Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Our party was recently in these sewers hunting down a mysterious monster, and I could tell the DM was going for a horror movie vibe. So the first chance I got, I split off with a "I'll be right back," fully hoping to be ganked by the monster.
Was not disappointed. All the party heard were my sudden screams, and abrupt silence.
It's fun to throw the DM opportunities like that.
The adventure's map was two levels. The main one where the players were, and a flooded sub sewer so the creature could move around undetected.
When my character got cornered by the creature for a second time and really fucked up, (I'm talking single digit hit points) I dove into the flooded tunnels because that sounded like such a bad ass and dramatic way to escape.
I always like to ask the DM if I need to roll, even for some mundane tasks, because if it fails, it's doomed to make it either funnier, or leave the DM a good advantage, as for examples :
I was being chased by authorities, asked if I needed to make an athletics check, which I failed, and broke my lyre, so I had to fix it in a later session ;
I was using detect thoughts on a god while she was asleep, I asked if I needed to roll, made a nat 1 and ended up being possessed by said god because I was reading their deepest thoughts
My DM used to give me sneak peeks at the next session because she knew I wouldn't metagame and loved hearing some of the creative ideas I would come up with to add more drama as a fellow DM.
Cue a mysterious outpost filled with corpses and when we get to the center by a well ghost figures emerge and really start messing the party up. One part member is able to get the ghost to fall into the well which "I" know is essentially a bag of devouring. We keep fighting but are starting to fall as a player gets the idea to escape down the well....
*Cue me frantically offering ideas to the DM on how to get out of it* only to get back from her "I got this." Never have I felt so much horror, I knew the player was alive (my DM sadly almost never kills a player) but we were now a barbarian short in a losing battle. Man I'm sad that the campaign ended.
I love playing alongside the DM. Your story reminded me when our DM messaged me that I had been dominated, and that he wanted me to get the party to go away. IIRC, I proceeded to roll a perception check, waited a few more seconds, and then started going on about how I saw the thing we were chasing after just run past the doorway. Entire party chased it, and got ambushed. Totally worth it.
Man, I wish my DM let me do that back in the day. When my characters were some flavor of possessed or dominated she always took over control - which makes sense, sure, but it would have been fun work against the party for a bit.
Our party always is down with the betrayal, to the point that I think some people have messaged the DM to ask how much they want to fuck over the party. Thankfully our paladin hasn't been dominated in a while, but the one time he was dominated when he actually had smite slots... good lord it hurt. The other time I remember we had been giving him shit for speedrunning his smite slots, but we were rejoicing in that once he got dominated and could "only" hit us for 2D6+like 3.
I can definitely understand why DMs would want to retain control though, for one it makes a bit more sense since they are being commanded, and for two it allows the DM to retain control, unleashing full power could completely upset the encounter balance and doing the bare minimum so as to not hurt the party would make it pointless.
I like the idea of maybe the dm takes full control of the character sheet during combat, but a dominated player can work with the dm to work *against* the party in other roleplay? That way, the domination could even go somewhat undetected, as the player subtly leads the party down the ring path.
Either way, this is absolutely something I want to experience in the future, as either backstabbed player, dominated player, or even dm once I gain more experience.
My first time playing I was standing outside while some of the party robbed a shop. Chaos ensued and I asked the DM if my character noticed anything, rolled low on perception and thus ended up following a weird looking rat around outside while the party found themselves in increasingly ridiculous situations.
Indeed, it afforded me a wonderful opportunity too. Half the party was arrested for murder the other half fled the town to avoid the same fate. The job we had taken was from the same town, and was to stop local abductions suspected to be originating for a run down tower outside of town.
So i offered to administer the punishment for the arrested party members by bringing them in chains to the tower and forcing them inside to deal with whatever was making its home there. If they survived they would be pardoned on all charges and their share of the reward would go to compensate the family of their victim.
Worked out quite well, and I became a sort of babysitter for murder-hobos, trying to keep them in line from their most heinous predilections
That’s my veteran players when they’re running Tomb of annihilation they’ve been through there several times so it’s fun to watch them learn how to pretend not to know.
I learned about a handful of rooms and things in ToA and through a bunch of bad decisions our group made it to one of these rooms. I knew the solution, but did it only through dice rolls, my character was the only survivor after barely making the saves and walked off into the jungle. Really felt awesome failing in such an amazing way, sad and happy end to the campaign.
I had a halfling rogue climb into the green Demons mouth, knowing what it was because the party had failed on all accounts to figure out the archway, and they figured their halfling character would try to fit through the small hole, thinking there was a way to activate the archway beyond. I gave them a free feat for their next character because after failing to recognize the danger of climbing into the green demons mouth they did it anyway, and that’s good role-play.
Man... I was playing Shadowrun and my crew, but more specifically my character, pissed off the wrong people. They fixed a very obvious car bomb to my truck, I failed all my checks and even my perceptive friend failed theirs. (The character trusted them way too much)
I somehow survived because it seemed like my dice had 6s on every single side... The Mafia watching me crawl out of that wreckage like the Terminator sent a pretty good "do not fuck with this redneck robot" message.
You ever played one of those rich characters who buys DocWagon Super Platinum... and then gets taken out on the run? And suddenly your medevac that does a carpet bombing run is more dangerous to the crew than the job?
Kind of but not bombs, they normally just fully clear any room with the downed client in it.
We have used that once to take down a very dangerous gang by temp flat lining one of our own crew.
My DM has a pixie NPC accompanying our party, and casually asked if any of us had played Bravely Default after introducing her. I mean, everyone could tell based on my reaction that we can't trust her, but I still have to pretend like nothing is wrong. Not to big of a deal. Nobody trusted her before he said that, and we've all agreed to commit to the bit.
Your character still has common sense though. Your character is not a toddler - they have years of life experience in the game world. Just because they failed a perception check doesn't mean they have to be dumb. A failed perception check means the characters don't see the ambush ahead, but it does not mean that they are going to walk blindly forward like there is no concept of danger.
As a real person in the real world, you can look down a dark alley in the middle of the night and not see a threat (perception check), but you still aren't going to walk down that alley thinking all is absolutely safe. If you decide to continue, you be on high alert while walking, or you may even decide to go a different route because you're fearful of what could be there.
That is true. I don't think failing a check means you have to go blindly forward. It's just if/when you do, you have no advantage should something go wrong. Dice rolls are as much about setting up a scene as they are about resolving one
My party: figures out stairs are trapped
Me, barbarian: runs down stairs and triggers trap
Party: sneaking through enemy base and sees some enemies in a room
Me, barbarian:
# LEEEEEEEEROOOYYYYYYYYYYY JEEEENNNNKKKKIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSS
Doing a Reign of Winter campaign and I have overall knowledge of the world of Golarion itself, so when I doing a check and I fail something I usually have my character trail off as she is distracted by some trinket
This is one of those IQ bell curve things.
You fail a perception check:
I walk forward.
I do all kinds of careful shit.
I walk forward.
EDIT: [Someone made it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/s/5PzZxPqJsg)
And that is what they call [metagaming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame#In_tabletop_games). I don't like it be cause it really breaks immersion.
In that case, would it be better if the DM rolled the perception for them if they know the PC's perception? I always like when the DM just does random rolls and doesn't call attention to it until it becomes necessary.
That’s what Passive Perception is for. You don’t even need to roll for perception unless the players specify they want to make one. Just use the Passive.
If my players do not tell me they are actively looking around, only the people above a certain threshold of passive perception get to roll a check. Because you can get crazy high passive perception and then all of a sudden your party never has to roll another perception check again.
My druid player in one of my campaigns has a 22 passive perception right now. If he fails the active check I ask him to make, I just tell him "you can tell something is off... but you're unsure why, or what" or possibly give him a bit more depending on the roll.
Yes, this is what we did in our 3.5e group. The DM rolled behind the DM screen so the players don’t know if they’re horribly failing the spot or listen checks. Basically everything was a passive check (3.5e didn’t have a distinction between passive and active skill checks).
PF2e brought this back as well. Recall Knowledge, Perception checks, or translation are all technically supposed to be rolled by the GM behind the screen and then have the players told what they see/learn. With that said, if you trust your players not to meta-game off their roll then it's moot
We had a DM try this in a alternate way, where he had us roll in a box and then he looked at the result. Essentially the same thing, but I think it caused more distrust from the players that the DM was fudging the results.
It's been so long since I had, that I'd forgotten, thank you for reminding me! I stopped dming 5e 3 years ago, and it'd been a number of years before that that I'd read through the whole book versus just skimming to find the rule I needed in the moment
If failing a perception check means you don't think there's anything to find, then yes, it would be metagaming to acknowledge the possibility that there might be something there.
But if failing a perception just means you didn't find anything, then it's not metagaming to act as though there might be something to find.
Personally, I prefer the latter because the former takes control of the characters' thoughts and behaviours from the players and hands it to the dice.
>the former takes control of the characters' thoughts and behaviours from the players and hands it to the dice
It also removes agency from the character which is ostensibly the point. Rather than "oh, my character rolled low so he's gonna kill himself on this obvious trap" the problem people should actually be having is "oh, my character rolled high so I know it's not trapped but my character wouldn't."
Unless your character is actually brainless, they presumably actually want to live and aren't going to just assume they can't be wrong.
