Seems the question that divides it is if the player knows they performed poorly.
If they don't in your concept, you should make that roll for the player behind a screen and tell them what happened without revealing the roll.
If the do in your concept, let them roll it and there is no metagaming, because the player knows how they did.
This will vary from situation to situation, GM to GM, but so will many things in the game. That isn't a bad thing.
If you, as a GM, feel like the players shouldn't know the outcome and you have players who you feel will use out of game knowledge, that is why there is a GM screen.
I generally don't roll for players perception checks unless their is a reason to do so, but I do call them on it if the metagame. I don't mind additional checks if the person fails. My parties are generally cautious about that. It is not about the die roll, but making sure it is safe. I can see this both ways unfortunately.
All PCs should get to roll Perception (or even better : you roll it for them).
Or even even better : they all take 20.
In such a situation, I believe every character would be doing his best to hear what is going on the other side of the door. No reason to make that only 1 of the PCs.
Problem solved.
This is true. Perception and Sense Motive are reactive rolls. If there's something to perceive, the players get a roll. You can't have a stealth check without an opposed perception. I typically assume characters are taking a 10 on their rolls unless they ask to roll, since it's less work than rolling every round and makes more sense than only rolling when there's something important to perceive (the rest of the time I guess they don't see or hear things).
In the case of listening at a door, I would give a bonus, or reduce the penalty of listing though a door, if a character were to put their ear to the door to listen.
I'd ask before the first dice is rolled who will be listening at the door. If only the rogue says he is, then only the rogue gets to roll, regardless of the outcome.
This. I make my players declare before any rolls are made, how long they are going to spend doing something that could have ambiguous results. Note, I said players. That means all players must declare what they are going to do before any rolls are made. If they want to take a 20, that is fine too, as long as they declare it before a die is rolled.
For example, I say I am going to spend 3 rounds searching each 5 foot square for traps. They make 3 rolls, and good or bad I expect them to act only on the information they get from the rolls not the values of the rolls. This has led to more than a few cases where the player winces and move a step forward despite knowing they rolled a 3, 4, and a 5. I told them "You don't find anything". Now if the player has some other reason to suspect something, like there has been a trap in every 5 feet for the last 30 feet and suddenly I don't find one, that is a different story.
I also make my players roll a d20 at random for no reason. I do this often enough that when an actual check comes up they don't know if it an actual check, or me just being random.
Are players who reroll low Perception rolls metagaming, or just saving the DM time? One way to avoid even the appearance of metagaming is to ask them before the first roll how often they will check if they hear nothing -- then have them make the rolls. But if the very first roll by the player with the highest perception bonus is a natural 20, what is the point in any further rolls? The DM can assume that they continue checking as they indicated, but there really is no point in actually rolling the dice from that point on.
On the other hand, why do people assume that the characters have no idea how well they are doing on checks? A player who rolls a 19 on an attack roll and is told that he missed might conclude that he is facing an enemy that is too tough for him, but nobody accuses that player of metagaming. Why should Perception and other skill rolls be any different?
Personally I think that a character should know (or at least have a decent idea) how well they did on a perception check. So if the party point-man roles badly I'm totally okay with him saying 'I can't hear anything behind the door, but I'm not that confident. Do one of you want to check too?'
Here lies the problem. You are setting a situation where a character supposedly knows that his lack of detecting something implies trouble. When your group does watch rounds when they are camped, does the character on watch wake everyone up and put them on alert every time he doesn't hear or see any threats in the darkness?
<<Rogue on watch while everyone else sleeps>>
DM: "Rogue, please make a Perception check."
Rogue: "I rolled a 7."
DM: "Ok, you detect nothing unusual."
Rogue: "Crap, I wake up the Wizard."
Wizard: "What are you doing? I'm trying to rest to regain spells."
Rogue: "Sorry buddy. I got concerned because I didn't hear anything."
Wizard: "@#$&!"
Rogue: "Just make a perception roll and then go back to sleep."
Wizard: "I got an 18."
DM: "You don't detect anything unusual."
