an example.
Sometimes it is nice RP to find out WHO realises something not IF something is realised as well.
Honestly, just go with the flow, relax and have fun. I read your posts and you have a lot of them saying that the various referee's you play with all seem to 'abuse' one thing or another or that something the players do annoys you like crazy. Are you having FUN playing?
You're lucky. I'm playing in a game with a DM who doesn't give any checks unless you ask for them. It took 3 straight sessions of interrupting him every 30 seconds asking for perception checks if I notice anything for him to give them up. We still don't get opposed checks against disguise and bluff unless we ask. I even showed him the rules and he accused me of being a "Rules Lawyer" which, admittedly, I am, but that's no excuse.
I agree, however, even Skill checks can be unsatisfactory for me sometimes. You set up a situation so that the person who took that really obscure Skill gets a chance and they blow their roll. Worse yet, some untrained character rolls a natural 20 and outshines the trained guy.I have flirted with the idea of giving 'vital' knowledge to the character with the highest Skill.
I use a group check system for knowledge rolls. It is similar to the idea behind aid another. Everyone who is eligible to make the check gets a roll. Take the highest check in the group, then add +2 for everyone else who beat a DC 10. It represents everyone in the group pooling their knowledge together and trying to remember things. So even if the guy with a +10 rolls a 1, then will still get to add a +2 to the guy that rolled a nat 20. It actually encourages everyone to put a few points into knowledge skills.
Character1: Hey this looks like the symbol of that lich guy.... what was his game?
Character2: Drakkon, the evil lich Drakkon, he started some kind of holy war 20 years ago.
Character3: hey I remember that, my village was 20 miles from the site of the battle where he was finally defeated, maybe we should go there and see if any of the my old friends remember something more...
|
|
Joking or not, here are some serious answers:
1) It tells me they don't have a problem with it. Doesn't mean it's not a problem.
2) Tried that already (and usually do that BEFORE coming to the forums). Usually, if I bring it up in game I ALWAYS end up being the bad guy for interrupting the game. If I bring it up afterwards, the GM usually blows me off or gives me a half-hearted effort because he's tired.
3) Do I need my opinions validated by the internet? Absolutely. It helps to not feel so alone.
4) Probably not. They have a pretty negative opinion of the forums (they suspect you are a bad influence on me). What's more, I've said some things on here about them that I know would tick them off should they ever see them. I don't want that.
If the GM has a good reason for doing things the way he does, he usually isn't very open about it.
I'm thinking this is going to be one of those aspects of gaming where you and your group don't mesh very well. Most likely, it's something you'll just have to put up with once in a while (whatever your normal GM rotation is). Keep in mind that there are doubtlessly things you do when you GM that drive your players crazy. It's a difference of style.
4) Probably not. They have a pretty negative opinion of the forums (they suspect you are a bad influence on me). What's more, I've said some things on here about them that I know would tick them off should they ever see them. I don't want that.
I have to say I find this troubling. You're coming to a public forum and saying things about your friends that you don't really want them to know about? Seriously? That's just bad mojo. It's a group-breaker waiting to happen. I think it's poor judgment and I'd like to encourage you to rethink doing it in the future.
I doubt the forums are a bad influence on you. The other way around perhaps. ;)
-Skeld
Speak for yourself blonde boy! Mr. Fishy has a corrupting aura. Mr. Fishy is a bad influence on people he hasn't met yet.
Look the next time some one makes you angry just say,
"At least I don't have to play with Mr. Fishy!"
Look the next time some one makes you angry just say,
"At least I don't have to play with Mr. Fishy!"
Obvious Troll is in support of saying this to anyone who makes you angry for any reason in any walk of life, in any place, at any time. Obvious Troll just tried it with some guy walking down the street, the reaction was priceless.
|
I do thing like this a lot to combat metagaming for one.
I have players make random rolls for no reason at all the time. It used to be that anytime I asked players to make a perception test, they would get edgy, paranoid, and fall into a defensive formation. They would start searching for threats, check every door for traps 15 times, etc. Once they figured out that I was doing this when there was literally nothing to notice, they stopped metagaming.
Noticing that something small like that is missing isn't a blatantly obvious thing IMO. If it was your staff, and it went missing, then yes I would expect you would notice, but this is someone else's stuff. Depending on the size and concealment of the item I would put it at a DC15-25 for someone else to notice. Noticing that a bright shiny gem on the staff has changed color, DC 15. Noticing that the guy isn't wearing a pendant that is usually partially concealed in the folds of his robe DC25. I would probably give you a perception check every time you ran into the guy or every day, so eventually you would notice.