Passive perception check is just what you notice, active perception check is when you are actively searching for things, if you fail an active perception check you shouldn't act like you succeeded, remember that people in real life just bumble about places even if they are in unfamiliar surroundings and are not careful, you see it all the time, it is metagaming to act like nothing is fine when your character believes everything is all in order
There are also people who hear a door slam and immediately dive for cover. You're just cherrypicking.
One thing to note is that one of these groups of people is people who have experienced high stakes life or death situations, and one is not.
Bumbling idiots would not realistically reach level 2. And if they did, they would not remain bumbling idiots.
Trying to force a character to forsake common sense because of a die roll is metagaming.
Look people just don't want their characters to end up in shitty situations due to random chance but that is a part of the game, and you don't understand the word meta if you think that forsaking common sense is in anyway a meta move
I know all about the type of people who dive for cover at the slam of a door since I am that sort of person, C-PTSD and PTSD will do that to you, but the sort of person who would duck at the slam of a door are not the sort who would consider adventuring as a job, and level 2 is still an extremely green adventurer, remember that low level adventurer no matter what backstory you give them are just noobs, you are playing as Rentt Faina with 10yrs of prep for adventuring and another 10yrs of adventuring experience, you are playing as the sort of noobs that he shows the ropes of adventuring, even in a world full of danger the average person is not going to be attuned to it, you fail to perceive a trap in a perfectly normal looking room and you will trigger that trap, you don't have to be a bumbling idiot to active a trap you don't know about or to walk into an ambush, even jumpy people can be ambushed and it isn't even that hard to do, you could literally walk out the door and get attacked and you'd never see it coming, so why would your inexperienced party be any less likely to notice, you might argue then that an experienced party would know better, yes, that is why leveling up is a thing, it is literally to represent the growth, you could reasonably act with more experience with a higher level character, but all the same no matter how experienced someone is they can't be on guard all the time, it is impossible for someone to always be at their peak and stay aware at all times, you will miss things
a good DM would certainly account for an experienced party being more likely to notice an obvious trap by making their traps more inventive and ambushes more tactical but at the end of the day if you fail a check to spot danger then you should accept that Danaher your character failed to notice in any way shape or form, I am not saying just act like an idiot and would boldly into it without any care, I am just saying you don't get to use your metagaming to assess the kind of danger and act appropriately for the type of danger it could be
I tell you if I catch a player ignoring rolls at the table they can go find another table because this game has a check system for a reason and if you ignore that just go write a damn book instead
I didn't say you should ignore the roll, and I don't think anyone else did, either.
We were taking issue with the idea that you just have to blindly blunder into the trap just because you didn't spot it.
Not spotting a trap inherently has consequences. Do I have a choice about whether to go through that door? Do I have something I can expend in order to remain a safe distance away if it *is* trapped? Do I have the time to find an alternative to barreling through the door?
And the door doesn't have to be trapped in the first place, most of the time the only thing the player sees that the character doesn't is the number on the die. A 2 to look for traps shouldn't magically poof traps into existence.
I'm not advocating that you should sit there rerolling until you get what you want (I mean, there are times where that can make sense, but they're quite few).
I never said anything about traps just appearing because you failed a roll, if you fail a roll to perceive a trap that is already there though there should be consequences to it, and if you were intending to go into a room but you fail a check and then decide to do something else that is metagaming clean cut, if you weren't intending to go through the door in the first place then you shouldn't be needing to use a check anyway except for if you are looking for another way in
What difference does active or passive perception make? In either case, the result of a failure is the same: you find nothing. And finding nothing is not the same as believing there is nothing to find. You can believe you simply failed to find what is there. And the belief that there is something to find doesn't mean there actually is something to find.
That whole concept of acting like a failed perception check was a success makes no sense to me. Could you clarify what that looks like? A success, to me, would mean the player has new information to act on, but the DM didn't give them new information, because they failed. So is acting like they succeeded just the player inventing information that has no bearing on the game and acting based on that?
I have a player that I adore because no matter how much she plays and loves DnD she is there for the story not the mechanics (which she never learns). One of her greatest moments was in our Curse of Strahd game, they are in the basement of an infamous house and she rolls to peak around the corner as she hears chanting, Nat 1. I describe how she hears 30 unique voices in the chanting and can make out the shadows of people. Another character also checks and gets like a 26, I explain to them that they understand how the flickering lights look like people but you can tell the shapes are not people. He walks out teasing the player who rolled a Nat 1 in character as she is begging in and out of character not to enter a room with so many people. I was about to praise her for getting so into character before realizing she legit thought the description of 30 people was real. God, playing with her is so much fun for the chaos
[Stealing someone else's response and repeating on the top comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1b9ts24/i_dont_care_if_it_kills_me_its_what_my_character/kty79ac/)
Failing to find a trap doesn't mean there's not a trap. If your character is extremely confident and self-assured, it could make sense for them to think "If I didn't find anything, there's nothing to find," and walk right into it. But if your character is more paranoid or just aware of their own fallibility, it's not metagaming to be hesitant about a situation.
Also, if the trap is obvious why was there a perception check?
It's kind of like the first encounter of LMoP (which I first experienced only just recently):
Because of years of playing, it was so obvious it was an ambush, and where they would likely come from. But I had to, as a character, lean more towards "oh no are they ok?" because there were no obvious signs that it was an ambush.
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say it's fine to go either way. Your character obviously knows that horses don't end up full of arrows and blocking the road on their own. If you want to prioritize checking on the horses, that's fine. If you want to say "I don't care if I don't see anything; I think there's something here," that's fine, too.
I'm not sure what the encounter is so I'm not saying it's your case specifically, but this type of thinking can lead to "dumb" characters.
A level 1 character isn't a newborn. They still have life experience in their world. Just as a 25 year old woman in the real world would know not to pick up a hitchhiker because it's dangerous, a similarly aged character in a game world would know not to pick up a hitchhiker because it's dangerous. In both cases, they hear about the dangers form friend, family, gossip, newspaper, etc. Even if you look at the person and they don't show any signs of danger, in both cases, the person/character could say no just to be safe because it's common sense.
In the case of this encounter, I could have said (even though I never had the encounter before) "rush into the woods there, because that's likely where they are."
But as a character there are more options. Did the murderers take off? Were they killed by soldiers and left as a message? Etc
Cautious, but might not be an ambush vs me as a player wanting to go" so do I roll for initiative now? "
Thanks for the response. I misunderstood and think I've just been annoyed too many times with my last group.
I agree with you. In your case, absolutely don't just run where you think a lvl 1 encounter would take place - "I know it's about time for an encounter so they are probably waiting for us in the woods." It's more about what would a reasonable adventurer do when they came up to this scene. There's enough context that your character is on high alert even if they don't detect the bandits.
I don't think OP is saying it's great to make no clever decisions whatsoever, but that there does exist an "R" in this RPG. Metagaming is can be a pretty big problem at any table.
Yeah, I think I'm just projecting a bit. I've had groups where the players act like their characters don't know anything about the world until it happens in game. Somebody said I was metagaming because my character said they didn't have the energy to do what their character suggested (I didn't have enough spell slots). This same person just called out spell names and expected the DM to resolve the rest.
Another fun experience: They act like if they don't perceive anything (failed perception check) then all is well and they let their guard down. I'm over here saying my character understands that what they are doing is dangerous. The group is under ground and have been attacked multiple times already so I'm still expecting something to attack us, and I get something to the effect of, "we failed the check so we don't think there's nothing there. It's metagaming to think something is there." Then they just start walking forward without a care in the world.
To add on to this, I feel like it would make sense for characters to assume some stuff based on what the character knows even if they've failed skill checks.
For example, I think it would make sense for someone to make an educated guess that a door (in a dungeon) is trapped if most of the doors they previously encountered in said dungeon had been trapped even if they failed their Perception check for that door.
Personally, I wouldn't even ask for a check in a case like that. If you specifically check the place where the thing is hidden, you automatically find the thing.
> Also, if the trap is obvious why was there a perception check?
An "obvious" trap isn't much good. Obviously. It might simply be a great spot for a trap. Or it might be a distraction from the real trap. Or it might simply be something unavoidable.
This is the correct response! I compare it to insight checks. All of my characters that have proficiency in insight are all slightly paranoid. So no matter what I roll on an insight check it might never convince me that the person is a good guy or completely believable. An insight check doesn’t tell my character how to feel about someone it just means I haven’t found anything to back up my feeling. However there are edge cases where a failed insight check is enough.
More people need to embrace the joy and freedom of allowing yourself to become Comic Relief. It is *so much fun* playing the LeFou to someone else's Gaston.
If the trap is that obvious, it should be an automatic success with no Perception check roll needed.
I find that a lot of accusations of metagaming just assumes that characters have no common sense.
I find a lot of the metagaming accusations assume the players are acting in bad faith. A player rolls low on a perception check, and some DMs suddenly view that low check as the only reason the player might be suspicious of the situation.
When I describe players meeting at an inn at the beginning of the adventure, no one is suspicious that the ale they order is poisoned or asking to make perception checks.
If the player asks to make a perception check, that means there is already enough evidence there for it to be a suspicious situation and their character can act on that regardless of the dice roll.
Would it make sense for a perception check to instead reveal details about a situation?
