I noticed that the DMG and the PHB doesn't explicitly say that passive checks must be used all the time. The PHB states that they "can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice" The DMG mentions passive checks under the trap section, but it also says that actions are needed.
Because of this wording, I've seen 5e games played very differently. Some DMs only use passive checks to provide clues and then leave it up to the players to declare actions. Other DM's use passive checks for trap finding.
It's important to note that most of the traps in the DMG have a DC of 10. This means that if you exlusively use passive checks the party will automatically disocver most of the traps in the dungeon. In addition, it will always be the same people finding everything. There won't ever be a chance that the underdog in the party or the guy who rolled a lower ability score at character creation will shine.
Personaly, I would only ever use a passive check if it made sense to do so and it was a non-dangerous situation. I think that using passive checks for trap discovery takes away from the random and unexpected nature of the game.
Anyway how to do use passive checks?
If I were going to change it.... and wanted to put some effort into the process...
I think I would use the Passive to notice 'something', if the players followed up I would call for one of them to make an 'active' check, with some sort of bonus depending on how many others noticed and/or were willing to help.
The problem with letting everyone check, is sheer numbers will turn the difficult into the easy. I would also use the same process for secret doors, or animal signs, or whatever else, so the players didn't know what was happening.
dmgorgon wrote:
Yes, I understand it's the average result, but for me the game isn't about averages. In fact, you just don't roll enough for those averages to be realized until several sessions have passed. IMO, unlikely results and situations are what make the game fun, at least for me anyway.
Now, I could accept a Passive check revealing something unusual about a corridor, but I would still require an action on the part of the player and ask for another check or a detailed description of what the character is doing. For example, if the PC finds a small hole in the wall via his passive check. He might assume it's a secret door or a peep hole and not a trap. So until he actualy makes a find traps action/roll to search for the presure plate that activates the jet of flame, I'm not going to reveal it as a trap. The DMG also says "Usually, some element of a trap is visible to careful inspection. IMO, a passive check is not the same thing as careful inspection, and yet some DMs are playing that way.
To be frank, I think that the mechanics for passive checks comes from a bad assumption: That every action requires a check. After all, a passive check is just a task done repeatedly, right? If you think it does, then it makes sense from a useability standpoint to implement passive checks so that you're not spamming checks all session. Instead, just compare the one number to the DC or to the opposed roll and narrate the result.
But as I understand the D&D 5e paradigm, actions are checks only when the DM decides the outcome is uncertain. The DM decides unilaterally whether an action succeeds, fails, or is uncertain enough to warrant a check. So if I am using a passive Perception check, for example, aren't I just saying that every attempt by the characters to notice hidden danger is uncertain? I don't think it is and I think it's unfair to the players to say so because it fails to take their approach and the circumstances into sufficient enough consideration in my view. If not every action is a check, then what exactly is this mechanic actually doing for me? How is it helping me achieve the goals of play? Short answer: It doesn't. And in my games it probably needs to go.
In your case, you seem to buy into the idea that an action calls for a check pretty much all the time, based on what you're saying in your post. Therefore, I don't see why you'd have a problem with passive Perception outside of the opinion that the passive check is somehow less careful than an active one. I don't think the rules on passive checks support that opinion.
Well, whatever the book says, I see (& use) PP as a defensive value like AC.
As Iserith mentions, it doesn't neatly fit 5E's design paradigm bc not every in-game activity requires a check.
However, if I have an ambush or want to have an enemy sneak past a player, I have a fair target number I need to hit to see if my baddies can pull off the sneak. Or to see if my trap goes unnoticed.
Let's say I have a group of adventurers. They're taking their time making their way through a maze. One of them is scouting enemies, another is searching for traps or other useful things like secret doors. Now, I can ask for rolls and use those values, or I can flip it and roll myself against their SOPs.
Basically, until they declare a specific action (like, I check under this rug for a trapdoor), I'll be using the passive values as target numbers for the SOPs.
Also useful to note that in the Starter Set adventure, in the hideout in town, there are some things that have a different DC for a passive check than an active check to notice. That's another way of doing things, though generally I think traps should be noticeable in some way unless the PCs are being reckless. Noticing a trap doesn't mean you are going to survive it, and its when something about the trap is noticed that things become interesting.
In my game, the only thing I consistently use passive perception for is when monsters are trying to hide from PCs and the PCs don't know it.
iserith wrote:
According to the PHB they are called scores rather than checks. That's because no dice are rolled. Is the PP of a character or characters higher than the set DC? That's the only check that is done.
