Goodman Games

What ability goes with spotting things? Immediately we can through out Strength, Agility and Stamina.

Intelligence makes the most sense in terms of being able to put two-and-two together but the myopic wizard is such a staple of fantasy that it just seems wrong to use Intelligence (and weird to use Intelligence but give Wizards a penalty to perception checks due to their patrons or something).

Personality is a perfect stat for social perception and might be the alternate ability to use when the perception involves noticing chitchat at the duke's table.

Ultimately, since thieves love luck and noticing a random detail involves luck, Luck seems to be the best ability to go with perception check. And the beauty of using Luck is you don't have to explicitly give thieves a bonus to perceiving things (beyond the class die ) since Luck takes care of it.

From the Free RPG Day adventure:

Observant characters (DC 12 Intelligence check) notice...

The Free RPG Day adventure is wrong.

jmucchiello wrote:What ability goes with spotting things? Immediately we can through out Strength, Agility and Stamina.

According to page 53 (bottom right) the Key Abililty is Intelligence.

Searching and spotting: Intelligence

Talking in [3.X] terms, Wisdom describes Perception/Intuition and Willpower: in DCC Perception/Intuition merge into Intelligence, Willpower merges into Personality.

I know what the book says. And I know how 3e works. The flaw with bringing 3e into the equation is that 3e has no luck ability. DCCRPG does. My post was a suggestion to make a CHANGE to the rules. Comment on that. Isn't Luck a better fit for perception checks? Or not? Why or why not? Discuss.

jmucchiello wrote:I know what the book says. And I know how 3e works. The flaw with bringing 3e into the equation is that 3e has no luck ability. DCCRPG does. My post was a suggestion to make a CHANGE to the rules. Comment on that. Isn't Luck a better fit for perception checks? Or not? Why or why not? Discuss.

Intelligent people are usually more perceptive, observant and cautious? I don't know. I think Intelligence works better than luck.

Luck has less to do with noticing things and more to do with getting by even though you didn't notice something, imo.

Mr. Magoo had a huge ass luck score.

From a design standpoint, one could argue that Intelligence runs the risk of being a "dump stat" and that Luck already has a significant impact on the character. Coming up with more for Intelligence would balance the stats out somewhat, and since perception seems like it could fit either category I'd pick Intelligence.

From a design perspective, it makes more sense for Perception-type checks to be Intelligence based. It makes Intelligence useful for characters of all classes. Extra languages are alright, but they don't provide the same type of general utility provided by the other stats. Luck figures into lots of subsystems already. If this useful feature of a high Intelligence were to be removed from the game, players of Warriors, Thieves, Clerics, Dwarves and Halflings might believe a good score in Intelligence to be a waste of a good roll. I suppose that doesn't break the game or anything, but I like there to be some kind of mechanical benefit to running a smart character.

Perception checks and search, etc, IMHO, were the worst parts of 3x/4e. As a Judge, you'd either see it if I want you to, or you don't. This is old-school, tried and true. If your character looks for it, they find it, but you have to be deliberate in how and what you're looking for. This especially if it makes or breaks the adventure, such as if there happens to be a key plot device hidden behind that "secret door". I got these tenets from playing Trail of Cthulhu based on Robin Law's Gumshoe system. Applying the principles of that system is easy with DCC because occupations dictate a vague number of "skills" and if you're skilled, you're considered competent. (and another reason why I want thief abilities to be separate from a general "skill" or ability check.) All abilities scores (and therefore skills) are used for in these checks is to spotlight different characters. The guy with the highest Strength will bust open the door (eventually, right? So why bother rolling.) The guy with highest Personality will be able to woo the White Queen in to hiring them (if he doesn't say the wrong things,) etc. It's a style of play, and it's not for everyone. But it works, it's fast and why I like skill-less D&D why I still like the skill systems like Gumshoe. Randomness is good when things are chaotic, or when a "chance" of failure is good for the story (like disabling a trap!)

reverenddak wrote:Perception checks and search, etc, IMHO, were the worst parts of 3x/4e. As a Judge, you'd either see it if I want you to, or you don't. This is old-school, tried and true.

Oh, I'm not sure about this. I've run perception checks since the 1970's (I usually use Wisdom in OD&D for it) but I use it as a reaction to the action of a player. If they decide to seach for something I ask for a perception check. I don't see at all how "you'd either see it if I want you to, or you don't" is old school.

reverenddak wrote:If your character looks for it, they find it, but you have to be deliberate in how and what you're looking for. This especially if it makes or breaks the adventure, such as if there happens to be a key plot device hidden behind that "secret door". I got these tenets from playing Trail of Cthulhu based on Robin Law's Gumshoe system.

Gumshoe is a well-written game system, but keep in mind that it was designed for investigation-style adventures and not necessarily dungeon crawls. In a dungeon, if you miss finding a secret door you can always return and look for it again later. Unless the adventure is really linear, a secret door normally isn't a "key plot device."