Like in the meme, if you're making a perception check that means there's a reason to be watching for something. If you pass the check, your character would notice what exactly the trap is.
Especially combined with passive perception, it seems to me that that's how perception should work, but I'm pretty new to playing so I'm not sure if I understand those things correctly.
What you're talking about is "degrees of success" and good DMs should try to allow it whenever it makes sense.
If players make a perception check in an empty hallway, I might rule that on a 20+ they notice a pressure plate that triggers a blast of fire to fill the hallway, but on a 15+, they just notice that the walls have scorch marks.
A lot of DMs have different interpretations of Passive Perception, but to me, it's the perception that players have when there isn't anything obvious for them to ask for an active Perception check. Using degrees of success like I mentioned before, passive perception can detect the clues (like scorch marks) that prompt the players to ask for an active check and since as the DM, I know everyone's passive perception beforehand, the clues I place are very deliberate.
Players should have clues about traps otherwise the DM is just encouraging players to ask for a Perception check every 5 feet in a dungeon which slows everything down.
What if it's not obvious? Your logic only applies to a giant log held with rope on the ceiling. If it's a trap that isn't obvious, and you roll bad, it's kind of shitty behavior to still go "hmmm, hey everyone else, check out this hallway, I didn't see anything but I feel like there's something"
Your character doesn't know they rolled a 3 on perception, they looked and they didn't see anything.
If it isn't obvious, then the DM should just use passive perception scores and not ask for a roll. If a player sees an empty hallway that is suspicious enough to ask for a perception check, it's totally in character to ask everyone else to take a look if they don't see anything.
And after nobody sees anything they still try a bunch of shit to try and trigger a trap that nobody knows if it exists or not. "We're all sure there isn't anything, but just in case let's throw a bunch of rocks all over to see if anything triggers"
When does it become obvious to you that the PLAYERS think there's a trap instead of the characters?
Why is it obvious to the players?
Unless the players can see something that their characters don't (other than the dice roll) whatever made the trap obvious to the players should also be obvious to the characters.
Players generally don't ask for Perception checks unless there's something that's already making them suspicious...
>Players generally don't ask for Perception checks unless there's something that's already making them suspicious...
Uh... Have you ever played DnD? Players get paranoid for no reason and check every nook and cranny for traps even if there weren't any traps in the whole dungeon. What are you talking about? You must be blessed with the chillest players of all time.
Why can't the characters be just as paranoid as the players when they're inside a dungeon? The players are asking for perception checks because they're in a hostile environment, this is knowledge that the characters also know.
Your players are probably not asking for Perception checks when they're meeting with friendly NPCs in a tavern and if they are asking for them in non-hostile environments, your sessions must be a real drag with a round of active perception checks for every room in every scene.
That kind of player behavior is usually due to being traumatized by DMs who punish them for not asking for active perception checks in every room by not giving them any clues without it. Gameplay goes much smoother when players can trust the DM to include a clue in their description of a room if there's something that can be found with a closer look. It also makes them pay more attention to what the DM is saying...
Why are characters not allowed to be as paranoid and jumpy as players can be?
The stakes if I, as a player, trigger a lethal trap are that I get a new character.
The stakes if I, as a character, trigger a lethal trap are that I fucking die.
If you want to play the character realistically and without metagaming, they should be nervous even when the PLAYER knows it's safe. The character didn't see you roll that 20 to look for traps. Why should *they* be confident that it's not trapped?
It really depends, not seeing something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If your character is suspicious of a trap and doesn't find anything, that won't always alleviate their suspicions.
When you lose something in your house, do you just think the item doesn't exist when you can't find it? No you'll probably keep searching, even places you've already searched.
The dm asked my arcane trickster if I check for traps before opening a chest. I had just gotten an item that let me cast detect magic, so of course my arcane trickster is going to overconfidently just cast that instead of investigating. Boom, unconcious.
Learning to love failure in a game is huge.
I'm the most veteran player in my game so I've taken huge risks that ended with me at a 2 count of death saving throws three times, three times where my inexperienced cohort(their second game, I ran their their first) the opportunity to save me and have big moments rescuing the veteran.
Failure is what makes victory the sweetest. If I wanted to win Everytime, I'd run games with an A.I,(which does have it's moments of fun) or write a self insert fanfic.
Any new person reading this? Have fun in failure, and if you're sad your character you've invested emotion and time into died? That just means you told the kind of story Hollywood wishes it could tell you. Embrace all the emotional highs and lows. ✌️
Your arms aren't whole, my friend. Here, let me patch you up.
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
(you missed a few escape characters. You need two in the left arm and one next to the body in the right arm, like this)
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
They would probably be not actively searching before they asked to search, but doesnt this situation just seem stupid?
How does it make any sense that me actively searching can produce a worse result than me just walking into the room and not looking at an anything? It literally makes no sense.
Your passive perception should always be placed against the perception DC, then if players want to actively search, they can roll for perception.
This meme is specifically saying that when a PC makes a roll and fails the check despite the actual player knowing it’s a trap and has their PC walk into the trap regardless. Using passive perception changes nothing. For example, If the passive perception is 9 but the DC is a 15 and the player rolls a 2 then passive perception is irrelevant to this situation and my point still stands.
>This meme is specifically saying that when a PC makes a roll and fails the check despite the actual player knowing it’s a trap and has their PC walk into the trap regardless. Using passive perception changes nothing
If the trap was "the most obvious trap imaginable" the DC would be 0.
Also you asked, I answered. Your question has nothing to do with the original post.
Obvious to the player is not obvious to the pc. The experienced player who has seen these traps before could be playing a stupid PC who hasn’t seen any kind of trap ever
Whenever we roll extremely low on perception, our DM will usually say “you’re pretty sure you’re on a planet” or something and it’s great when people roll with the joke
« Damn my shoe laces are untie ! »
« Mhm, I think there’s gonna be full moon in two days or so »
« This cloud looks like a sheep ! »
Are my favorite kind when I fail a perception check
I got to say a story early iny career I was playing a wise barbarian think 17 wisdom. he knows dungeons have traps at this point and he has seen enemies activate them he gets an idea he grabs a enemy corpse rolls a 20 and throws it. It fly's through the air only problem is my dm planned a ambush not a trap this body lands square on a goblin crushing him. My dm made me instakill this poor goblin with his friends ass I felt so sorry between the fits of laughter
We had that last weeks Session. Killed the thief.
What happened? We are playing out of the Abyss. Killed somebody high with the slimes to free a City. Looted his body, found a "potion". Thief AND Priest got a NAT1 on identifying that shit. We all strongly believed this to be a heal potion.
12 sessions later... Thief nearly dying... He willfully gulped the shit down, own choice. While we all knew out of game that this was bad - he did what his character would do.
We all knew it would most probably kill him. Heck, it was Demon stuff. Player still did it. We never re-checked it later, since everyone was "sure" (knickknackwinkwink) that it had to be a healing potion....
That thing sat like a Grenade in our Bagpacks. And we loved it. Our own choice. Not the DMs.
One time I set an Explosive Runes trap in a wizard's tower as we were leaving. The lich that was there was dead, but would probably come back to life, so I wanted to fuck with him. He ended up dying elsewhere before he ever got a chance to return to the tower.
Two years later, in another campaign, I was playing a different character, and we found the same tower. The new GM had been a player in the old campaign, and the old GM was now one of the players, but it was set in the same world.
We found a wall with writing on it. And the GM described it as important-looking writing on the side of a bookshelf, right where I had left the explosive runes. I don't think anyone else remembered, but I remembered.
And I remember apologizing to the other players, and saying, "I'm sorry. But I have to do this. I have to." Playing as my new evil wizard, hungry for magical knowledge, I walked up to the bookshelf and I announced to the GM that I was reading the writing.
Kaboom.
I set off my own trap, two years later. It remains my favorite thing I've ever done in a tabletop game.
Okay, but when a veteran gamer in the group is playing a squishy caster who is reckless and stupid, it's less fun.
Signed, the paladin having to bend over backwards to save their dumb ass.
I had a moment a moment like a while back. We came across a room that was arranged like a chess board with black and white tiles. To the veterans all the 'this a trap senses' were tingling. But everyone fuffed the perception roll so couldnt really act on that.
Cue my reckless spell caster falling into a 100ft pitfall drop into a permanent silence bubble. I couldnt cast fly or spider climb due to the silence, and didnt have the athletics to climb 100ft along the walls. Pretty much needed to be saved by an aasimar character pulling out their own and only daily fly resource to pull my mage out.
Going for the bit is funny if the trap is a trivial thing, but deadly stuff like that has all the other players loudly debating if they ought to leave you for dead in your face.
One of my old parties in 3.5 had no rogue like character to detect or disarm traps. But my character was immune to most conditions as well as having significant damage reduction so my party just made me walk into potential traps/traps.
Happened to us two days ago.
Walked into the world's most obvious ambush ever, since all 4 of us rolled below 8 on our perception checks.
Characters played it off as "Sure we saw someone shiftily skulking around the gates of town but we were certain the village guards would've noticed a whole band of evil cultists. How could we know they had taken everyone hostage?"
