D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Tony Vargas]

While this might be true and while passive perception works mechanically (i.e. it saves time due to a bunch of rolls not having to be made at the table), it does an extremely poor job of being fair.

Say, for example, that a given PC has a passive perception of 13.

Any trap that the DM assigns a DC of 13 or less has 100% chance of being found.
Any trap that the DM assigns a DC of 14 or more has a 0% chance of being found.

So whether a given trap can be found or not is determined by the DM, it's not determined by the player/PC getting lucky or unlucky.

Sure. If the DM decides whether to set the DC above or below the PC's passive score. He could always roll, before-hand.


Passive perception and similar concepts are great not just because they streamline things, but because they avoid the inane charade of the DM calling for perception rolls only to say 'you don't notice anything,' and have the players go into paranoia mode. Then, eventually, the DM gets the bright idea of calling for rolls for no reason. Gets pretty silly. They're also, mechanically, more 'fair,' or less swingy, anyway, because they avoid contested rolls...

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. If the DM decides whether to set the DC above or below the PC's passive score. He could always roll, before-hand.

It doesn't really matter if he assigns them, or rolls them. He knows ahead of time whether a given trap will be found.

It's always 0% or 100%. Preset.

Passive perception and similar concepts are great not just because they streamline things, but because they avoid the inane charade of the DM calling for perception rolls only to say 'you don't notice anything,' and have the players go into paranoia mode. Then, eventually, the DM gets the bright idea of calling for rolls for no reason. Gets pretty silly. They're also, mechanically, more 'fair,' or less swingy, anyway, because they avoid contested rolls...

I'm not quite sure what you mean about contested rolls.


Another bad thing about passive perception is that say the Rogue has a passive perception of 14 and the Cleric has an 11.

If something is found, the Rogue finds it. Sometimes, they both find it. But, the Cleric never finds it whereas the Rogue doesn't (shy of them not looking in the same place). It changes what happens at the table as compared to dice rolling.


There's also the weirdness with passive perception that all of the Goblins are either surprised, or none of them are. Or if the BBEG is surprised, then so are the Goblins. There's never a middle ground.

 

[Lerysh]

Surprise has no middle ground by nature. A single alerted enemy causes your side to lose surprise.

I am OK with traps being 100% or 0% detection chance. It's the same thing as Random Encounters during travel. Screw the table, if the game needs an injection of combat, have an enounter, if it doesn't, move on. If the game needs some drama, undetectable trap.

More importantly, if you are running modules, the trap DCs are set for you. Passive is the same as "taking 10" on the check. Trap finders in general have 15 or more passive perception, which is already at "hard" difficulty. If your average perception beats the DC you find it, lazily roaming the dungeon. If you want to be extra cautious and roll every 10 feet, that's fine, but added rolls for minimal benefit is kinda bad. 45% of the time you are actually hurting yourself by rolling.

 

[pemerton]

But what if the NPC actually doesn't have a beard?

<snip>

your job as a DM is to describe the world to the PCs. If the NPC doesn't have a beard, not changing that because a PC want's the NPC to have a beard is is not "bad," rather it is correct.

It's not clear what "actually" means here. The NPC isn't real; he is a fictional element within a larger fictional construct. Most of the time, the GM will not have described the NPC's facial hair, and so if it becomes salient only because the players have an idea for impersonation involving fake beards, what is the reason for blocking?

(I think the force of this semi-rhetorical question becomes increased if we note that "describe" in the sentence "It's the GM's job to describe the world" really means "author", as in "It's the GM's job to author the game backstory and then to inform the players of that backstory in ways appropriate to the actions that the players are declaring for their PCs.")

Even if the GM has written down in his/her notes that this NPC is clean-shaven, if the players have not yet been told that then what is the reason for sticking to the script?

And if you happen to be a GM who does describe every NPC's facial hair and appearance upon the PCs first encountering him/her, substitue some other detail in place of "beard" above eg does the NPC have shoulder length or short-cropped hair? Is s/he wearing green hose? Does s/he wear his/her sleeves full length or rolled up? Etc

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Even if the GM has written down in his/her notes that this NPC is clean-shaven, if the players have not yet been told that then what is the reason for sticking to the script?

There is a concept which I refer to as "truth in fiction", but which I'm sure has some other name in other sources. Basically, the idea is that you are describing a place that could be real, and that it could be real is a big part of why anyone cares at all. Changing the script would violate the integrity of that world.

The story where the guy has a beard is not inherently better or worse than the story where he doesn't have a beard, but the presence or absence of that beard cannot depend on factors external to that universe (e.g. the fact that it is a game, or that the players have a particular idea). That would violate causality, and a non-causal reality is too ridiculous to merit playing in (i.e you lose players who are unwilling to suspend disbelief that far).