In all pre 3x/4e editions Elves were able to spot Secret Doors without specifically looking, yes there was a 2 in 6 chance, but they still we able to do so without deliberately looking. While everyone else had a 1 in 6 chance, IF THEY LOOK. While searching for treasure for example, if they didn't rifle through those musty cloaks on the wall they wouldn't find the pearls. If they don't study the workman ship of a fountain, they won't find the loose flagstone at the base hiding a key, etc. If that's not old-school, I don't know what is. There wasn't a DC to be checked. That's that way I like to play, again it's fast an accomplishes the same thing. But it's more thematic and engaging.

3x/4e created this, "I search the room" a d20 already rolling across the table.
"Where do you look?"
"That 10 x 10 area"
"You find nothing"
"Ok, I take a 20."

I'm not a huge fan of perception checks either, but I sometimes use it to determine how many turns it takes to find something. However, I'm not going to be mad if the rules suggest a way to do perception checks, as many people like to use them.

That being said, I would probably allow the character to use their INT or Luck, whichever was better. I often do that sort of thing, saying things like "make a survival check, or let me know if you have something else you think would be suitable for this task". I really like player/DM negotiation in my games.

Also, Marv, how can there be a "dump stat" when you roll 3d6 in order? Perhaps my understanding of the term is off?

... I should assume that DCC will be going the way of perception checks. Intelligence makes more sense to me, because sometimes we're dealing with a "trained eye", which implies "ability or skill" as opposed to luck.

jmucchiello wrote:I know what the book says. And I know how 3e works. The flaw with bringing 3e into the equation is that 3e has no luck ability. DCCRPG does. My post was a suggestion to make a CHANGE to the rules. Comment on that. Isn't Luck a better fit for perception checks? Or not? Why or why not? Discuss.

Luck ends where Wisdom begins.

reverenddak wrote:In all pre 3x/4e editions Elves were able to spot Secret Doors without specifically looking, yes there was a 2 in 6 chance, but they still we able to do so without deliberately looking. While everyone else had a 1 in 6 chance, IF THEY LOOK.

To find a door with 2 in 6 chance, Elves had to search for it.
Only Gygax in AD&D stated they could notice it without looking for it (in Holmes they just sense for it, and sensing is not finding).

Holmes's Basic D&D, page 10: If elves pass by a secret door or passage, roll a six-sided die and a 1 or 2 means they sense something there. If the party is searching for a secret door then an elf will locate it on a roll of 1 to 4.
Moldvay's Basic D&D, page B9: When looking for secret or hidden doors, Elves are able to find them 1/3 of the time.
Mentzer's Basic D&D, page 46: If your elf character wants to search for hidden doors in the area, tell your DM.
Gygax's AD&D PHB, page 16: Merely passing within 10' of the latter makes an elven character 16 213% (1 in 6) likely to notice it. If actively searching for such doors, elven characters are 33 1/3% (2 in 6) likely to find a secret door and 50% likely (3 in 6) to discover a concealed portal.

But what about the bumbling wizard meme? I know a lot of really intelligent people who are surprised to notice their nose every now and then. Noticing stuff has nothing to do with brain processing power.

For a few years in the late 80s we actually added a new ability called perception just to solve this issue. I think the addition of appearance in the UA made the idea of adding a 7th ability (no, we didn't use appearance) palatable.

[quote=finarvyn]From a design standpoint, one could argue that Intelligence runs the risk of being a "dump stat" [/quote]
Dump stat? You would roll your abilities scores and then assign the numbers to the abilities? For shame.

Actually, the dump stat answer is about the only one I'll buy.

Hamel™ wrote:

jmucchiello wrote:I know what the book says. And I know how 3e works. The flaw with bringing 3e into the equation is that 3e has no luck ability. DCCRPG does. My post was a suggestion to make a CHANGE to the rules. Comment on that. Isn't Luck a better fit for perception checks? Or not? Why or why not? Discuss.

Luck ends where Wisdom begins.

reverenddak wrote:In all pre 3x/4e editions Elves were able to spot Secret Doors without specifically looking, yes there was a 2 in 6 chance, but they still we able to do so without deliberately looking. While everyone else had a 1 in 6 chance, IF THEY LOOK.

To find a door with 2 in 6 chance, Elves had to search for it.
Only Gygax in AD&D stated they could notice it without looking for it (in Holmes they just sense for it, and sensing is not finding).

Holmes's Basic D&D, page 10: If elves pass by a secret door or passage, roll a six-sided die and a 1 or 2 means they sense something there. If the party is searching for a secret door then an elf will locate it on a roll of 1 to 4.
Moldvay's Basic D&D, page B9: When looking for secret or hidden doors, Elves are able to find them 1/3 of the time.
Mentzer's Basic D&D, page 46: If your elf character wants to search for hidden doors in the area, tell your DM.
Gygax's AD&D PHB, page 16: Merely passing within 10' of the latter makes an elven character 16 213% (1 in 6) likely to notice it. If actively searching for such doors, elven characters are 33 1/3% (2 in 6) likely to find a secret door and 50% likely (3 in 6) to discover a concealed portal.