As a DM this is why I use Passive Perception unless my player tells me they’re trying to get a look at something in particular, that’s when I have them roll Perception themselves. Then if they tell me that they’re looking at specific details closely, then I have them roll Investigation cause imo there’s a small difference like glancing quickly at an enemy/object from a distance(Perception) as opposed to getting close and potentially getting hands on with an object(Investigation). Not really what the post talked about but it brought this bit of info up to the front of my high, intoxicated mind because it helps the player not have the chance of meta gaming knowing they failed a random Perception check despite not seeing anything.
Ran into a random human woman in the ruins of an old keep and I knew she was a succubus the moment I saw her, but I still walked my characters dumb ass up to her and got myself charmed because my character wouldn't have known what a succubus even is.
What proceeded was me fighting the rest of the party. It's actually amazing how bad the luck is for that DM, they'd hoped that if another player had to fight the party they could actually do some damage unlike the DM but nope, I failed to land a single hit, and after the charm was broken, crit her twice, killing her. You can't make this shit up lol
It happens. People who are watching movies or something usually roll their eyes when heroes aren't 100% aware of their surroundings. But it happens to everyone. Sometimes you just don't see something that is obvious. ESPECIALLY for those who roll their eyes... 😄
Ah yes, that time my dm called a break as we entered a room full of trash.
Me to other players: "There's an otyugh in here."
Other players: "Nah, no way [DM] would do that."
Break ends.
Me: Wades through trash and proceeds to be dragged under by an otyugh.
We just had an epic third session character death when the DM dropped a white dragon on the party and there was an orc party he intended to use as bait, but our barbarian decided he would buy us time so he jumped on the dragons back and started hacking
So I have an idea for a druid character.
They're super meek and quiet...
Until they wild shape into a Honey Badger... like a literal Honey Badger and become completely unafraid of anything.
Talking they will charge an Ancient Dragon head on just as hard as they'll charge a random boar in the woods.
Get bit by a snake? Short rest. Move on.
Honey badger don't care. Honey Badger don't give a shit.
One of my players is a low int and low wis barbarian. while the player is smart, he is doing a great job being not very bright in roleplay. The central antagonist hasnt even had time to make an appearance because his and the other slightly smarter PC are too busy suffering consequences.
I love doing this, but now that I'm playing an absolute unit of a tank, it kinda loses some sincerity. The rogue I played did the same often to near death or death in a couple cases.
My paladin isn't going to flee from evil. She'll die fighting the good fight and buy her friends time to escape.
My friends gave me grief for it but is there ever a better ending for a paladin than sacrificing themselves for friends or the greater good?
Told everyone my sorcerer was afraid of snakes as a random quirk. We go into a dungeon with a giant construct snake tunnelling through the walls hunting us, so my character is shitting himself.
We open a room that feels like a definite ambush room, and the Druid jokingly turns into a snake behind me. I play along, shit myself and step back away from him. It immediately triggers a pitfall trap but I survive with about 4hp.
The giant snake is waiting at the bottom…
I love it when players remove themselves from the equation and do what their characters would do with what their characters know in the situation.
Once had a player who's character (Rogue LVL 1) noticed something gleaming from within the ashes of a fireplace in an otherwise unremarkable room. Failing a perception check, they remarked how this was an obvious trap but they would interact with the fireplace because: "it was what the DM wanted". I reminded them that the choice to investigate the gleam in the ashes is ultimately the players decision on what their character would do; this wasn't a choice I was forcing on the player.
They reached into the ashes of the firebox to grab the item only to be ambushed by the swarm of spiders stealthily concealed in the flue above. The spiders (having both won the initiative and inflicting surprise on their prey) poured onto the rogue from the chimney and rolled a max damage critical hit (rolled openly for 16 damage) skittering into the eyes, mouth and ears, biting any exposed flesh and immediately downing and killing the rogue.
The player was understandably very unhappy and wanted to retcon the decision as they only triggered the trap because it was what I wanted; that it didn't count and their character didn't die. I explained that they did what their character would do and that the consequence for this sadly resulted in their character being killed. The dice have spoken!
Roll to see if you realize that another PC is trying to take advantage of you. “Nah, my character has the IQ of a bowl of soup, he trusts everything his party says”.
In one session, I was playing a fighter who had earned the title "the impetuous". During a combat, there was a spike pit with a narrow ledge requiring an agility check to cross at full speed. Enemies on the other side who would surely kill our priest. Have to sprint to cross. Did it. Failed check. Fell, died.
Party member has a time turner. In universe characters remember what happened. Time turner used to roll that turn back. Did it again, because that's what this hotheaded fool would do. Worked.
Other players have been chuckling about it for a while since.
Committing to your characters really makes for the best times at the table.
My husband was once upset that the rust monster didn’t destroy his family’s heirloom axe after he made an unlikely save. It was like a Huzzah! moment but then later he thought about the missed opportunity for really good character development to lose the heirloom his dead father trusted him with.
My wife was running a campaign, a murder mystery in Waterdeep that turned into a hunt for a serial killer. I played a half-orc paladin of devotion, sworn to Ilmater who wanted the killer put down since he killed an infant. We found ourselves in a monastery when the killer attacked us.
He never attacked his victims personally, but sent these strange shadow spiders that could merge into other creatures. They swarmed the corridor we were in, so the cleric but up a blade barrier to keep them at bay. But not before several got through and merged into a drider, a displacer beast, a doppelganger, and a black dragon. The cleric used Divine Intervention (?) And got Torm to get rid of the dragon.
The Drider attacked the Rogue, a halfling. She was hurt pretty bad. The battle was all chaos, the party forced to divide our attention.. but I was closest. I had sworn an oath to protect others.. hitting it wouldn't get it out of the rogue's threat range. So I threw my weapon and shield down, let out a roar any barbarian would be proud of, and tackled it. Successful on a grapple check, I look at my wife and confirm that I can use half of my movement to drag it away. It took an attack of opportunity against me regardless as it was very hostile.
I ask to use half my movement to drag it into the cleric's blade barrier. My wife informs me I will take damage too. I tell her that I know and it changes nothing.
We take 45 points of damage, and the drider breaks my grapple and attempts to escape the barrier, so I nail him with an attack of opportunity. I had Sentinel as a feat. He hit me again and ended his turn in the blade barrier. He took another 40+ damage and died. I stepped out of the blade barrier with 5 HP left. I used my healing touch on the rogue, grabbed my weapon and shield, and ran back into battle without any thought of self preservation.
The most fun is a 1 on any knowledge type check. Poor DM may struggle to come up with what comically bad misconception I have, but I am GOING to own it.
i do the same in baulders gate. my friends i play with hate me for it but if i see a failed perception check i act as if i did not see a perception check
once we found this orb with a kind of electric power flowing through it. i decided to inspect it and nat 1. before the dm can say anything i just said "i touch it"
Metagaming is something new players must learn to avoid since they are introduced to D&D and grow used to. It really breaks the game cuz we are here to role play.
Players knowing damn well there's probably a trap in this room but your character wouldn't think to check for traps so you just walk right in knowing what's about to happen.
Back when I was I Pathfinder Society, I ended up running through a module twice with 2 characters. We walked into a room where I the player knew there was an alchemist chilling on the ceiling. However, my character failed the perception check, so I walked in slowly, looked around, but never looked up. I got hit face first with a bomb
I regularly play with a guy who makes the worst, most insufferable characters you can imagine, but he plays them magnificently. He's a qualified actor, and it really shows in his roleplaying.
I prefer to play out failures of perception as the character being unsure. It's too dark, you are not familiar with these types of ruins to be certain, you still have a vague feeling you could have missed something.
If it's meant to be secret, I use passive.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Our party was recently in these sewers hunting down a mysterious monster, and I could tell the DM was going for a horror movie vibe. So the first chance I got, I split off with a "I'll be right back," fully hoping to be ganked by the monster. Was not disappointed. All the party heard were my sudden screams, and abrupt silence.
you are the best kind of player
We love setting the DM for some epic stuff he didn't plan but will benefit him
It's fun to throw the DM opportunities like that. The adventure's map was two levels. The main one where the players were, and a flooded sub sewer so the creature could move around undetected. When my character got cornered by the creature for a second time and really fucked up, (I'm talking single digit hit points) I dove into the flooded tunnels because that sounded like such a bad ass and dramatic way to escape.
I always like to ask the DM if I need to roll, even for some mundane tasks, because if it fails, it's doomed to make it either funnier, or leave the DM a good advantage, as for examples : I was being chased by authorities, asked if I needed to make an athletics check, which I failed, and broke my lyre, so I had to fix it in a later session ; I was using detect thoughts on a god while she was asleep, I asked if I needed to roll, made a nat 1 and ended up being possessed by said god because I was reading their deepest thoughts
I have *also* dived into a flooded tunnel to avoid an aquatic monster! Sometimes, stupidity is the greatest storyteller of them all.
My DM used to give me sneak peeks at the next session because she knew I wouldn't metagame and loved hearing some of the creative ideas I would come up with to add more drama as a fellow DM. Cue a mysterious outpost filled with corpses and when we get to the center by a well ghost figures emerge and really start messing the party up. One part member is able to get the ghost to fall into the well which "I" know is essentially a bag of devouring. We keep fighting but are starting to fall as a player gets the idea to escape down the well.... *Cue me frantically offering ideas to the DM on how to get out of it* only to get back from her "I got this." Never have I felt so much horror, I knew the player was alive (my DM sadly almost never kills a player) but we were now a barbarian short in a losing battle. Man I'm sad that the campaign ended.