Or to put that another way: some players may see it as a violation of the social contract, and feel cheated, if you change the script without a good (in-universe justified) reason.

 

[pemerton]

you are describing a place that could be real, and that it could be real is a big part of why anyone cares at all.

Putting to one side the meaning of "could" in this sentence, when the world contains features that violate all knonw canons of physical reality . . .

The world in which the NPC has a beard is no less a candidate for reality than the one in which the NPC has a beard.

Changing the script would violate the integrity of that world.

<snip>

the presence or absence of that beard cannot depend on factors external to that universe (e.g. the fact that it is a game, or that the players have a particular idea).

The presence or absence of the beard does depend up external factors, though.

Most obviously, it depends upon the GM making a decision about whether or not the NPC has a beard. If this was decided in advance and written into the GM's notes, how was it decided? By whim? By rolling on a random appearance table? None of these authorship processes is a part of the fictional world.

If, as is often going to be the case, the GM doesn't even think about the issue until the players ask, how is the presence or absence of a beard decided? By whim? By rolling on a table? Deciding that the NPC has a beard because that would be more fun for the players is no more external than any of those other processes.

And if GM whim was fine for writing the script, and fine for making it up on the fly, it is hard for me to see how changing the script on the fly crosses some notional line of fictional integrity. (I can see that it could violate gameplay integrity, if the script is pre-written and the players are meant to be gaming the script, as in a module like Tomb of Horrors. But that's not the sort of gameplay that was being discussed in the series of posts that have led up to this one.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Most obviously, it depends upon the GM making a decision about whether or not the NPC has a beard. If this was decided in advance and written into the GM's notes, how was it decided? By whim? By rolling on a random appearance table? None of these authorship processes is a part of the fictional world.

Rolling randomly is a good way of simulating the ultimate end result of countless unknown circumstances, yes, but whim of the DM can work almost as well in most cases. DM whim, under influence of PC behavior, is just about the only way to have any sort of cross-contamination between the real world and the game world.

Most DMs that I know, when they feel that they have been biased by PC behavior, will roll randomly for such things if they should come up and it would matter.

 

[Hussar]

Rolling randomly is a good way of simulating the ultimate end result of countless unknown circumstances, yes, but whim of the DM can work almost as well in most cases. DM whim, under influence of PC behavior, is just about the only way to have any sort of cross-contamination between the real world and the game world.

Most DMs that I know, when they feel that they have been biased by PC behavior, will roll randomly for such things if they should come up and it would matter.

But, what is being "contaminated" here? The DM, before the players ask, does not know if there is a beard or not. He hasn't thought of it - a likely event. Or, even if he has thought about it, it is not established in the game. It hasn't been described yet.

It makes absolutely no difference to the integrity of the game world whether you randomly roll the presence of that beard or declare it's presence or absence based on anything else- player wishes, the phase of the moon, whatever. None of this matters the slightest whit to the game world.

Now, if you change things after they have been established in play, fair enough. I totally agree with you there.

But, beforehand? There's nothing to contradict. There are no discrepancies in the game world. Personally, I'd rather facilitate player ideas, because, well, they're the players and it makes it more fun if I do facilitate their ideas. Saying "no" is far too easy and just shuts the players down. Say no too many times, and the players stop asking. Why would they continue? After all, the DM is just going to say no anyway, so, why bother. Just go with whatever the DM wants us to do and don't rock the boat.

When you hear DM's complaining about how their players are not pro-active and not interested in delving into the game, many times, it's this, right here, that's the culprit. The DM has shut down one too many ideas, the players are frustrated, and, instead of feeling frustrated, they simply go into passive consumer mode and wait for the DM to wheel up the plot wagon and start spoon feeding.

Player creativity and initiative are the best things at the table. They are worth their weight in gold. My advice would be to never put the game world elements that only exist in the DM's head in front of those things.

 

[RotGrub]

Player creativity and initiative are the best things at the table. They are worth their weight in gold. My advice would be to never put the game world elements that only exist in the DM's head in front of those things.

I think it's important to say no sometimes. Making things more difficult for the players can actually foster more creativity. I think my players would hate it if I said yes to every idea they had. Sure, I might let them try something, but I often ensure that simple solutions are met with mediocre results. In other words, I make them think hard about the situation. The more the players put into it the more they get out of it, and that is the core of what makes the game so much fun.

 

[BigVanVader]

Passive perception and similar concepts are great not just because they streamline things, but because they avoid the inane charade of the DM calling for perception rolls only to say 'you don't notice anything,' and have the players go into paranoia mode.

That's why I don't use passive perception. Players in my games should feel like they're in Platoon, just jittering all over the place while they babystep through the jungle.