My own GM will just ask us "everyone roll perception" and honestly I never paid much attention to it. Most of the time I don't even roll as our ranger has +19 to his perception rolls.
Now as a GM running my own game it's become apparent that when a module mentions "DC xx perception check reveals~" when 4 players roll for perception it's almost impossible for a team to actually fail a perception check.
So in order to save time I'm wondering whether to:
1: Assume PCs are always paying attention and have them roll perception as normal. Even though it wastes time.
2: Assume the team is always successful in finding the hidden details not bothering with the rolls.
3: Only do perception rolls when players ask for it. Possibly resulting in constant "I roll for perception" in every room.
What are player's experiences with this?
I know that some GM's keep copies of the PC's character sheets with them and when a relevant perception check comes up they roll some D20's and if someone would notice the GM tells them. This avoids the issue of the players KNOWING something is up because you asked them to roll a perception check. I couldn't say how it is for other players, but I feel like playing as if your character doesn't know something that you the player knows for sure is a complete pain in the behind.
Furthermore, if you want to throw in some more flavor, you could "decide" if a PC would even notice something. Example:
Party of 4 (barbarian, cleric, ranger, sorc) have just cleared out a room. It was a mighty encounter, with a lot of mooks and a couple bigger guys as well. The barbarian and sorcerer are dividing up the loot, the cleric is healing up the party, while the ranger is standing around. You could give the ranger (and maybe one other PC) the perception check to see if they happen to notice anything. If they don't "automatically" then it's up to the players. If one of them says, "I examine the room for hidden whatevers" you can give them another, and go from there. This gives the game a more organic feel, where sometimes there are things they notice, and sometimes there aren't, without letting the players know they missed anything.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My own GM will just ask us "everyone roll perception" and honestly I never paid much attention to it. Most of the time I don't even roll as our ranger has +19 to his perception rolls.
Now as a GM running my own game it's become apparent that when a module mentions "DC xx perception check reveals~" when 4 players roll for perception it's almost impossible for a team to actually fail a perception check.So in order to save time I'm wondering whether to:
1: Assume PCs are always paying attention and have them roll perception as normal. Even though it wastes time.
2: Assume the team is always successful in finding the hidden details not bothering with the rolls.
3: Only do perception rolls when players ask for it. Possibly resulting in constant "I roll for perception" in every room.What are player's experiences with this?
Remember that even though various detection methods have been rolled into the single "Perception" skill, there are still different sorts of checks. Note:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
As you can see, the game is written with the assumption that some things can be noticed for free, while other things must be searched for (at the cost of a move action per check, or 1 minute to Take 20). This means (among other things) that if you try to make all Perception checks one or the other, you're going outside how the game was designed and could face unforeseen repercussions that will need additional patching. Certainly something you could do, but do so knowing it could involve extra work or weird situations.
Now, let's assume for a moment that you want to differentiate. I haven't GM'd any APs or modules, but my experience running ~30 PFS scenarios has been that they don't tell you which is which (i.e., "notice" versus "search"). Thus, you're going to have to use your own judgment. My best advice would be that when in doubt, just ask yourself: "Notice or search?" If "notice" seems more fitting, ask for a check (or roll a secret one, or whatever). If "search" seems to be required, then no checks until players initiate the requisite move action(s).
Hope that helps!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would think you could only take-10 if you had an automatic ability, like the Dwarf's Stonecunning, which automatically notices traps and hidden doors. Allowing other characters to take-10 on perception checks would make that automatic ability useless.
No, T10 and Stonecunning don't even relate to each other, much less interfere with each other's operation.
T10 has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you even get to make a check in the first place. If you invalidate Stonecunning, it's because you gave everyone a Perception check, not because they decided to take 10 on that check.
Take 10 doesn't give you checks you wouldn't otherwise have gotten to make. It just takes a check you were already going to make and pretends you rolled a 10 on it. If the dwarf is the only one entitled to a check, employing the T10 mechanic won't change that fact. You can't T10 on a check you're not even making.
|
My own GM will just ask us "everyone roll perception" and honestly I never paid much attention to it. Most of the time I don't even roll as our ranger has +19 to his perception rolls.
Now as a GM running my own game it's become apparent that when a module mentions "DC xx perception check reveals~" when 4 players roll for perception it's almost impossible for a team to actually fail a perception check.So in order to save time I'm wondering whether to:
1: Assume PCs are always paying attention and have them roll perception as normal. Even though it wastes time.
2: Assume the team is always successful in finding the hidden details not bothering with the rolls.
3: Only do perception rolls when players ask for it. Possibly resulting in constant "I roll for perception" in every room.What are player's experiences with this?
It is pretty much impossible to fail a perception check as everyone has it up to par with their level, trained, or 1 rank at the least so they can go beyond a check of 10.
Our DM recently changed it so that if we are looking for something, we must call it out specifically and make our perception rolls. If it's something that requires immediate attention, he will tell us to make a roll. This was actually a really nice change.
I'm tempted to try and convince him of maybe using FB or some other messaging app to privately tell us what our rolls indicate, but I'm worried about the extra time that would add.
My concern here would mostly be for 1. Flow of the game, and 2. The relationship of the players and the DM.
To address point 1, do what you need to do in order to avoid the "I stop and check for traps every 5'" syndrome. The easiest way to do this is to assume PCs are being naturally cautious when exploring dungeons, etc. Outside of those areas, assume they generally are unless they're otherwise inhibited (say, drunk). Within this framework, allow a player to declare something more general, such as: hey, while my companions are getting drunk, I'm going to go to the side and keep watch. I know the local constables have it out for us.
However, also make it clear that this is not needed all the time, and that you're not there to screw them over. (I don't know where some players get this idea...any more than some DMs get the same!)
To address point 2, discuss what type of game you're running and what players need from it.
For instance: not every game will have perception maxed at all times. For example, in some, only the rogue or scout would. Other characters might have just a few ranks or so.
Understanding play style and making an effort to work within it applies here to some degree. For example: the above poster is concerned for timing and efficiency, and (possibly) also states that it's "most efficient" (putting words in their mouth a bit, but I think this is within what they're trying to say) to always have max ranks, so that is what this style of player will do.
Anything that's "less efficient" or "less effective" may detract from their enjoyment of the game.
Therefore, for this style of play, a more efficient and transparent method of handling Perception checks might be more desirable, whereas another style might be more loose and flexible ("dictated by the needs of cinematics and storyline"). (That said, IM/note-passing, and so on would likely work for both fairly well).
Therefore, part of your answer is going to depend on the group, itself.
They will both bring something to the table.
Regardless, you can still use a bit of social engineering (see point 1), to reduce the number of checks overall, and anxiety over them. Being able to do so depends on trust, however, and developing a game that isn't PvDM.
Aside from all of this, Jiggy's posts are fairly spot-on. Most checks are assumed to be reactive.
I typically have each player make a series of d20 rolls prior to play and jot down the results on a reference sheet I keep at hand. During the game I consult these results when I need a Perception roll so as not to clue the players that there is something to percieve. This way they were responsible for the really good or really bad rolls and cant blaim me if disaster strikes. It also allows a more fluid narration of events where I dont have to stop and ask for rolls before something happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I typically have each player make a series of d20 rolls prior to play and jot down the results on a reference sheet I keep at hand. During the game I consult these results when I need a Perception roll so as not to clue the players that there is something to percieve. This way they were responsible for the really good or really bad rolls and cant blaim me if disaster strikes. It also allows a more fluid narration of events where I dont have to stop and ask for rolls before something happens.
I tend to just roll randomly on occasion to make my players THINK I'm rolling for something. They never know if I'm making a hidden roll or if I'm just bluffing.
As for the original topic, I go with the search vs. notice approach. Some things are simply apparent to a perceptive eye, such as a disturbed area of ground. This would be a hidden roll, "You notice the gorund is disturbed."
On the other hand, if they are actively searching for traps, they get to roll for themselves and I tell them what they find based on the results of their roll.
I also allow PCs to move at 1/4 speed and be in constant search mode (I make hidden rolls for each new room or area with something to find in it), but they can't take 10/take 20 and they receive a -2 initiative penalty if combat begins while they are preoccupied searching for traps or other hazards.
(...)
I also allow PCs to move at 1/4 speed and be in constant search mode (I make hidden rolls for each new room or area with something to find in it), but they can't take 10/take 20 and they receive a -2 initiative penalty if combat begins while they are preoccupied searching for traps or other hazards.
I (as a DM) keep the T10 results and what I call "Take 1" results of each characters behind my screen.
By default I apply the T10 to situation where there are no significant distractions (walking down the corridors of a dungeon) and I apply the T1 in other situations.
I call for rolls in active situations (fights, pursuits, social events, etc.) and when Players ask if they can notice something or search.
Surprisingly the Take 1 scores makes it easy (DM side) to reveals a lot of the basics facts and including Knowledge (x) with Take 1 scores it’s worth checking what the group should basicaly figure.