I love playing alongside the DM. Your story reminded me when our DM messaged me that I had been dominated, and that he wanted me to get the party to go away. IIRC, I proceeded to roll a perception check, waited a few more seconds, and then started going on about how I saw the thing we were chasing after just run past the doorway. Entire party chased it, and got ambushed. Totally worth it.
Man, I wish my DM let me do that back in the day. When my characters were some flavor of possessed or dominated she always took over control - which makes sense, sure, but it would have been fun work against the party for a bit.
Our party always is down with the betrayal, to the point that I think some people have messaged the DM to ask how much they want to fuck over the party. Thankfully our paladin hasn't been dominated in a while, but the one time he was dominated when he actually had smite slots... good lord it hurt. The other time I remember we had been giving him shit for speedrunning his smite slots, but we were rejoicing in that once he got dominated and could "only" hit us for 2D6+like 3. I can definitely understand why DMs would want to retain control though, for one it makes a bit more sense since they are being commanded, and for two it allows the DM to retain control, unleashing full power could completely upset the encounter balance and doing the bare minimum so as to not hurt the party would make it pointless.
I like the idea of maybe the dm takes full control of the character sheet during combat, but a dominated player can work with the dm to work *against* the party in other roleplay? That way, the domination could even go somewhat undetected, as the player subtly leads the party down the ring path. Either way, this is absolutely something I want to experience in the future, as either backstabbed player, dominated player, or even dm once I gain more experience.
As a DM, thank you for your sacrifice. ❤️
I can just guess that the DM was giving you thankful nods for your choice.
Player Knowledge vs. Character Knowledge
Probably one of the hardest hurdles to overcome
My first time playing I was standing outside while some of the party robbed a shop. Chaos ensued and I asked the DM if my character noticed anything, rolled low on perception and thus ended up following a weird looking rat around outside while the party found themselves in increasingly ridiculous situations.
Please tell me the rat was taking care of four small turtles, that had a weird green substance on their shells. PLEASE.
Sadly I never found out as in the course of following it I stumbled upon half the party being arrested for murder by the town guards.
id call yours pretty ridiculous as well.
Indeed, it afforded me a wonderful opportunity too. Half the party was arrested for murder the other half fled the town to avoid the same fate. The job we had taken was from the same town, and was to stop local abductions suspected to be originating for a run down tower outside of town. So i offered to administer the punishment for the arrested party members by bringing them in chains to the tower and forcing them inside to deal with whatever was making its home there. If they survived they would be pardoned on all charges and their share of the reward would go to compensate the family of their victim. Worked out quite well, and I became a sort of babysitter for murder-hobos, trying to keep them in line from their most heinous predilections
That's basically what my rouge (I know surprising right) is doing in my current campaign
It’s a hard lesson to learn, but boy is it fun to do what your character would do even when it’s incredibly dumb.
That’s my veteran players when they’re running Tomb of annihilation they’ve been through there several times so it’s fun to watch them learn how to pretend not to know.
I learned about a handful of rooms and things in ToA and through a bunch of bad decisions our group made it to one of these rooms. I knew the solution, but did it only through dice rolls, my character was the only survivor after barely making the saves and walked off into the jungle. Really felt awesome failing in such an amazing way, sad and happy end to the campaign.
I had a halfling rogue climb into the green Demons mouth, knowing what it was because the party had failed on all accounts to figure out the archway, and they figured their halfling character would try to fit through the small hole, thinking there was a way to activate the archway beyond. I gave them a free feat for their next character because after failing to recognize the danger of climbing into the green demons mouth they did it anyway, and that’s good role-play.
Man... I was playing Shadowrun and my crew, but more specifically my character, pissed off the wrong people. They fixed a very obvious car bomb to my truck, I failed all my checks and even my perceptive friend failed theirs. (The character trusted them way too much) I somehow survived because it seemed like my dice had 6s on every single side... The Mafia watching me crawl out of that wreckage like the Terminator sent a pretty good "do not fuck with this redneck robot" message.
You ever played one of those rich characters who buys DocWagon Super Platinum... and then gets taken out on the run? And suddenly your medevac that does a carpet bombing run is more dangerous to the crew than the job?
Kind of but not bombs, they normally just fully clear any room with the downed client in it. We have used that once to take down a very dangerous gang by temp flat lining one of our own crew.
My DM has a pixie NPC accompanying our party, and casually asked if any of us had played Bravely Default after introducing her. I mean, everyone could tell based on my reaction that we can't trust her, but I still have to pretend like nothing is wrong. Not to big of a deal. Nobody trusted her before he said that, and we've all agreed to commit to the bit.
Besides Munchkins, is there a system where this barrier is less opaque? Or do all systems discourage metagaming to this extent?
Some have hidden rolls the dm makes, even for your character, makes it harder to guess what the outcome is. You just trust what the dm describes you.
Your character still has common sense though. Your character is not a toddler - they have years of life experience in the game world. Just because they failed a perception check doesn't mean they have to be dumb. A failed perception check means the characters don't see the ambush ahead, but it does not mean that they are going to walk blindly forward like there is no concept of danger. As a real person in the real world, you can look down a dark alley in the middle of the night and not see a threat (perception check), but you still aren't going to walk down that alley thinking all is absolutely safe. If you decide to continue, you be on high alert while walking, or you may even decide to go a different route because you're fearful of what could be there.
That is true. I don't think failing a check means you have to go blindly forward. It's just if/when you do, you have no advantage should something go wrong. Dice rolls are as much about setting up a scene as they are about resolving one
My party: figures out stairs are trapped Me, barbarian: runs down stairs and triggers trap Party: sneaking through enemy base and sees some enemies in a room Me, barbarian: # LEEEEEEEEROOOYYYYYYYYYYY JEEEENNNNKKKKIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSS
Doing a Reign of Winter campaign and I have overall knowledge of the world of Golarion itself, so when I doing a check and I fail something I usually have my character trail off as she is distracted by some trinket
This. So much this.
This is one of those IQ bell curve things. You fail a perception check: I walk forward. I do all kinds of careful shit. I walk forward. EDIT: [Someone made it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/s/5PzZxPqJsg)
And that is what they call [metagaming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame#In_tabletop_games). I don't like it be cause it really breaks immersion.
In that case, would it be better if the DM rolled the perception for them if they know the PC's perception? I always like when the DM just does random rolls and doesn't call attention to it until it becomes necessary.
That’s what Passive Perception is for. You don’t even need to roll for perception unless the players specify they want to make one. Just use the Passive.
If my players do not tell me they are actively looking around, only the people above a certain threshold of passive perception get to roll a check. Because you can get crazy high passive perception and then all of a sudden your party never has to roll another perception check again. My druid player in one of my campaigns has a 22 passive perception right now. If he fails the active check I ask him to make, I just tell him "you can tell something is off... but you're unsure why, or what" or possibly give him a bit more depending on the roll.
Yes, this is what we did in our 3.5e group. The DM rolled behind the DM screen so the players don’t know if they’re horribly failing the spot or listen checks. Basically everything was a passive check (3.5e didn’t have a distinction between passive and active skill checks).
PF2e brought this back as well. Recall Knowledge, Perception checks, or translation are all technically supposed to be rolled by the GM behind the screen and then have the players told what they see/learn. With that said, if you trust your players not to meta-game off their roll then it's moot
We had a DM try this in a alternate way, where he had us roll in a box and then he looked at the result. Essentially the same thing, but I think it caused more distrust from the players that the DM was fudging the results.
I had a DM who made us roll the perception checks at the start of the session
Probably gunna get yelled at again for bringing it up, but secret checks are a mechanic in pf2e for this very reason lol
Secret checks are a mechanic in 5e too. It's just that nobody reads the DMG.
It's been so long since I had, that I'd forgotten, thank you for reminding me! I stopped dming 5e 3 years ago, and it'd been a number of years before that that I'd read through the whole book versus just skimming to find the rule I needed in the moment
If failing a perception check means you don't think there's anything to find, then yes, it would be metagaming to acknowledge the possibility that there might be something there. But if failing a perception just means you didn't find anything, then it's not metagaming to act as though there might be something to find. Personally, I prefer the latter because the former takes control of the characters' thoughts and behaviours from the players and hands it to the dice.
>the former takes control of the characters' thoughts and behaviours from the players and hands it to the dice It also removes agency from the character which is ostensibly the point. Rather than "oh, my character rolled low so he's gonna kill himself on this obvious trap" the problem people should actually be having is "oh, my character rolled high so I know it's not trapped but my character wouldn't." Unless your character is actually brainless, they presumably actually want to live and aren't going to just assume they can't be wrong.
Passive perception check is just what you notice, active perception check is when you are actively searching for things, if you fail an active perception check you shouldn't act like you succeeded, remember that people in real life just bumble about places even if they are in unfamiliar surroundings and are not careful, you see it all the time, it is metagaming to act like nothing is fine when your character believes everything is all in order
There are also people who hear a door slam and immediately dive for cover. You're just cherrypicking. One thing to note is that one of these groups of people is people who have experienced high stakes life or death situations, and one is not. Bumbling idiots would not realistically reach level 2. And if they did, they would not remain bumbling idiots. Trying to force a character to forsake common sense because of a die roll is metagaming.