I find them useful for characters to notice things without doing an active check and also because it gives Wisdom a real use besides for clerics. Sneaky rogues, hidden doors, clues etc.
What I don't like about them is that the same character finds everything. I like the idea given in a prior post to use them to notice 'something' and then the player narrates how they actively discern exactly what.
On another note, what do people think of using the PP as a "minimum result" for active Wisdom (Perception) checks?
I think that is to make sure an active Perception check is always better than a passive Perception score. It is possible for a character to roll a lower active check than they have passive score, which may seem counterintuitive.
Edit: the question above has been edited, so my response is that I have no problem with using a minimum score but it's not necessary. A check result that is less than a passive score could be explained a number of ways (too much to drink the night before, being in the wrong part of the room to see the trap/door/whatever, just completely missed it for some inexplicable reason like when I can't see something in the pantry that is right in front of me). Sometimes things in peripheral vision (passive Perception) are more distracting than those in full view (active Perception), which might explain a check getting a lower result.
El_Condoro wrote:
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
The description of Passive Checks on p. 175 is fairly clear IMO: you use them to represent repetitive checks or when you don't want the players to know a check is being made i.e. no dice are rolled.
If you ask the player to make a Percpetion check, he or she will assume there is something to perceive (they might be wrong, but normally) so you check their passive Perception score against a set DC - if it's higher, the character perceives something. If not, they are none the wiser (until they make an active attempt by describing their actions).
lawrencehoy wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
At level 1, a Rogue with Expertise in Perception and 14 Wisdom (could even be 16 if they're dedicated radar) has a Perception modifier of:
2 (ability mod)+2(proficiency)+2(expertise).
At best they fail on a roll of 3 or below. As soon as they hit lvl 5, however, that's +8, or +9 for radar. Behold, traps rendered spotted, passive or otherwise, at the low low level of 5.
Who cares? If the guy invests in finding things, why shouldnt he be finding them?
And if you're in a twist about it bc 5 is too low a level (or whatever), then raise the DC. They're not chiseled in stone.
To me a character's passive perception is just sort of a estimation of how aware they are when they are generally paying attention to their surroundings. In other words it isn't your "default awareness" for all situations, it's your awareness when your looking around but not specifically looking for something (commiting an action to make a Perception check). A few examples in our campaign:
- Character (or NPC) on watch = Passive Perception
- Character moving through a dangerous area (dungeon etc.) = Passive Perception
- Character looking for tracks at a crossroads = Perception check
- Character notice thugs enter the tavern while they are drinking, flirting, and planning with their allies = Passive Perception -5 for disadvantage
I feel that the intent (or at least how we use it) is that unless you are actively using your senses to detect something you are always in Passive Perception mode. In earlier editions I called for perception checks all the time. Now I just have a note with each character's Passive Perception (and +5 / -5 for advantage/disadvantage). I let people know what they hear, see, smell, based on these numbers and I select which (regular, advantage, or disadvantage) based on what they are telling me that they are doing.
- Fighter opens the door expecting trouble = Passive Perception with advantage
- Ranger at the back of the marching order = Passive Perception with advantage for things sneaking up behind (that's what he said he was looking out for), Passive Perception with disadvantage for things in front of the party
- Whole party actively discussing things while walking down the street = Passive Perception with disadvantage to notice the thugs in an alley
Anyway, at our table Passive Perception has eliminated dozens of unnecessary dice rolls that can normally only result in either you see "X" or "nothing". For me I always try and avoid having the players roll dice when one of the answers is going to be "nothing". That being said however, when I do call for a Perception check I always give information based on the roll, the closer to the DC the better the information (and even more info for beating the DC).
I heavily factor in what the players tell me their characters are doing when making determinations about what they may or may not precieve or be aware of. Even when determining their marching order I like to ask what they are doing or focusing on. Looking for an ambush, tracking a creature, looking for secret doors, rumaging through their gear, making plans with other characters, paying attention to their route or mapping. No one multi-tasks very well so I rarely allow Passive Perception to "see everything" that your score beats. In a recent session the warlock at the back of the party discovered the secret door even though all three of the characters ahead of him technically had a Passive Perception score that was high enough to detect it. However, the ranger leading the group was actively following a trail of blood and on the lookout for an ambush, the cleric and bard were discussing what to do when they found their quarry, and the warlock told me he was hanging back a bit and just staying aware of the party's surroundings.