Rogue: "Hmmm. Let's wake up the Cleric and see if he can hit a target number of 20."
Wizard: "Ok, as long as we are doing that I'll wake up the fighter and help him put on his armor."
<<Repeat process every hour all night long>>
Ok...
How does a person know they sucked at hearing unless they know they should be hearing something? That's pretty weak. Rechecking bad perception rolls is just metagaming.
IRL, how do I know I did poorly at a job interview even before I get a rejection letter? But amazingly enough, I do.
But thanks anyway for telling me how to run my home game.
No need to get all Gaming Gestapo about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should mention that I had a player once whose character's primary weapon was a +1 flaming longsword. Had Weapon Focus, a bunch of other feats for it, loved it. But when the party encountered a monster and my description sounded unmistakably like a troll, the player told me, "I attack it with my dagger."
Me: "Um, okay... why not your sword?"
Player: "Well, I know trolls regenerate unless you use fire, but my character doesn't necessarily know that, so I'm not metagaming."
Me: "Your character ALWAYS uses his longsword! Why on earth would he suddenly switch to a dagger?"
Player: "BUT USING THE LONGSWORD IS METAGAMING!!!!"
Evidently this player had been punished so mercilessly by a string of DMs for perceived "metagaming" that he was now basically unable to play the game, he was so worried about it all the time.
I kind of felt there was a moral in there somewhere, but again, YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evidently this player had been punished so mercilessly by a string of DMs for perceived "metagaming" that he was now basically unable to play the game, he was so worried about it all the time.
Not to mention that there are people who reason: "If I deliberately make enough terrible in-character decisions, that will prove that I'm a ROLEplayer, not a ROLLplayer!"
(I wish this message board had an eye-rolling smiley so that I could succinctly express my opinion of that line of reasoning.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok...
How does a person know they sucked at hearing unless they know they should be hearing something? That's pretty weak. Rechecking bad perception rolls is just metagaming.IRL, how do I know I did poorly at a job interview even before I get a rejection letter? But amazingly enough, I do.
Ok, that was funny.
How do you know you did poorly before you get the rejection letter? You made your perception check....
man if you do a bad job at listening you don't hear anything
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here lies the problem. You are setting a situation where a character supposedly knows that his lack of detecting something implies trouble. When your group does watch rounds when they are camped, does the character on watch wake everyone up and put them on alert every time he doesn't hear or see any threats in the darkness?That's a pretty different situation. If you're right behind the door and not that confident you made a good listen check then it's pretty easy to bring another high-perception character up and ask if they can have a listen. It only takes 6 more seconds to double check things and makes sense. But in your situation? The rogue may feel a little uneasy, but even if he thinks he may have missed something that doesn't mean the thing he missed is still there to be heard. And it's significantly more of a burden on the other characters to ask for help when everyone is sleeping.
If the rogue is "not that confident he made a good listen check", then he should ALWAYS be "not that confident he made a good listen check". Either the whole party listens at the door every time, or only the rogue listens at the door every time. It makes no sense if he goes up to the door, rolls a 19 on his Perception and says "I didn't hear anything, all clear!" and then goes up to the next door, rolls a 3 on his Perception and say "I didn't hear anything, maybe you should give it a try..."
If the rogue is "not that confident he made a good listen check", then he should ALWAYS be "not that confident he made a good listen check".
Why?
In my game, either the whole party listens at the door every time, or only the rogue listens at the door every time.
It makes no sense to me if he goes up to the door, rolls a 19 on his Perception and says "I didn't hear anything, all clear!" and then goes up to the next door, rolls a 3 on his Perception and say "I didn't hear anything, maybe you should give it a try..."
See bolded additions.
Other people have explained the manner in which it makes perfect sense to them, and how it works in their games.
This isn't a topic that requires unanimous agreement on the forums; just at the table.