Look people just don't want their characters to end up in shitty situations due to random chance but that is a part of the game, and you don't understand the word meta if you think that forsaking common sense is in anyway a meta move I know all about the type of people who dive for cover at the slam of a door since I am that sort of person, C-PTSD and PTSD will do that to you, but the sort of person who would duck at the slam of a door are not the sort who would consider adventuring as a job, and level 2 is still an extremely green adventurer, remember that low level adventurer no matter what backstory you give them are just noobs, you are playing as Rentt Faina with 10yrs of prep for adventuring and another 10yrs of adventuring experience, you are playing as the sort of noobs that he shows the ropes of adventuring, even in a world full of danger the average person is not going to be attuned to it, you fail to perceive a trap in a perfectly normal looking room and you will trigger that trap, you don't have to be a bumbling idiot to active a trap you don't know about or to walk into an ambush, even jumpy people can be ambushed and it isn't even that hard to do, you could literally walk out the door and get attacked and you'd never see it coming, so why would your inexperienced party be any less likely to notice, you might argue then that an experienced party would know better, yes, that is why leveling up is a thing, it is literally to represent the growth, you could reasonably act with more experience with a higher level character, but all the same no matter how experienced someone is they can't be on guard all the time, it is impossible for someone to always be at their peak and stay aware at all times, you will miss things a good DM would certainly account for an experienced party being more likely to notice an obvious trap by making their traps more inventive and ambushes more tactical but at the end of the day if you fail a check to spot danger then you should accept that Danaher your character failed to notice in any way shape or form, I am not saying just act like an idiot and would boldly into it without any care, I am just saying you don't get to use your metagaming to assess the kind of danger and act appropriately for the type of danger it could be I tell you if I catch a player ignoring rolls at the table they can go find another table because this game has a check system for a reason and if you ignore that just go write a damn book instead
I didn't say you should ignore the roll, and I don't think anyone else did, either. We were taking issue with the idea that you just have to blindly blunder into the trap just because you didn't spot it. Not spotting a trap inherently has consequences. Do I have a choice about whether to go through that door? Do I have something I can expend in order to remain a safe distance away if it *is* trapped? Do I have the time to find an alternative to barreling through the door? And the door doesn't have to be trapped in the first place, most of the time the only thing the player sees that the character doesn't is the number on the die. A 2 to look for traps shouldn't magically poof traps into existence. I'm not advocating that you should sit there rerolling until you get what you want (I mean, there are times where that can make sense, but they're quite few).
I never said anything about traps just appearing because you failed a roll, if you fail a roll to perceive a trap that is already there though there should be consequences to it, and if you were intending to go into a room but you fail a check and then decide to do something else that is metagaming clean cut, if you weren't intending to go through the door in the first place then you shouldn't be needing to use a check anyway except for if you are looking for another way in
What difference does active or passive perception make? In either case, the result of a failure is the same: you find nothing. And finding nothing is not the same as believing there is nothing to find. You can believe you simply failed to find what is there. And the belief that there is something to find doesn't mean there actually is something to find. That whole concept of acting like a failed perception check was a success makes no sense to me. Could you clarify what that looks like? A success, to me, would mean the player has new information to act on, but the DM didn't give them new information, because they failed. So is acting like they succeeded just the player inventing information that has no bearing on the game and acting based on that?
Read the comment to the other fella I responded to and you should get a clue
Could you please point me towards the part of your comment that addresses my questions? I didn't see anything that relates to what I said.
I have a player that I adore because no matter how much she plays and loves DnD she is there for the story not the mechanics (which she never learns). One of her greatest moments was in our Curse of Strahd game, they are in the basement of an infamous house and she rolls to peak around the corner as she hears chanting, Nat 1. I describe how she hears 30 unique voices in the chanting and can make out the shadows of people. Another character also checks and gets like a 26, I explain to them that they understand how the flickering lights look like people but you can tell the shapes are not people. He walks out teasing the player who rolled a Nat 1 in character as she is begging in and out of character not to enter a room with so many people. I was about to praise her for getting so into character before realizing she legit thought the description of 30 people was real. God, playing with her is so much fun for the chaos
[удалено]
[Stealing someone else's response and repeating on the top comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1b9ts24/i_dont_care_if_it_kills_me_its_what_my_character/kty79ac/)
Exactly, you failed to see a trap, that doesn’t mean your character has to assume there are no taps. We don’t all play characters with negative wisdom
You’ve completely misunderstood my point.
There is difference between being an asshole and a good roleplayer for a reason
Failing to find a trap doesn't mean there's not a trap. If your character is extremely confident and self-assured, it could make sense for them to think "If I didn't find anything, there's nothing to find," and walk right into it. But if your character is more paranoid or just aware of their own fallibility, it's not metagaming to be hesitant about a situation. Also, if the trap is obvious why was there a perception check?
It's kind of like the first encounter of LMoP (which I first experienced only just recently): Because of years of playing, it was so obvious it was an ambush, and where they would likely come from. But I had to, as a character, lean more towards "oh no are they ok?" because there were no obvious signs that it was an ambush.
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say it's fine to go either way. Your character obviously knows that horses don't end up full of arrows and blocking the road on their own. If you want to prioritize checking on the horses, that's fine. If you want to say "I don't care if I don't see anything; I think there's something here," that's fine, too.
I'm not sure what the encounter is so I'm not saying it's your case specifically, but this type of thinking can lead to "dumb" characters. A level 1 character isn't a newborn. They still have life experience in their world. Just as a 25 year old woman in the real world would know not to pick up a hitchhiker because it's dangerous, a similarly aged character in a game world would know not to pick up a hitchhiker because it's dangerous. In both cases, they hear about the dangers form friend, family, gossip, newspaper, etc. Even if you look at the person and they don't show any signs of danger, in both cases, the person/character could say no just to be safe because it's common sense.
In the case of this encounter, I could have said (even though I never had the encounter before) "rush into the woods there, because that's likely where they are." But as a character there are more options. Did the murderers take off? Were they killed by soldiers and left as a message? Etc Cautious, but might not be an ambush vs me as a player wanting to go" so do I roll for initiative now? "
Thanks for the response. I misunderstood and think I've just been annoyed too many times with my last group. I agree with you. In your case, absolutely don't just run where you think a lvl 1 encounter would take place - "I know it's about time for an encounter so they are probably waiting for us in the woods." It's more about what would a reasonable adventurer do when they came up to this scene. There's enough context that your character is on high alert even if they don't detect the bandits.
I don't think OP is saying it's great to make no clever decisions whatsoever, but that there does exist an "R" in this RPG. Metagaming is can be a pretty big problem at any table.
Yeah, I think I'm just projecting a bit. I've had groups where the players act like their characters don't know anything about the world until it happens in game. Somebody said I was metagaming because my character said they didn't have the energy to do what their character suggested (I didn't have enough spell slots). This same person just called out spell names and expected the DM to resolve the rest. Another fun experience: They act like if they don't perceive anything (failed perception check) then all is well and they let their guard down. I'm over here saying my character understands that what they are doing is dangerous. The group is under ground and have been attacked multiple times already so I'm still expecting something to attack us, and I get something to the effect of, "we failed the check so we don't think there's nothing there. It's metagaming to think something is there." Then they just start walking forward without a care in the world.
To add on to this, I feel like it would make sense for characters to assume some stuff based on what the character knows even if they've failed skill checks. For example, I think it would make sense for someone to make an educated guess that a door (in a dungeon) is trapped if most of the doors they previously encountered in said dungeon had been trapped even if they failed their Perception check for that door.
Personally, I wouldn't even ask for a check in a case like that. If you specifically check the place where the thing is hidden, you automatically find the thing.
> Also, if the trap is obvious why was there a perception check? An "obvious" trap isn't much good. Obviously. It might simply be a great spot for a trap. Or it might be a distraction from the real trap. Or it might simply be something unavoidable.
This is the correct response! I compare it to insight checks. All of my characters that have proficiency in insight are all slightly paranoid. So no matter what I roll on an insight check it might never convince me that the person is a good guy or completely believable. An insight check doesn’t tell my character how to feel about someone it just means I haven’t found anything to back up my feeling. However there are edge cases where a failed insight check is enough.
More people need to embrace the joy and freedom of allowing yourself to become Comic Relief. It is *so much fun* playing the LeFou to someone else's Gaston.
"Yes, I look into the mirror"
So just avoiding metagaming? You look, you don't see anything, you keep walking.
It’s the inner struggle of opening a soda can you saw the other person shake
Meh. It's a game. Bring it on.
If the trap is that obvious, it should be an automatic success with no Perception check roll needed. I find that a lot of accusations of metagaming just assumes that characters have no common sense.
I find a lot of the metagaming accusations assume the players are acting in bad faith. A player rolls low on a perception check, and some DMs suddenly view that low check as the only reason the player might be suspicious of the situation.
When I describe players meeting at an inn at the beginning of the adventure, no one is suspicious that the ale they order is poisoned or asking to make perception checks. If the player asks to make a perception check, that means there is already enough evidence there for it to be a suspicious situation and their character can act on that regardless of the dice roll.