Maybe not the specific intention of the rules but just my two cents worth.
Yunru wrote:
I think it is important to consider what your purpose is with respect to traps. I can think of a few:
a) verisimilitude -- i.e., it makes sense for the place the PCs are exploring to be defended with traps
b) depletion of party resources (hp, healing, time, whatever)
c) obstacles that could potentially be used tactically in battle by PCs or NPCs.
d) actual interesting challenges for players to explore, figure out, and overcome creatively.
Now, if the rationale is just (a), then it doesn't really matter if the traps are automatically discoverable or impossible to discover, or anything else. They are set pieces. If the reasion is (b), then I suppose it makes a difference if you want the depletion of resources to be randomized or not. I suppose with purpose (c) the basic passive perception / static DC thing might not totally kill the fun of the trap, though the trap has become something more like a terrain feature for tactical combat than a trap in the traditional sense. But if your goal is (d), then it really shouldn't go like this:
"oh, you notice a trap"
"Ah, okay. I disable it. [roll]"
"you succeed!" or "you fail, sorry, it explodes in your face dealing... [roll] x damage."
That doesn't seem, to me at least, like a very interesting use of traps. And so in my view, it doesn't really matter what the DCs or passive perception scores are, if that is how they are being used. Sure, you can vary things a little by seeing what the PCs are doing (moving hastily vs., say, prodding the floor with a 10 foot pole). But then, what are you really accomplishing? Imposing a cost for moving quickly might make sense if there is a really good reason for the party to move quickly, but other than that, it's just a 'gotcha' style annoyance.
Now, all of the above aside, remember that with passive scores, advantage and disadvantage is factored in with +/-5, and further that creatures have disadvantage on perception checks when their vision is lightly obscured. So combining a trap with something like fog or dim light can make a trap that otherwise would be guaranteed to be spotted more concealed -- but in this situation, its still basically a 'gotcha' type uninteresting trap unless the PCs have some ability to manipulate the disadvantage imposing condition. With some moving parts, I can see how that could be a sort of interesting use of the mechanics. And certainly, in the interests of having different sorts of tools in your DM toolbox, traps can be used this way sometimes if you think there are enough elements to the situation to make it an interesting challenge.
But otherwise, I think the better way to use traps is as I described above -- passive perception allows you to see what you see (and given DCs and passive perceptions, you could basically cut the passive perception check out of the equation unless its an actual variable that you want to use b/c of advantage/disadvantage imposing conditions). Recognizing it as a 'trap,' however, or how the trap might work or be disabled, is something the players need to figure out. Certain actions or ways of interacting with the trap might automatically disable it or automatically trigger it; other possible actions might automatically give the player more insight into how it works, while others might do so depending on the result of an associated investigation check.
Against the charge that this 'slows the game down,' I say that this *is* the game. These kinds of challenges are fun, require creativity, and give the players a sense of accomplishment when they overcome them in a way that I don't think occurs when everythign is reduced to a few numbers and (possibly) rolls of the die.
Finally, bracketing off everything else about passive perception and traps, passive perception scores still are pretty useful for resolving stealth/hide attempts.
Yunru wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I agree.... its kinda what I meant by 'if the PC decides to look around'..... but you fleshed out the situation much better than my throw-away line.
But yes, it should take some interactions with the player to get to the 'next stage'.
Question: When did Passive Perception become Passive Perception, Slight of Hand and Thieve's Tools?
Additionally:
"oh, you notice a trap""Ah, okay. I disable it. [roll]"
"you succeed!" or "you fail, sorry, it explodes in your face dealing... [roll] x damage."
That doesn't seem, to me at least, like a very interesting use of traps.
We are not addressing the disarming of the trap, just the finding of the trap. If the disarming is bland, thats a different issue.
And not just traps, the same concept works on secret doors, or hidden items, or hidden people.
Its a matter of not liking the static and binary nature of passive perception.
Psikerlord wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
But again: That's because you described it blandly. "You found a trap" vs "Small indents litter the far wall, and in the shadows needles glitter. The floor is uneven, perhaps intentionally."
Yunru wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Btw, does anyone recal how Rodney and Chris handle Passive checks for traps in 5e? I haven't watched all the live 5e streams.
dmgorgon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
iserith wrote:
One thing that Passive Perception has emphasized that is probably good from a story telling aspect is to imply that most things that are hidden in an adventure are meant to be found so that there are no road blocks.