If the rogue is "not that confident he made a good listen check", then he should ALWAYS be "not that confident he made a good listen check". Either the whole party listens at the door every time, or only the rogue listens at the door every time. It makes no sense if he goes up to the door, rolls a 19 on his Perception and says "I didn't hear anything, all clear!" and then goes up to the next door, rolls a 3 on his Perception and say "I didn't hear anything, maybe you should give it a try..."Here lies the problem. You are setting a situation where a character supposedly knows that his lack of detecting something implies trouble. When your group does watch rounds when they are camped, does the character on watch wake everyone up and put them on alert every time he doesn't hear or see any threats in the darkness?That's a pretty different situation. If you're right behind the door and not that confident you made a good listen check then it's pretty easy to bring another high-perception character up and ask if they can have a listen. It only takes 6 more seconds to double check things and makes sense. But in your situation? The rogue may feel a little uneasy, but even if he thinks he may have missed something that doesn't mean the thing he missed is still there to be heard. And it's significantly more of a burden on the other characters to ask for help when everyone is sleeping.
This. This and more of this. There are some instances where the game is about following what the dice tell you rather than trying to recreate the scenario by rolling more dice until you get a result that you like.
Next we will be talking about making perception checks to see if you were perceptive enough to tell if you preceived that there was something wrong with your prior perception check. We approach this differently. Kirth's table apparently always makes that back up check to perceive that there was a flaw with another persons perception, not that there was actually something that the other person failed to perceive of that they perceive it themselves, just that fact that we all noticed that you could not possibly have succeeded and your work needed to be redone. No harm, no foul either way.
Personally I think that a character should know (or at least have a decent idea) how well they did on a perception check. So if the party point-man roles badly I'm totally okay with him saying 'I can't hear anything behind the door, but I'm not that confident. Do one of you want to check too?'
Here lies the problem. You are setting a situation where a character supposedly knows that his lack of detecting something implies trouble. When your group does watch rounds when they are camped, does the character on watch wake everyone up and put them on alert every time he doesn't hear or see any threats in the darkness?
<<Rogue on watch while everyone else sleeps>>
DM: "Rogue, please make a Perception check."
Rogue: "I rolled a 7."
DM: "Ok, you detect nothing unusual."
Rogue: "Crap, I wake up the Wizard."
Wizard: "What are you doing? I'm trying to rest to regain spells."
Rogue: "Sorry buddy. I got concerned because I didn't hear anything."
Wizard: "@#$&!"
Rogue: "Just make a perception roll and then go back to sleep."
Wizard: "I got an 18."
DM: "You don't detect anything unusual."
Rogue: "Hmmm. Let's wake up the Cleric and see if he can hit a target number of 20."
Wizard: "Ok, as long as we are doing that I'll wake up the fighter and help him put on his armor."<<Repeat process every hour all night long>>
But that is one of the rare exceptions, possibly best covered by taking 10 and/or specifically not giving the player a chance to react to a negative result. Most skill usages are active -- this is one of the rare exceptions where, because the skill roll was initiated by the DM rather than the player, a negative result leaves a player with no information whatsoever. This is a very different matter from the case described earlier in this thread where a character deliberately tries to listen through a door.
The closest similar case I can think of would be if the player was told to make a saving throw. The result (assuming that it is not a failure that causes the player to lose control of his character) would indicate whether it is proper for the player to react in any way. If the DM tells you that you felt nothing, then reacting would be improper. But if the DM tells you that you felt a tingle that you recognize as a hostile party attempting to mess with your mind, it would be quite proper for you to wake the rest of the party.
Eh, Alright alright here's a solution for you. Poor perception roll means you're just as likely to assume something is present when it's not as you are to not here the thing that's there. That said, try running it like this every once in a while:
(Rogue on Watch)
DM: Perception, please
Rogue: I got a 7
DM: You think you hear something in the bush
Rogue: I wake up the Cleric
Cleric: Can't i sleep?
Rogue: I think i heard something
Cleric: *rolls* I got an 18
DM: You see and hear nothing
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the monk listens at the door only when the rogue rolls badly. And if the Monk rolls badly, then the next character steps up and makes a roll. Repeat, until someone gets a good roll or we run out of PCs.
I try to hint at it.
GM: Rogue, you just listened at the door and heard nothing. The Monk doesn't trust you and you are a little bit insulted.