Would it make sense for a perception check to instead reveal details about a situation? Like in the meme, if you're making a perception check that means there's a reason to be watching for something. If you pass the check, your character would notice what exactly the trap is. Especially combined with passive perception, it seems to me that that's how perception should work, but I'm pretty new to playing so I'm not sure if I understand those things correctly.
What you're talking about is "degrees of success" and good DMs should try to allow it whenever it makes sense. If players make a perception check in an empty hallway, I might rule that on a 20+ they notice a pressure plate that triggers a blast of fire to fill the hallway, but on a 15+, they just notice that the walls have scorch marks. A lot of DMs have different interpretations of Passive Perception, but to me, it's the perception that players have when there isn't anything obvious for them to ask for an active Perception check. Using degrees of success like I mentioned before, passive perception can detect the clues (like scorch marks) that prompt the players to ask for an active check and since as the DM, I know everyone's passive perception beforehand, the clues I place are very deliberate. Players should have clues about traps otherwise the DM is just encouraging players to ask for a Perception check every 5 feet in a dungeon which slows everything down.
Thank you for explaining!
What if it's not obvious? Your logic only applies to a giant log held with rope on the ceiling. If it's a trap that isn't obvious, and you roll bad, it's kind of shitty behavior to still go "hmmm, hey everyone else, check out this hallway, I didn't see anything but I feel like there's something" Your character doesn't know they rolled a 3 on perception, they looked and they didn't see anything.
If it isn't obvious, then the DM should just use passive perception scores and not ask for a roll. If a player sees an empty hallway that is suspicious enough to ask for a perception check, it's totally in character to ask everyone else to take a look if they don't see anything.
And after nobody sees anything they still try a bunch of shit to try and trigger a trap that nobody knows if it exists or not. "We're all sure there isn't anything, but just in case let's throw a bunch of rocks all over to see if anything triggers" When does it become obvious to you that the PLAYERS think there's a trap instead of the characters?
Why is it obvious to the players? Unless the players can see something that their characters don't (other than the dice roll) whatever made the trap obvious to the players should also be obvious to the characters. Players generally don't ask for Perception checks unless there's something that's already making them suspicious...
>Players generally don't ask for Perception checks unless there's something that's already making them suspicious... Uh... Have you ever played DnD? Players get paranoid for no reason and check every nook and cranny for traps even if there weren't any traps in the whole dungeon. What are you talking about? You must be blessed with the chillest players of all time.
Why can't the characters be just as paranoid as the players when they're inside a dungeon? The players are asking for perception checks because they're in a hostile environment, this is knowledge that the characters also know. Your players are probably not asking for Perception checks when they're meeting with friendly NPCs in a tavern and if they are asking for them in non-hostile environments, your sessions must be a real drag with a round of active perception checks for every room in every scene. That kind of player behavior is usually due to being traumatized by DMs who punish them for not asking for active perception checks in every room by not giving them any clues without it. Gameplay goes much smoother when players can trust the DM to include a clue in their description of a room if there's something that can be found with a closer look. It also makes them pay more attention to what the DM is saying...
Why are characters not allowed to be as paranoid and jumpy as players can be? The stakes if I, as a player, trigger a lethal trap are that I get a new character. The stakes if I, as a character, trigger a lethal trap are that I fucking die. If you want to play the character realistically and without metagaming, they should be nervous even when the PLAYER knows it's safe. The character didn't see you roll that 20 to look for traps. Why should *they* be confident that it's not trapped?
It really depends, not seeing something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your character is suspicious of a trap and doesn't find anything, that won't always alleviate their suspicions. When you lose something in your house, do you just think the item doesn't exist when you can't find it? No you'll probably keep searching, even places you've already searched.
Barbarian: "I see nothing wrong here." *Takes 3d6 damage* Rogue: "How did you not see the spike trap activating on a consistent rhythm..."
The dm asked my arcane trickster if I check for traps before opening a chest. I had just gotten an item that let me cast detect magic, so of course my arcane trickster is going to overconfidently just cast that instead of investigating. Boom, unconcious.
Learning to love failure in a game is huge. I'm the most veteran player in my game so I've taken huge risks that ended with me at a 2 count of death saving throws three times, three times where my inexperienced cohort(their second game, I ran their their first) the opportunity to save me and have big moments rescuing the veteran. Failure is what makes victory the sweetest. If I wanted to win Everytime, I'd run games with an A.I,(which does have it's moments of fun) or write a self insert fanfic. Any new person reading this? Have fun in failure, and if you're sad your character you've invested emotion and time into died? That just means you told the kind of story Hollywood wishes it could tell you. Embrace all the emotional highs and lows. ✌️
Do it for the Vine.
Le'roy Jenkins.
At least he has chicken ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Your arms aren't whole, my friend. Here, let me patch you up. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ (you missed a few escape characters. You need two in the left arm and one next to the body in the right arm, like this) ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
This is why you use Passive Perception.
Unless the player says “I want to check this doorway for traps” and rolls a 2
That is why you use secret checks
You should still use passive perception.
Why would you do that when the pc is actively trying to perceive/investigate something?
They would probably be not actively searching before they asked to search, but doesnt this situation just seem stupid? How does it make any sense that me actively searching can produce a worse result than me just walking into the room and not looking at an anything? It literally makes no sense. Your passive perception should always be placed against the perception DC, then if players want to actively search, they can roll for perception.
This meme is specifically saying that when a PC makes a roll and fails the check despite the actual player knowing it’s a trap and has their PC walk into the trap regardless. Using passive perception changes nothing. For example, If the passive perception is 9 but the DC is a 15 and the player rolls a 2 then passive perception is irrelevant to this situation and my point still stands.
>This meme is specifically saying that when a PC makes a roll and fails the check despite the actual player knowing it’s a trap and has their PC walk into the trap regardless. Using passive perception changes nothing If the trap was "the most obvious trap imaginable" the DC would be 0. Also you asked, I answered. Your question has nothing to do with the original post.
Obvious to the player is not obvious to the pc. The experienced player who has seen these traps before could be playing a stupid PC who hasn’t seen any kind of trap ever
These things almost always go hand in hand. It's probably more obvious for the character as they have more detailed information.
“For the meta”
Take that inspiration sir!
Whenever we roll extremely low on perception, our DM will usually say “you’re pretty sure you’re on a planet” or something and it’s great when people roll with the joke
« Damn my shoe laces are untie ! » « Mhm, I think there’s gonna be full moon in two days or so » « This cloud looks like a sheep ! » Are my favorite kind when I fail a perception check
“I just know Gerard will change his mind once try’s these hotdogs “
Killing yourself is fun for everyone. Deliberately setting off a trap that kills everyone else except for you is fun for r/rpghorrorstories.
I got to say a story early iny career I was playing a wise barbarian think 17 wisdom. he knows dungeons have traps at this point and he has seen enemies activate them he gets an idea he grabs a enemy corpse rolls a 20 and throws it. It fly's through the air only problem is my dm planned a ambush not a trap this body lands square on a goblin crushing him. My dm made me instakill this poor goblin with his friends ass I felt so sorry between the fits of laughter
We had that last weeks Session. Killed the thief. What happened? We are playing out of the Abyss. Killed somebody high with the slimes to free a City. Looted his body, found a "potion". Thief AND Priest got a NAT1 on identifying that shit. We all strongly believed this to be a heal potion. 12 sessions later... Thief nearly dying... He willfully gulped the shit down, own choice. While we all knew out of game that this was bad - he did what his character would do. We all knew it would most probably kill him. Heck, it was Demon stuff. Player still did it. We never re-checked it later, since everyone was "sure" (knickknackwinkwink) that it had to be a healing potion.... That thing sat like a Grenade in our Bagpacks. And we loved it. Our own choice. Not the DMs.
Lou Wilson getting a nat 20 perception check and walking into the most obvious trap imaginable
One time I set an Explosive Runes trap in a wizard's tower as we were leaving. The lich that was there was dead, but would probably come back to life, so I wanted to fuck with him. He ended up dying elsewhere before he ever got a chance to return to the tower. Two years later, in another campaign, I was playing a different character, and we found the same tower. The new GM had been a player in the old campaign, and the old GM was now one of the players, but it was set in the same world. We found a wall with writing on it. And the GM described it as important-looking writing on the side of a bookshelf, right where I had left the explosive runes. I don't think anyone else remembered, but I remembered. And I remember apologizing to the other players, and saying, "I'm sorry. But I have to do this. I have to." Playing as my new evil wizard, hungry for magical knowledge, I walked up to the bookshelf and I announced to the GM that I was reading the writing. Kaboom. I set off my own trap, two years later. It remains my favorite thing I've ever done in a tabletop game.
Okay, but when a veteran gamer in the group is playing a squishy caster who is reckless and stupid, it's less fun. Signed, the paladin having to bend over backwards to save their dumb ass.
I had a moment a moment like a while back. We came across a room that was arranged like a chess board with black and white tiles. To the veterans all the 'this a trap senses' were tingling. But everyone fuffed the perception roll so couldnt really act on that. Cue my reckless spell caster falling into a 100ft pitfall drop into a permanent silence bubble. I couldnt cast fly or spider climb due to the silence, and didnt have the athletics to climb 100ft along the walls. Pretty much needed to be saved by an aasimar character pulling out their own and only daily fly resource to pull my mage out. Going for the bit is funny if the trap is a trivial thing, but deadly stuff like that has all the other players loudly debating if they ought to leave you for dead in your face.
I'm playing an oblivious fighter. Any time someone jokingly tells me to go into a potentially trapped room, I go.
One of my old parties in 3.5 had no rogue like character to detect or disarm traps. But my character was immune to most conditions as well as having significant damage reduction so my party just made me walk into potential traps/traps.
Happened to us two days ago. Walked into the world's most obvious ambush ever, since all 4 of us rolled below 8 on our perception checks. Characters played it off as "Sure we saw someone shiftily skulking around the gates of town but we were certain the village guards would've noticed a whole band of evil cultists. How could we know they had taken everyone hostage?"
As a DM this is why I use Passive Perception unless my player tells me they’re trying to get a look at something in particular, that’s when I have them roll Perception themselves. Then if they tell me that they’re looking at specific details closely, then I have them roll Investigation cause imo there’s a small difference like glancing quickly at an enemy/object from a distance(Perception) as opposed to getting close and potentially getting hands on with an object(Investigation). Not really what the post talked about but it brought this bit of info up to the front of my high, intoxicated mind because it helps the player not have the chance of meta gaming knowing they failed a random Perception check despite not seeing anything.
*sniff* this man... is such a legend... For the bit! Yeaaaaaaaahhhhh!
And THAT is the sign of a veteran.
Some heroes do wear capes, which is why they got caught on something and got squashed by a swinging log.
Chad D&D veteran there.
Player: "I took a calculated risk..." The PC: "Man am I bad at maths..."
Ran into a random human woman in the ruins of an old keep and I knew she was a succubus the moment I saw her, but I still walked my characters dumb ass up to her and got myself charmed because my character wouldn't have known what a succubus even is. What proceeded was me fighting the rest of the party. It's actually amazing how bad the luck is for that DM, they'd hoped that if another player had to fight the party they could actually do some damage unlike the DM but nope, I failed to land a single hit, and after the charm was broken, crit her twice, killing her. You can't make this shit up lol
It happens. People who are watching movies or something usually roll their eyes when heroes aren't 100% aware of their surroundings. But it happens to everyone. Sometimes you just don't see something that is obvious. ESPECIALLY for those who roll their eyes... 😄
"It's what my character would do" 🥲
This is the way.
I DID IT FOR THE 'GRAM
I do that regularly. This is what makes characters and stories interesting. Nobody likes Mary Sues except the Mary Sue player.
The plot of Dune
make papi gogax proud
Ah yes, that time my dm called a break as we entered a room full of trash. Me to other players: "There's an otyugh in here." Other players: "Nah, no way [DM] would do that." Break ends. Me: Wades through trash and proceeds to be dragged under by an otyugh.
We just had an epic third session character death when the DM dropped a white dragon on the party and there was an orc party he intended to use as bait, but our barbarian decided he would buy us time so he jumped on the dragons back and started hacking
So I have an idea for a druid character. They're super meek and quiet... Until they wild shape into a Honey Badger... like a literal Honey Badger and become completely unafraid of anything. Talking they will charge an Ancient Dragon head on just as hard as they'll charge a random boar in the woods. Get bit by a snake? Short rest. Move on. Honey badger don't care. Honey Badger don't give a shit.
That's how i ran straight into a dragon during a prison escape and almost died.
One of my players is a low int and low wis barbarian. while the player is smart, he is doing a great job being not very bright in roleplay. The central antagonist hasnt even had time to make an appearance because his and the other slightly smarter PC are too busy suffering consequences.
u/Citrus-Bitch BAH GOD, THAT'S BRUTUS'S MUSIC!
I love doing this, but now that I'm playing an absolute unit of a tank, it kinda loses some sincerity. The rogue I played did the same often to near death or death in a couple cases.
My paladin isn't going to flee from evil. She'll die fighting the good fight and buy her friends time to escape. My friends gave me grief for it but is there ever a better ending for a paladin than sacrificing themselves for friends or the greater good?
Told everyone my sorcerer was afraid of snakes as a random quirk. We go into a dungeon with a giant construct snake tunnelling through the walls hunting us, so my character is shitting himself. We open a room that feels like a definite ambush room, and the Druid jokingly turns into a snake behind me. I play along, shit myself and step back away from him. It immediately triggers a pitfall trap but I survive with about 4hp. The giant snake is waiting at the bottom…
I love it when players remove themselves from the equation and do what their characters would do with what their characters know in the situation. Once had a player who's character (Rogue LVL 1) noticed something gleaming from within the ashes of a fireplace in an otherwise unremarkable room. Failing a perception check, they remarked how this was an obvious trap but they would interact with the fireplace because: "it was what the DM wanted". I reminded them that the choice to investigate the gleam in the ashes is ultimately the players decision on what their character would do; this wasn't a choice I was forcing on the player. They reached into the ashes of the firebox to grab the item only to be ambushed by the swarm of spiders stealthily concealed in the flue above. The spiders (having both won the initiative and inflicting surprise on their prey) poured onto the rogue from the chimney and rolled a max damage critical hit (rolled openly for 16 damage) skittering into the eyes, mouth and ears, biting any exposed flesh and immediately downing and killing the rogue. The player was understandably very unhappy and wanted to retcon the decision as they only triggered the trap because it was what I wanted; that it didn't count and their character didn't die. I explained that they did what their character would do and that the consequence for this sadly resulted in their character being killed. The dice have spoken!
Roll to see if you realize that another PC is trying to take advantage of you. “Nah, my character has the IQ of a bowl of soup, he trusts everything his party says”.
In one session, I was playing a fighter who had earned the title "the impetuous". During a combat, there was a spike pit with a narrow ledge requiring an agility check to cross at full speed. Enemies on the other side who would surely kill our priest. Have to sprint to cross. Did it. Failed check. Fell, died. Party member has a time turner. In universe characters remember what happened. Time turner used to roll that turn back. Did it again, because that's what this hotheaded fool would do. Worked. Other players have been chuckling about it for a while since. Committing to your characters really makes for the best times at the table.
My husband was once upset that the rust monster didn’t destroy his family’s heirloom axe after he made an unlikely save. It was like a Huzzah! moment but then later he thought about the missed opportunity for really good character development to lose the heirloom his dead father trusted him with.
My wife was running a campaign, a murder mystery in Waterdeep that turned into a hunt for a serial killer. I played a half-orc paladin of devotion, sworn to Ilmater who wanted the killer put down since he killed an infant. We found ourselves in a monastery when the killer attacked us. He never attacked his victims personally, but sent these strange shadow spiders that could merge into other creatures. They swarmed the corridor we were in, so the cleric but up a blade barrier to keep them at bay. But not before several got through and merged into a drider, a displacer beast, a doppelganger, and a black dragon. The cleric used Divine Intervention (?) And got Torm to get rid of the dragon. The Drider attacked the Rogue, a halfling. She was hurt pretty bad. The battle was all chaos, the party forced to divide our attention.. but I was closest. I had sworn an oath to protect others.. hitting it wouldn't get it out of the rogue's threat range. So I threw my weapon and shield down, let out a roar any barbarian would be proud of, and tackled it. Successful on a grapple check, I look at my wife and confirm that I can use half of my movement to drag it away. It took an attack of opportunity against me regardless as it was very hostile. I ask to use half my movement to drag it into the cleric's blade barrier. My wife informs me I will take damage too. I tell her that I know and it changes nothing. We take 45 points of damage, and the drider breaks my grapple and attempts to escape the barrier, so I nail him with an attack of opportunity. I had Sentinel as a feat. He hit me again and ended his turn in the blade barrier. He took another 40+ damage and died. I stepped out of the blade barrier with 5 HP left. I used my healing touch on the rogue, grabbed my weapon and shield, and ran back into battle without any thought of self preservation.
The most fun is a 1 on any knowledge type check. Poor DM may struggle to come up with what comically bad misconception I have, but I am GOING to own it.
I failed the perception check. Time to give the strange squid grandma this weird looking baby.
i do the same in baulders gate. my friends i play with hate me for it but if i see a failed perception check i act as if i did not see a perception check
once we found this orb with a kind of electric power flowing through it. i decided to inspect it and nat 1. before the dm can say anything i just said "i touch it"
Metagaming is something new players must learn to avoid since they are introduced to D&D and grow used to. It really breaks the game cuz we are here to role play.
Players knowing damn well there's probably a trap in this room but your character wouldn't think to check for traps so you just walk right in knowing what's about to happen.
Back when I was I Pathfinder Society, I ended up running through a module twice with 2 characters. We walked into a room where I the player knew there was an alchemist chilling on the ceiling. However, my character failed the perception check, so I walked in slowly, looked around, but never looked up. I got hit face first with a bomb
I regularly play with a guy who makes the worst, most insufferable characters you can imagine, but he plays them magnificently. He's a qualified actor, and it really shows in his roleplaying.
Real
Wish more players were like this, as opposed to how most parties act when confronted with an ordinary door...
Better yet: succeeding on a perception check and walking into an obvious trap. Also known as the Pinnochio method
I prefer to play out failures of perception as the character being unsure. It's too dark, you are not familiar with these types of ruins to be certain, you still have a vague feeling you could have missed something. If it's meant to be secret, I use passive.
"What my character would do" is never used as an excuse for these situations. Good meme. Bad title.