Ritualistic Design

I've been thinking lately about a type of game mechanic or procedure which I'm going to call 'ritualistic design'. By that, I mean a case where the game or gamemaster calls for an action that superficially seems to have a purpose, but actually has no impact on the way the game plays out. A common example of this is the Perception check. Probably everyone reading this has experienced the situation of a GM saying "make a Perception roll", but you know that no matter what you roll the GM is going to give you roughly the same information - or if you fail your roll, another player will "check Perception" and so on until someone rolls high and the GM gets to tell you the thing that they wanted to tell you anyway.

Incidents like these are often seen as failures of design. Many people dismiss Perception checks as pointless. It's bad enough that they waste your precious gaming time on something that doesn't really matter. But also there's a feeling of fakeness that many players react against. It feels wrong to be offered a choice, or made to roll a die, only to realise later that there was actually only one possible outcome. It's like a tiny version of the Quantum Ogre.

I'm definitely one of the GMs who prefers not to use Perception checks in my games. But looking more broadly, I wonder if we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a game action just because it "doesn't matter" in the grand scheme of things. Here's another example: asking the players "Who's carrying the torch?" as they enter a dungeon. This information might be relevant once in a while. Often it's not. But even if it never affects the game state, it's still an effective way of conveying to the players that they're entering a pitch-black environment - something that might otherwise be handwaved and forgotten.

You could just say "The cave is pitch black. You light your torch, but it sheds scanty light upon the darkness..." But involving the players in the descriptive process gives it more weight, makes it tactile.

Let's go back to Perception checks for a moment. In their "always succeed" mode, they can waste a few minutes of game time but are ultimately harmless. The real problems arise when the GM doesn't realise that what they're doing is a ritualistic technique. They call for a Perception check, everyone fails, and now the adventure can't move forward because the PCs didn't fight the specific clue they needed. The GM thinks the Perception roll is actually part of the game, not just colour.

So this is my recommendation for game designers: don't write off a game mechanic just because it "doesn't matter". Ask yourself if it's effective at setting the mood, engaging the players, developing the world... all sorts of things that don't involve directly affecting the course of the game. If you do use a mechanic in a ritualistic way, be honest about it. Let the GM know: "Everyone should make a Perception check here; the highest check will notice [blah]". Maybe that's a bad mechanic and maybe it's not, but at least if you phrase it that way then everyone can see what it's doing.