Rogue: Whatever, he's helping me.
GM: He didn't help you before...
Stop hinting at it, and start clubbing them over the head with it.
Rogue: I listen at the door.
GM: Roll Perception.
Rogue: Crap, I rolled a one.
GM: You hear nothing.
Monk: I listen at the door.
GM: You hear nothing, just like your Rogue friend, because you trust your Rogue friend, and if he said he heard nothing, you believe him.
Monk: No I don't! That's stupid!
GM: Fine. You listen at the door. The ear mites attack you. They burrow into your brain and destroy it. Roll up a new character and stop fscking metagaming, you munchkin.
Wow. If you hate your players that much, why not just not invite them to your game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Easy enough to solve. A or B.
A. Roll perception for your Rogue secretly.
B. Allow only one roll per door/wall/ect.
Problem solved.
Ok...
How does a person know they sucked at hearing unless they know they should be hearing something? That's pretty weak. Rechecking bad perception rolls is just metagaming.IRL, how do I know I did poorly at a job interview even before I get a rejection letter? But amazingly enough, I do.
But thanks anyway for telling me how to run my home game.
** spoiler omitted **
Bad equivalence is bad.
In an interview you are having a 2 sided conversation. There is a back an forth for 30 minutes in which you can gather information that indirectly tells you how you are doing.
If you put your ear to a door and listen, and hear nothing, how exactly do you know that you failed to hear something because of a bad roll vs not hearing anything because there is nothing there?
Here lies the problem. You are setting a situation where a character supposedly knows that his lack of detecting something implies trouble. When your group does watch rounds when they are camped, does the character on watch wake everyone up and put them on alert every time he doesn't hear or see any threats in the darkness?That's a pretty different situation. If you're right behind the door and not that confident you made a good listen check then it's pretty easy to bring another high-perception character up and ask if they can have a listen. It only takes 6 more seconds to double check things and makes sense. But in your situation? The rogue may feel a little uneasy, but even if he thinks he may have missed something that doesn't mean the thing he missed is still there to be heard. And it's significantly more of a burden on the other characters to ask for help when everyone is sleeping.
If they always bring in the other character, then there is no problem, but they are only bringing in another character when they roll badly, that is the problem.
Not metagaming
Player 1: I rolled a 17, I don't hear anything.
Player 2: I am going to listen at the door 2 just to be careful.
Metagaming
Player 1: I rolled a 3, I don't hear anything.
Player 2: Well since you rolled bad, we need to make another check, Ill listen at the door.
The problem is that players generally don't spell out their reasons that clearly, so the DM has to infer.
By the RAW, perception is a repeatable action. The is nothing stopping a player from listening at the door for 30 seconds(move action per check gives them 10 checks). The problem is when a player intentionally is more careful because they know they made a bad perception roll. That is metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an example that's been coming up a lot in my games.
Rogue: I listen at the door.
GM: Make a Perception check.
Rogue: 24.
GM: You hear nothing on the other side.Everything is fine. Players open the door. But...
Rogue: I listen at the door.
GM: Make a Perception check.
Rogue: Uh-oh... 7.
GM: You hear nothing on the other side.
Monk: Watch out. I listen at the door.So, the monk listens at the door only when the rogue rolls badly. And if the Monk rolls badly, then the next character steps up and makes a roll. Repeat, until someone gets a good roll or we run out of PCs.
I try to hint at it.
GM: Rogue, you just listened at the door and heard nothing. The Monk doesn't trust you and you are a little bit insulted.
Rogue: Whatever, he's helping me.
GM: He didn't help you before...This is just one of the many things that happens. A player flubs a roll and another player runs up to try and get a better roll.
I don't know. Maybe this is a minor issue that annoys me a bit and I should just let it go and expect everyone to make a Perception check at every door, every time.