Even if a DM gives clues to Passive Perception winners, all it really means is that the DM should think more about what needs to be "really hidden," and make that a DC 20 or more. For the most part, I think what WotC and Passive Perception is there for is to make it so that DMs can keep the story moving if players don't actively search. Not a bad idea although some of us may not use it as often as the rules state.
It is one step closer to encouraging DMs to go dice-less when they want to keep the story moving.
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
iserith wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
The "average result of a task done repeatedly" is the first representation of a passive check given on p.175 of the PHB; the other, which follows directly after that one is "when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something, without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster". Others have mentioned the first one as being pointless - and I agree with them (why not just roll, or narrate the result without any passive score check?) - leaving the second as its main utility IMO.
The purpose of a trap is exactly a kind of gotcha moment - not by the DM but by those who set it. There will be times when traps are more like puzzles or riddles but sometimes they will be out and out traps that should not be telegraphed. They should be avoidable - if the party is cautious - but a cleverly concealed pit trap at the intersection of corridors, that the party cannot detect passively, for example, kind of loses its purpose if the DM telegraphs its existence. It also takes responsiblity away from the players to roleplay their character's caution if they come to know the 'tone' or signs of a DM telegraphing a trap to them.
jonathonhawke wrote:
iserith wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
iserith wrote:
I use it to determine the character's general awareness, knowledge, or insight about certain situations. So a character with a high PP simply has a heightened awareness than someone without.
If they're not particularly focusing on looking for traps and their PP beats the trap's detection DC, then they find whatever aspect of the trap I wish to telegraph. If it doesn't, they don't. If they state they're sweeping for traps and their PP doesn't beat the DC, then they can make an active check to determine the pertinent info.
it makes it simpler for me and puts more responsibility on the players to be more descriptive when they're telling what actions they take.
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
Nah. "I roll Wisdom (perception)" doesn't tell me anything about what you're trying to do or how you go about it. What are you looking for, smelling for, hearing for? Where are you doing that? Moving around?
Expecting a roll because a player asked to make a roll gets things in the wrong order. I need to know what you're doing so I can check it against a DC/Auto-success/auto-fail. You want to make a roll without me as DM having the opportunity to adjudicate what you're doing? That won't work for me.
I know when I want to use the dice & task resolution system - and it isn't when a player asks to roll dice.
Please, in my group we make roll checks to check if we can roll checks. :P
bawylie wrote:
Yunru wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
iserith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
iserith wrote:
It seems that you want to roll-play, dmgorgon, and that's all well and fine. Most of us would rather role-play, is all.
If my player says, "I carefully inspect the latch of the chest for any discoloration that would indicate some sort of poison." Why would I make him roll to notice the contact poison on the latch when that's specifically what he's looking for?
"I oil the hinges of the window and let it soak in before I try to open it." I'm going to make him roll a Dexterity check now because I had set a DC 10 on the window strictly for that purpose? No.
Danny_Montanny wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
How does taking an extra 30 seconds to describe what you're doing in better detail grind the game to a halt? That IS the game. That's the player role playing! I would never begrudge a player that finds something like that fun.
iserith wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Dmgorgon, if you were a player and your DM told you and your group "Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies" would you care that it was a rules legal option for him to take, or would you be frustrated that it was a poor gameplay option for him to take?
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Passive perception is actually a good thing. It prevents this kind of playstyle:
DM: A long corridor expands out in front of you.
PC: I search immediately in front of me for traps
DM: You don't find any
PC: I take a step forward and search for traps
DM: You don't find any
PC: I take a step forward and search for traps
DM: You don't find any
PC: I take a step forward and search for traps
... etc.
That behavior, of course, is not the players' fault. It's a reaction to bad, "gotcha" writing on the part of a DM. I don't generally include a lot of traps, but when I do, they're generally of the puzzle variety, or extra hazards during combat. In my mind, the best traps are the ones the PCs solve, or they want to trigger; think the last half hour of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Unless it is physically challenging for a player to pick up and roll a die, then "adding in a die roll" does not in any way create a challenge. The challenge comes in listening to the DM describe the environment, engaging with it, and making good decisions to maximize your chances of success or to mitigate your losses if you fail. (And I'd add without making the game insufferably boring in the doing.)
Ever thought of just playing the Amber dice-less RPG? At least with that game you don't have to argue why you shouldn't have to roll dice.
