4 Comments

Hi, I do play ttrpgs, and I use Perception checks as a GM; usually to figure out how the action will go forward, and how to present information.

The problem with them only exists if the forward momentum of the narration depends on the outcome of said checks, but I think that's not a problem for my group or me as a GM. I can usually find a reason to give them enough information to go on; and failures don't need to be empty rolls - on a miss, you can mislead the players with erroneous impressions, or just create a bit of information that reinforces the mood or the setting.

Quick anecdote: One of my players missed a Perception check last time we played, and I told him that his character had been a little distracted by a folding screen that seemed to be from her homeland of China (not a common item in medieval Syria). My player really appreciated that, because while the information was not particularly useful, it was of interest to his character.

Expand full comment

I love this description of what perception checks can do. I'm a fan of DnD, and I also am a devoted player of indie TTRPGs, and I get a little annoyed when people critique game systems based on what a bad GM could do. In any system, a bad GM could make you roll for something and then trick you or betray you if you fail. GMs have the power to be dicks in general. But that's not the fault of a perception check or other mechanic.

As a player, I also think failing provides a chance to tell a story. Why did my normally observant monk not notice something? In fact, why does he have such a good passive perception and such a mediocre perception skill modifier? Mechanically, it's because I took the Observant feat. In the story, though, it's a seeming contradiction that actually tells a good bit about his personality: he's constantly taking everything in, hence good passive perception, but he can't filter all of that out when he's looking for something specific, hence mediocre active perception.

A lot of the mechanics that people like to critique work fine if you have a good GM and/or players who are willing to let the dice tell part of the story.

Expand full comment

As a longtime GM, now paid to do this thing, I love me a good Perception check, & use most of the methods you list above. I do find that there's one difficulty with Perception that I am unsure how to solve, however, except by only using other skills as notice checks: Perception is the most-used skill in a game by an order of magnitude. In order to interact with an environment, the player first wants to perceive it. This gives that one skill a weighted importance. In anything but the most combat-heavy game, it gets rolled more than attacks, but without the mechanical attention the game pays to attacks. A good GM can use many tools to manage this, and I do - but I think a lot of the underlying frustration with the mechanic comes from that mismatch between the universality of the check, and built-in rules to shepherd newer GMs through the nuances of the check (preferably without getting clunky and in the weeds, as basic Perception should feel seamless).

Expand full comment

Could not agree more!!

Every single thing you mention feels right on to me -- perception checks manage pacing and create tension, failing can be interesting in and of itself, different skills should support perception (technically, even DnD 5 supports this -- I believe the rule is that any skill can potentially be modified to any stat pending roleplaying requirements, though in practice that rule is rarely used). I also love the idea of having different characters notice different things -- I desperately need more scenes run in the style of the Rashomon Job from Leverage.

One point of yours that I particularly like is about die rolling. It made me realize something: I think the recent success of Actual Play streams can be contributed to good use of rolling. Matt Mercer or Aabria Iyengar or whoever are excellent at the balance between the Gary Gygax (NPC: I am... *rolls d4*... pleased to meet you!) and the Only Dramatic Rolls allowed. By peppering the stream with a small number of low-stakes rolls, they deftly bring amp up the tension of the high-stakes ones. I do think you've hit on something very important there -- the Dramatic Rolls only advice is bad, actually, and GMing 201 guides even in major tabletop books should add more context around it!

Expand full comment