My players have always rolled at the same time. Highest roll hears noise/monster/impending doom. I would think everyone would try because, really, who trusts the rogue that much anyway? :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just roll these types of checks behind the screen. If the player doesn't know if it's 3 or a 17 that cause them to not hear anything, they can't metagame it.
|
I generally don't roll for players perception checks unless their is a reason to do so, but I do call them on it if the metagame. I don't mind additional checks if the person fails. My parties are generally cautious about that. It is not about the die roll, but making sure it is safe. I can see this both ways unfortunately.Seems the question that divides it is if the player knows they performed poorly.
If they don't in your concept, you should make that roll for the player behind a screen and tell them what happened without revealing the roll.
If the do in your concept, let them roll it and there is no metagaming, because the player knows how they did.
This will vary from situation to situation, GM to GM, but so will many things in the game. That isn't a bad thing.
If you, as a GM, feel like the players shouldn't know the outcome and you have players who you feel will use out of game knowledge, that is why there is a GM screen.
I keep a note card with each players perception, stealth, sense motive, and bluff. If it is something they wouldn't know if they did well or not, I roll it for them. Periodically I just roll dice and look either pensive or excited, just to mess with them a bit. Trick I learned from the GM that taught me.
If the group is really metagaming, he used to have entire fake encounters where everyone would roll initiative and spend all their buff spells getting ready for a bunny or puppy that appeared on the side of the road.
So the rouge is spending 6 seconds actively listening, what is everyone else doing in that 6 second? Wouldn't they also try to listen?
Only one (or max, two) people can listen with an ear to the door.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now the conversation has gone from players metagaming, to characters listening at a door...
...you people will continue an argument just for the sake of arguing.
Use a screen. Roll it yourself. If the rogue has trap sense, you owe it to the rogue to roll it for her. Don't forget.
People I play with regularly know I don't cheat on rolls, on either side of the screen. If I roll a 1, I missed, as a player or a monster.
I particularly like the PF screen. It helps me keep things moving. I have every right to roll for you in certain circumstances. It's not about screwing you over, or giving you a free pass.
I don't want you seeing me rolling a 6 and hitting you, anyway. All you know is that you got whacked, hard.
If the GM always rolls in front of me, I can do the math. I'm the one metagaming, now.
You can do the math to determine the opposition's AC and Save DC's as well, without ever seeing the GM's dice. Does that mean you do so?
I prefer not to. Hurts immersion.
Roll everything in front of everybody? Too obvious. We're all going to know the AC after a few rounds. That's inevitable. Saves? Not always.
Taking Turns listening at the door?
this is hardly metagaming, this is something a party of paranoid thugs would do.
and any smart PC with the skill ranks to spare, has most likely maxed perception.
in fact, clerics and druids have an easier time doing such due thier high wisdom scores alone.
I tend to concur to a point, although in regards to the question of whether to power attack or which buffs (if any) to slip on, there's a certain amount of immersion in gauging the opponent's ability to avoid a hit.
But the fact remains, you can do the math and metagame on things without the diceroll, yet you choose not to. What then does the diceroll matter? It's not like the DM is rolling in the center of the table begging you to look at his dice.
I don't have a problem with any GM doing it how he likes to do it. I don't look at the dice unless I'm close enough to see the roll. I don't doubt the number players give me, unless it seems out of whack. If anything, they made a mistake, and added things wrong. They forgot about the bard's bonus, or maybe I did.
I use a screen. I've also run without it (because I forgot to bring it). Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. ;)
The people I play with don't cheat, and neither do I. 1-20 is swingy, and that's what keeps things interesting.
I agree with Kirth that you know IC when you have rolled badly and can react appropriately without it being meta gaming. I have always played that way and I am frankly surprised at the number of people in the "you can never react to a poor check" camp.
Reminds me of the DMs who cry meta when a character applies knowledge based on experiance but does not necessarily have the knowledge skill. Also I think it correlates to the kind of DM who strives for "realism" which winds up often not working like reality.
Meta gaming is sometimes necessary, otherwise how can you realistically play an intelligence which is smarter than you are. It is a tool in the roleplaying toolbox, you just need to know the correct time to use it.
This is just one of the many things that happens. A player flubs a roll and another player runs up to try and get a better roll.
Aren't you, as the GM, supposed to make those rolls in secret? To avoid this exact problem?