Never mind. That's a bad example. Often, people like to roll dice because they like to feel that the skills their characters have are useful. Amber does that, just without rolling dice. You can do the same in 5e by deciding that good description by the PCs + relevant skills = success.
Says right in the book that 5e is about having fun and creating memorable adventures. Dice rolling has the ability to provide that fun by its sheer ability to be random. Now, I'm all for PCs realizing that good RP can equal auto-success as it's a great way to encourage it. But the last session I ran of five hours had 1 combat vs. 3 troglodytes and aside from that I only had the players roll once and that was only for the players who had either Insight or Aracana. Some of them afterwards wished they could have rolled some more dice. Can't win 'em all, I guess. On the other hand, one player was really happy we had lots of social interaction as the previous session was all exploration and combat.
Goofy question - players enter an gambling hall where craps is being played. Do you let them roll dice? 
I advocate the middle path.
DMG, page 236-237: "Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage yourplayers to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.
Remember that dice don't run your game - you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."
For what it's worth Iserith I would love to play in one of your games. I like your fail forward examples, how you try to make every challenge interesting rather than punishing, and how you make player decisions affect or even negate rolls to reward taking skills as well as player decisions.
Does a player taking the observant feat with you get more visual information than your default telegraph? How do you reward a player who takes that feat? How, if at all, do you reward him specifically rather than just giving the whole party information?
WizardV wrote:
How about the Dungeon Delver feat? None of my players have that feat but I feel like I would need to rethink my traps a bit to engage with it if one did...
dmgorgon wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
In each of those examples, we see the DM has said what amounts to the adventure location being full of traps. What he's not doing is describing the environment in a way that telegraphs those traps and invites exploration on the part of the player. Players that explore engaging environments that were described the DM make discoveries that allow them to make deductions and informed decisions. That is the game. When we make discovery a function of a passive check or a roll regardless of how the player describes his or her approach, we diminish the role of their decision-making during play in favor of how well they can build a character before play. We're encouraging them to engage in rote procedures ("I check every step, let me know when I find something") rather than engaging with the fictional world.
In particular, the second example shows why a null result after a roll is troublesome because the DM is inviting the very "metagaming" that he or she probably seeks to avoid. By narrating the result of the adventurer's action with progress combined with a setback, the PC finds the trap, but [cost, setback, complication]. This moves the scene forward, increases the tension, and presents a new challenge to overcome.
iserith wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
I just don't know why you can't have it both ways. Everyone perceives their environment differently. Represented by their Pasive Perception. Will the oblivious Wizard notice the scrorch mark on the door when they get there? Or will they take no note of it? I think the information that you give the players should be determined by their actions, not necissarily as a result of describing the environment. Or should I say, how detailed you are in describing the environment should be determined by the characters actions combined with how well they perceive their environment.
DM: (to Oblivious Wizard) At the end of the corridor, you approach a door.
OW: I check around the door to see if anything is strange about the door.
DM: You notice that the wood is scorched near the top of the door.
Now, why you'd have your Oblivious Wizard in the lead is beyond me, but you get the point. On the other hand...
DM: (to Perceptive Rogue) At the end of the corridor, you approach a door. You notice that the wood is scorched near the top of the door.
PR: I'll wait until my Oblivious, but Investigative, Wizard companion catches up to help deduce this conundrum.
Each description relies on the individual character, not just a general "this is what you see".
iserith wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
Giving that player more information than the character would know doesn't let that player role-play the character the way it was designed. Passive Perception scores are the tool I use to adjudicate that middle path that you're all about. It gives me an idea of how generally perceptive the character is, and therefore what information to give them.
"You all approach a door. (Check PP against my trap DCs) Oblivious Wizard, you don't notice anything out of the ordinary. Wise Cleric and Woldly Bard, you two notice the top of the wooden door is slightly scorched (DC 13). Expertly Perceptive Observant Rogue, you notice the scorch mark, but also spot a slightly raised flagstone infront of the door (DC 20). What do you guys do"
This telegraphs the trap, and rewards the Rogue for his choice to specialize. It fosters communication between the party and still forces them to make meaningful decisions.
So basically you are using PP or any passive skill usage as a key to figure out how much information to telegraph to the players?