Geeze, you're just being nit-picky. All those examples are practically the same the thing. Elves get a free check, everyone else has to actively search. Sensing one is practically finding it.

Rev. Dak's House-rules, page XX: If there is just a random bit of treasure behind a secret door, and they don't specifically look for it, they don't find it. If there is a plot device of some sort, that is required for some reason later down the line an Elf, who is most likely to find secret doors, will find it immediately if he looks, and if his Intelligence is 13+ they'll sense something without actively looking.

jmucchiello wrote:The Free RPG Day adventure is wrong.

I'm looking forward to Joseph weighing in, but for my 2 cp, I think you're right. Consider:

We want players to think through their searches (ala, "I test all the cracks in the wall." "Nothing." "Okay, do I feel a breeze?").

Then, when the player has "failed" we can default to a Luck roll with a varying DC.

So ideally, an area description with a hidden X would also call out 3 or 4 clues that the players could come across while describing their search. And when that fails, maybe they get lucky.

//H

Harley Stroh wrote:
We want players to think through their searches (ala, "I test all the cracks in the wall." "Nothing." "Okay, do I feel a breeze?").

Then, when the player has "failed" we can default to a Luck roll with a varying DC.

So ideally, an area description with a hidden X would also call out 3 or 4 clues that the players could come across while describing their search. And when that fails, maybe they get lucky.

//H

This is pretty much what I'm talking about, up until the Luck check at the end. I haven't read through Luck enough to understand how it works, but if it's used like this example I find that satisfactory and fits the current "SKILLS" section in the Beta under "When Not To Make A Skill Check". And makes Luck totally appropriate as the "search" check.

Which isn't to say that every time the PCs don't find something they all get to roll on their Luck. But perhaps, if a player has missed some clues, yet his PC is ardently searching, I might secretly roll against his Luck to see if something turns up.

Player: Anything on the walls? I try the cracks, the seams, the mortar. I know there has to be something! My dwarf can smell the gold!

Judge: (Secret Luck roll.) You still don't find anything, but as you take a step back in frustration you trip over the lip of an irregular block, set into the floor.

//H

Aplus wrote:Also, Marv, how can there be a "dump stat" when you roll 3d6 in order? Perhaps my understanding of the term is off?

My concept of "dump stat" is a stat which serves no real purpose in the game so players can dump bad rolls into it. True, the DCC rpg requires rolls in order so you can't intentionally dump into a particular stat, but even in-order rolls might be dump stats. In DCC this comes about because you start with multiple characters, so some numbers may randomly fall into better slots than others.

Consider two 0-level characters who were rolled with stats like these:
#1: 10, 10, 10, 10, 8, 15.
#2: 10, 10, 10, 10, 15, 8.

The first guy has a 15 luck with an 8 Intelligence, while the second has an 8 luck with a 15 intelligence. If one character has a significant advantage over the other, there is a "dump stat" effect going on.

A well-designed game will have advantages to all of the attributes, and things that each of the attributes can contribute to the character. If luck is really cool and intelligence stinks, it's important to come up with ways that intelligence can impact the game more. Otherwise you fall into the "high INT is a wizard because otherwise it's wasted" trap. If a character has a high INT, for example, there ought to be some reason why it's not dumb to play another class. Can't you have a smart fighter? Not likely unless INT does something.

Going back to my example two characters. If you look at them and intentionally throw #2 into the front of the party just so maybe #1 can survive, then INT is a dump stat.

Just my two cents.

reverenddak wrote:Elves get a free check, everyone else has to actively search. Sensing one is practically finding it.

Not always, just in Holmes and AD&D.

In BD&D, it is an act of will and not an automatic thing.

Hamel™ wrote:

reverenddak wrote:Elves get a free check, everyone else has to actively search. Sensing one is practically finding it.

Not always, just in Holmes and AD&D.

In BD&D, it is an act of will and not an automatic thing.

Seriously dude? Then there is a 3 in 6 chance that I'm right. Or 50% if you prefer percentages. It's only an example of a point I'm trying to make.

Even Grognardling gets it, he wrote about it yesterday: http://grognardling.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... elude.html

My beef with using Luck for checks to notice things because it seems applicable is that it is applicable to almost all checks.

Trying to bluff - Luck could apply.
Trying to climb - Luck could apply.
Trying to hide unnoticed - Luck could apply
How many hit points you get per level - Luck could apply.
Hitting the Ogre with your sword - Luck could apply.

All of those things could be influenced by luck. In DCC you can burn luck to do so or your luck is automatically applied if you have the right auspice.

The GM using Luck checks as a last ditch effort to keep the players from missing something cool seems to be an appropriate use of it though.

Check out this thread at RPG.NET for an interesting discussion (not system specific) about Perception in RPGs.

I would just use :
Intelligence - when you're actively searching/looking around/trying to listen to something
Luck - when you're not

Personality - when you're trying to see if the guy's hiding something/is nervous/is a disguised spy