I am not sure exactly where I got this from, but remembering something is typically a unmodified int test at our table. The DC is based on how you learned it, how often you were exposed to the information, and how long ago. Something that you heard a vague rumour about a year ago might be a DC 20, while remembering the face of the guy who attacked you last week would be a DC 5. I only use this when the players have forgotten something their characters probably remember. If the players remember it, then I assume their characters remember it.
I agree with this and what Deathquaker said. I know once I dyed my hair with bright red streaks. At the game at the end of the night when we was about to leave. One of the players(I was GMing) said "Whoa you dyed your hair." Keep in mind I was GMing so he was looking my direction most of the night and that was 7 hours after he showed up. It took him that long to notice and that was notice something obvious about someone he knew very well that changed.
|
|
I use a group check system for knowledge rolls. It is similar to the idea behind aid another. Everyone who is eligible to make the check gets a roll. Take the highest check in the group, then add +2 for everyone else who beat a DC 10. It represents everyone in the group pooling their knowledge together and trying to remember things. So even if the guy with a +10 rolls a 1, then will still get to add a +2 to the guy that rolled a nat 20. It actually encourages everyone to put a few points into knowledge skills.Character1: Hey this looks like the symbol of that lich guy.... what was his game?
Character2: Drakkon, the evil lich Drakkon, he started some kind of holy war 20 years ago.
Character3: hey I remember that, my village was 20 miles from the site of the battle where he was finally defeated, maybe we should go there and see if any of the my old friends remember something more...
We do something similar to this on some skills that make sense where advice and pooled idea's make sense.
I am not seeing the issue here. As others have said sometimes you over look the Obvious. You get used to seeing it and just kinda glance over things and just do not notice it has changed, be it haircolor, something on a staff or the tv remote.
People just don't pay that much mind. Which is why the super perceptive people tend to stand out.
One of my GMs has us roll for EVERYTHING it seems, regardless of whether there is much point to it.Really this seems to me to be a non issue. Noticing OTHER peoples stuff is never as innate as a lot of folks think. Like if a coworker shaves a mustache and it takes you a week to realise it as an example.
Sometimes it is nice RP to find out WHO realises something not IF something is realised as well.
Honestly, just go with the flow, relax and have fun. I read your posts and you have a lot of them saying that the various referee's you play with all seem to 'abuse' one thing or another or that something the players do annoys you like crazy. Are you having FUN playing?
A very interesting psychological studied showed something even more incredible--the participants were in conversation with an experimenter which was interrupted by a large object obscuring the experimenter. The experimenter was then replaced with a second experimenter with incredibly different physical traits (different height, clothes colours, and even different race) who continued the sentence the other experimenter had started, and the participants very rarely noticed it!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I know the adventure your GM is running (I think) and it is actually a part of the story, or rather a potential hint. From your description of events, it seems like the hint wouldn't mean much to you, but my party picked up on it, and they had to roll perception as well.
By giving you a chance to notice the change, you were being given the chance to get a hint. The possibility of missing the hint is what makes this a roleplaying game and not story-time.
If your party is composed of oblivious characters who have never trained in perception (like the party I GM for) why exactly should you notice a seemingly insignificant detail?
This.
Sure, your character might notice the change, but he may not realize the significance. The roll is to highlight the new information and provide your character with an opportunity to follow up on it. The alternative of "the DM tells you it's different" results in the DM either hitting the players with the big hint stick ("Gee, the DM just made a point of mentioning that there is mud on Barney's boots, we should investigate that." or overloading them with too much information ("okay, Barney has mud on his boots [he was out murderin' and buryin'], Sylvia looks like her hair is not combed well [she lost her comb], Roger has the shakes [he's a drunk, which is not otherwise relevant to the story], and there are two new people in the bar, Gary the Farmer [npc commoner 1] and Joe fishmonger [npc expert 1]."
The Perception check cuts through all the useless/irrelevant information and gives the characters the info that is most germaine (Barney's boots in the above example). A failure means that the mud on Barney's boots does not strike the character as any more significant than the other minor changes above.
""At least I don't have to play with Mr. Fishy!""
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? I must be getting old...
My guess is that the GM knows you all very well, and knows that folks are going to get all meta-gamey once the dice start rolling. By asking for frequent insignificant rolls he is just trying to keep the players guessing.
Another thing I often try to do when I GM is to make checks scaling. Using the above example, a perception of 10 will let you notice the the dog thing is gone. A 20 will let you realize that the staffs owner is attempting to deliberately act like nothing changed. A 30 will let you notice that he is hiding a dagger with a pommel that matches the staff in the folds of his cloak.
PS It is fine to come to a public forum and blow off a little steam, but I would write anything about my friends that I wouldn't say to their faces. (maybe after a few drinks anyway...)
You're lucky. I'm playing in a game with a DM who doesn't give any checks unless you ask for them. It took 3 straight sessions of interrupting him every 30 seconds asking for perception checks if I notice anything for him to give them up. We still don't get opposed checks against disguise and bluff unless we ask. I even showed him the rules and he accused me of being a "Rules Lawyer" which, admittedly, I am, but that's no excuse.
That's terrible!
"Look the next time some one makes you angry just say,
"At least I don't have to play with Mr. Fishy!""
I want to play with Mr. Fishy!
I want to play with Mr. Fishy!
That makes Mr. Fishy a little uncomfortable. Mr. Fishy is >gag< flattered >gag< but his is not into airbreathers. Or guys. Mostly it's the airbreather thing.
Don't know if this suggestion will help your situation, but in my games i have a sheet with every player's: Bluff; Perception; Sense Motive; and Will save scores.
If they're passing something that they might notice i get everyone to roll d20, add their Perception score and if anyone does notice, i let them know.
If an NPC is lying to them, i get them to roll d20, and add their Sense Motive score to determine if they're able to detect the lie.
If they inadvertently interact with an illusion, same with Will save.
Mostly to combat meta-gaming. And to enable choice.
If you don't know if you've passed or failed, then no-one can accuse you of meta-gaming if you re-try.
Have you ever had something change and then not notice it?
Your girlfriend got a haircut and you didn't comment on how good it was? (you're in trouble)
Someone borrowed something on your desk and you don't notice the change till you see it.
Someone changed clothes in the middle of the day. - I once had to go swimming after a goose that had been hit by a car and swapped a brown t shirt for a blue one. 2 hours latter someone suddenly started and said "You changed your shirt!" Its not that they're an idiot its just that there's a lot going on.
-Not everyone notices every tiny detail around them. The DM can either try to describe scenes in rich detail with enough red herrings to throw you off,flat out call attention to it, or have some sort of a roll to tell people. The first taxes the players intellects rather than the characters', the second automatically tells you that its an important point, and the third meets somewhere in between.
Remember that your characters aren't comfortably sitting around a table. They've been walking through dungeons, climbing over cliffs, getting waist deep in ogre guts, and have a lot of things to keep track of. The stick decorations of a "harmless merchant" could very reasonably go unnoticed, especially to a barbarian who needs a headband of intellect in order to avoid wearing horseshoes.
A giant lizard decoration might be pretty easy, noticing that a saphire had been replaced with a ruby would be harder. As long as the dm is adjusting the DC's accordingly there's nothing wrong with the shortcut.
I still think that it should be part of the narrative and that calling for checks on such a mundane things is a waste of time. Checks are supposed to be for dramatic adventure stuff! Not for tying one's shoes.
I still think that it should be part of the narrative and that calling for checks on such a mundane things is a waste of time. Checks are supposed to be for dramatic adventure stuff! Not for tying one's shoes.
Is it a mundane thing or a sign that when combat starts you had better start looking at your feet for the mummified Kobold rogue (formerly the staff decoration) hiding under one of the wagons?
|
RD - not knowing your group make up I have 3 thoughts:
1) maybe he's trying to instill Role playing into certain players who he feels arn't in character enough. Its an easy jolt back into character to say You failed your check and nobody told you its gone, so you can't ask where it went or to be able to tell the person who roleplays the least that they are the only one to see something forcing them to tell the rest of the party or ask the NPC themselves (or ignore it as mundane, missing the 'point' of the check), as they choose.
2) You mentioned trying to do it after the session, when the dm is tired, and during the session. Have you tried bringing it up in the begining of the session, while waiting for the last few people?
3) I would have asked for a perception check - if it had earlier been stated that said item was a sign of office or somesuch, then the check would be dc 15. If no special attention was paid to the item earlier, DC 20-25. Its one of those things you notice, but usually shrug off without saying anything.
|
Well the good news is RD its your problem and yours alone. Way I see it you have two choices. You could suck it up and learn to live with it, for the good of the game, or if this play style is too frustrating and annoying you may have to quit the group. After all you are the odd man out here. I guess you have a third alternative which is to continue to emorage and cause issues for the group. My advice, dont be a buzzkill, dont let them kill your buzz!
I still think that it should be part of the narrative and that calling for checks on such a mundane things is a waste of time. Checks are supposed to be for dramatic adventure stuff! Not for tying one's shoes.
I am not familiar with the adventure, but even your first post notes that noticing it missing was supposed to be an important plot point, so it doesn't really sound like a mundane thing. It wasn't like the GM was calling for a perception check to see if you noticed someone had new shoes which had no bearing on the story.
Noticing or not noticing the thing missing from the staff sounds like it could have future consequences or open future lines of questioning. Seems reasonable to me to call for perception checks, I know I would have.
As people have noted, people fail to notice things that changed right in front of them all the time, hence perception check.