There are times, if I spend enough time preparing, that I'll print up (because my handwriting is awful) what a player notices if a skill check - passive or otherwise - is high enough. This puts the agency on the player to relay it to the other players in whatever manner he sees fit. Hopefully it's done in character as that's more fun, I think.
guachi wrote:
iserith wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Iserith, it still sounds (from what you've said here), like you would ask players to demonstrate a knowledge of the skills their characters are trained in that may be beyond the average.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
iserith wrote:
guachi wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Yeah, essentially having good stats doesn't mean you get to abdicate making decisions. Your investments in those skills see returns in the resolution of actions based on decisions you make - they don't and cannot substitute for those decisions.
"Ahead of you is a magical ward, it pulses with a dull orange light and feels hot."
"I roll Intelligence (Arcana)! 23!"
Whats happened here? How does the DM respond? The investment and the die roll aren't relevant - yet - because the player hasn't declared some kind of action.
You want a shy player exemption? I have autistic players who won't make eye contact - but they will make a decision before rolling the dice. And frankly it doesn't matter how eloquent they are or the quality of their acting. They articulate what they want to do and how they try to do it. THEN and only then does their investment in their skills & build pay off. The mechanics are not a substitute for play.
bawylie wrote:
For my part, it's a dull orange light until someone inspects it further. Depending on how they approach the situation, they may discover it is a magical ward, fail to do so, or we'll roll some dice because the outcome of their action is uncertain. Same goes for the ritual.
Want to know more about a thing? Do something.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
RCanine wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
My cynical take is - the challenge is reading the DM. The players best able to read the DM and react in the manner the DM deems best are those who are the best role-players. If you know the DM will telegraph everything even if telegraphing it makes no sense because to do otherwise is unfair, then the "challenge" of the game solely rests in reading the DM. It turns the game into a meta-game of reading the DM's tea leaves. It's not about a player having his character interact with the environment the DM describes, it's about how the player interacts directly with the environment via the DM.
Heck, all players do it (reading the DM) to some extent. And all DMs engage in some kind of telegraphing, even if it's unintentional. My last session I had several NPCs in a small village mention that one inn's wine was really good and the PCs should try it. The first reaction was "OMG!!! They are trying to poison/drug us!!" because that's what they typical reaction a player has to what they percieve is the DM telegraphing stuff. It turns out it was just wine that was really good.
I've recently started DMing again and my general non-combat rules are:
I want the characters' skills to matter.
I want the player's to interact with NPCs and the environment as their characters as much as possible.
I want them to describe what their doing in as natural a manner as possible and not in a rules-centered manner - "I examine the carvings on the box to see if they might be magical in nature" and not "I roll Arcana". One is something a character would do the other is something a player would do.
I'm fully on board with good descriptions of character actions plus (possibly) character skills equals automatic success with no dice rolling.
What I won't do:
Make skills not matter because it's all about engaging with the environment or reading the DM. If I wanted a game where skills didn't matter I'd play a game without skills. I started with the red box Basic set and it didn't have skills and if I wanted a game without skills I'd just play that. Although even that game had rudimentary skill-like abilities - charisma modifiers for interactions, elves noticing traps on a 1-2 on a d6.
The challenge is reading the DM when the DM is cagey and withholding about describing the scenario.
When the DM fully outlines the situation presented to the players, then the challenge is overcoming the scenario.
Skills matter when actions are taken than have uncertain outcomes. But they don't necessarily prescribe an adventurer's qualities. For instance, a wizard trained in arcana might be naturally magically adept while another might be very learned. Meanwhile, their fighter friend has studied spells for years but doesn't have the raw talent or training, even though he still has the knowledge.
The points themselves, the investments, don't matter until tied into who the character is.
Further, when they're all together, telling the party "You see a magic ward" is functionally no different than telling the wizard "you see a magic ward" bc the wizard immediately turns to the party and says, "I see a magic ward."
So I tell the whole party because it skips the ridiculous step of me whispering info to the wizard player who then just says it to everyone.
Instead, everyone knows the scenario. All cards on the table, some face up, some face down, but none are gonna be sprung in later. The choices and actions matter most, the numbers only matter when I ask for a check.
iserith wrote:
guachi wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
guachi wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
I don't see what all the argument is about. What Iserith is explaining makes the game more evocative and it encourages immersion in character. That's definitely one excellent way to play the game. Using more rolls to overcome challenges is another way to play. It isn't wrong, it just lets the player stay a bit more detached from the situation and it makes the PC feel more like a pawn for the player to move around.
In any case, the basic structure that Iserith sets out works for any type of DM.
DM needs to describe the situation.
Player needs to describe approach and goal.
DM adjudicates. (Either giving more description (hints or other pieces of information that could be useful), or describing the results of the action, or calling for a specific roll to determine outcome when outcome is unclear).
If the DM decides that a trap is so well hidden (and it hasn't claimed a victim in a long time or the victim has been long since cleared away), the DM should just describe the area with that in mind.
Ironically, as I write this and think about new DMs, I think that passive perception can be an excellent tool to help the DM decide how little or how much description to use in specific situations. But I think that it should be explained more in the rules.
If the trap is a DC 15 and the nearest PC has a passive perception lower than 15, the description may not offer as much of a tell. The same for hearing monsters in the distance or noticing a strange key hole in an unusual place, etc. DMs could even use partial success when a PC is close (passive perception of 14 vs. DC 15). On the other hand, some aspects of the enviroment should be described regardless of passive perception or even active perception checks. If there is a glowing rune on the floor, obviously the DM should describe it as a PC gets into a position to see it.
To me, what Iserith is driving at is that the DM should take the opportunity whenever possible to give players things to investigate, play with, manipulate, act upon, etc. It makes more decision points and gives players more stimuli. That makes a game more interesting.
Of course, this is part of the DM's art, which becomes part of game pacing. I find that with some groups I DM, if I describe too much, the players take more and more time interacting with the environment, which could slow down the game too much. Finding the balance is crucial.
So, back to the OP...I think that passive perception as a concept needs to be explained more like this: In a situation, the DM can use the passive perception scores of relevant PCs to help him or her describe more details that that particular PC would notice. On p. 175 of the PHB, the description of a passive check doesn't really explain anything about how to interpret success. That's what has to be added. How to interpret a passive check success is what needs to be added (especially for perception because perception is used almost constantly when PCs are adventuring).
Rhenny wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
iserith wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
iserith wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Sure. I do auto insurance fraud investigation. Every day I hear accounts from witnesses who see the same thing but in different ways depending on where they're standing and sometimes who they are.
While DM is the eyes and ears, and while I've sometimes tailored descriptions to characters, I usually don't & I don't believe that's expected
"Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Well taking them by surprise is WHY you hide a trap. The function of the trap itself is another matter. You don't lay a trap to surprise someone, you lay it to catch or kill them, or deter them. If you want to catch or kill, it would be efficacious to disguise the trigger.
That said, hiding a trap and telegraphing a trap are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the effect could produce a bleeding wound. Blood on the ground telegraphs the presence of something - while you can still hide the pressure tile that sets the thing off.
In any case, it's probably best to think about the purpose of the trap, the trigger, the intent, the mechanism, and the Game - that is - what steps can be taken to ensure you're not simply taxing the players' resources, what steps can be taken to ensure they can make meaningful decisions and don't simply pay the HP tax.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
I'd say I have a pretty heavy reliance on passive perception in regards to Stealth and Traps (I also do initiative after surprise rounds!)
As I'm still working out my own "style," I'd like to try out telegraphing more to see how I like it. How would you guys telegraph the following?
Hoard spoilers ahoy!
I'm thinking something as simple as mentioning scrapes and scratches on the stairs and sliding path.
Poison/Confusion Trap: Roll any die, on an odd number a player steps through the painted paper/canvas/whatever and takes (1d4 poison) damage and makes a Con save for Confusion (don't remember the rest)
I have a harder time imagining what the tell on this one would be. The description mentions something about the cover being painted to appear similar to the surroundings. Assuming bright light, maybe the paint has some odd footprint/fingerprints, is smudged, or the ground looks slightly off-color in a certain section?
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
"What about the player that wants to play a PC that is extremely different than they are themselves? A not-so-wise player wants to play a wise character; but, you won't consider that fact when playing because the player can't play as wisely as his/her character should (in other words, the player is incapable of asking the right questions, or deciding to do the best things, that the character would naturally do)."
1.) I don't play your PC for you. Neither do the numbers.
2.) nobody I've ever played with is incapable of pretending to be something they are not, or of otherwise using their imaginations.
People keep bringing up "what if they're shy?" and "what if they're not bright?" Have you ever had a shy player or a not-bright player? I have. They're every bit as good as anyone else at this game.
Angry_Steak wrote:
I appreciate the insight, Iserith.
The 3rd trap was just a simple one I took from an old idea some years ago and isn't in any of the current modules.
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Angry_Steak wrote:
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Psikerlord wrote: