Changing the meaning of Passive Perception and Insight => Suscipion rather than Facts

[Neubert]

I always avoid comparing 2 static numbers against each other. Instead I deduct 10 from the DC and add a d20 roll. So at times the entire party might notice a badly disguised trap, other times it is too well hidden to find passively.

 

[TheClone]

I guess I don't like Bluff & Insight as skills at all, really. Judging the truthiness of an NPC - as played by the DM - should be up to the judgement of the players, not the dice. (BTW I don't know why it's supposedly ok to give players an abstact puzzle to solve - riddles etc - but not to expect them to judge human interaction with their own judgement).

But I don't see a problem with players asking 'do I think he's telling the truth?' and getting a roll on request. That models the PC assessing body language and other non-verbal stuff the DM may not be representing. If they are suspicious of everyone, fine. Their PC will come across that way in play.

I don't give people active Insight checks unless they're interacting with the NPC, but I'll let them use passive perception if they're just watching.

Like I said, I'm not happy with the Insight skill, nor with the concept of the Bluff skill. I don't find they work well in play. Maybe in groups where nobody ever speaks in character, you just roll dice, it'd work.

Edit: Even then I don't like abilities like Bluff where you want to actively avoid using it! Because AFAICT there are no rules for assessing the truthfulness of someone who *is* telling the truth, it's apparently left entirely to GM judgement. If you don't lie then you can evade having to make a Bluff roll. I think Call of Cthulu handles it far better with a broad 'Fast Talk' skill.

Many people don't like doing social interaction at all with roles. I like to to do it. Though I'd like to add that Insight does not reveal whether someone is telling the truth, just whether he is telling what he thinks is the truth, or only whether he is nervous when telling his tory or something like that. But I guess you meant that.

Why I like rolling Insight, Bluff and stuff is because it is more fair. Social interaction is more or less common on adventures and if the players at the table knowing the GM better or having an awesome perception for such things always have the advantage of determining whether the NPC tells the truth or not, this shifts the balance. And id does so in every social interaction scene. Whereas puzzles and riddles (which I like as a player) are not that much common in adventures. And if, it's usually the case that (almost) all players have some valuable input in solving them, because most of them can be solved with common sense. If only certain players always solve those riddles, I'd think about introducing less of them or find a way to present them only to the players that like them, while maybe giving the rest of the party a good fight.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What's this difference between this and just limiting when a player can learn something with a passive check. For example, unless they have a reason to suspect an NPC is lying, passive Insight doesn't apply. It's not just that your passive perception/insight picks up everything ambient in the environment, rather it draws focus to things you're paying attention to.

The difference, I think, is that there is a chance they figure it out because they then get to roll. But maybe that's not a big difference.

Otherwise, I think you are right, it is basically saying passive perception/insight cannot tell you the same things as actively looking for something. So maybe it's more a ruling than a rule thing.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] Having reread your OP I'm struck by the binary approach that seems to be common with perception/insight checks. You see it or you don't. They're lying or they're honest. That's not how I run them in my games - I prefer more of a spectrum of detail - and what I like about your idea from the OP is that it provides more of a dynamic spectrum rules-wise.

You bring up a good point that there isn't a solid set of guidelines for when to use a passive vs active check. IME passive checks are good to use as group check scene openers or transition points. Who is surprised? Everyone whose passive Perception is below this value. Who was left in the hall and begines in the midst of the poisone gas attack? Everyone whose passive Insight was too low to pick up on the diplomat's innuendo. When you're framing a scene that's a good time to use passive checks as written.

However once the game is afoot and players' antennae are alert, I think we need to look at information checks differently. It's no longer sufficient to say "truth" or "lie", because the scene is occurring at a greater level of detail. A common trouble with puzzles in D&D is there's little inventive for the PCs to actually engage with the puzzle's headspace; instead the payoff is usually in figuring out a way to avoid it altogether and still get where you want to be. Thats not a bad thing, but engaing with the puzzle on its terms should also be meaningful too. The way around this is to build incentives into the process of solving te puzzle - bits of information or treasure that are revealed each step of the way, for example.

Why not something similar for exploration/interaction encounters? So right out of the gate the PCs might know the Duke is lying, but they need more information. Why is he lying? Whose side is he really on? What kind of leverage might the PCs use to sway him? These are the real challenge in the encounter, not "is he lying?" Their initial Insight checks might give them guidance for what sorts of leading questions to ask, but it's not the entire DM Secrets textblock on a silver platter.

 

[S'mon]

Why I like rolling Insight, Bluff and stuff is because it is more fair. Social interaction is more or less common on adventures and if the players at the table knowing the GM better or having an awesome perception for such things always have the advantage of determining whether the NPC tells the truth or not, this shifts the balance.

Same as in combat, if a player knows the combat rules, knows how to min-max, knows how the DM uses monsters, knows to use good tactics, etc. Player skill is involved in winning combats, why not in social interaction?

 

[S'mon]

[. A common trouble with puzzles in D&D is there's little inventive for the PCs to actually engage with the puzzle's headspace; instead the payoff is usually in figuring out a way to avoid it altogether and still get where you want to be.

Unless you have a pixelbitcher DM who shuts down every option other than solving the puzzle, *sigh*. I got really frustrated playing an INT 8 Dwarf barbarian recently, we were trapped in a room with a complex solve-or-die puzzle. The DM made everything in the room immune to my maul - and I was easily doing 20 damage/strike - including the doors - and all the furnishings - to ensure there was no way out other than by solving the puzzle. It felt like I was trapped in a CRPG.

 

[TheClone]

Same as in combat, if a player knows the combat rules, knows how to min-max, knows how the DM uses monsters, knows to use good tactics, etc. Player skill is involved in winning combats, why not in social interaction?

It is involved. When to request an insight check? How to min-max your social skills? How to play out social interaction, because a good one usually gives a bonus (at least it should)? Maybe it's a little less than in combat, but nut that much. Removing the skills completely instead would put a far higher emphasis on the player than in combat situations.

 

[S'mon]

It is involved. When to request an insight check? How to min-max your social skills? How to play out social interaction, because a good one usually gives a bonus (at least it should)?

That's how I do it - the PCs' abilities support rather than replace player skill, same as with the combat rules.

 

[Camelot]

What I do for passive skills is have the check compared against all the characters' passive skill. The group only notices something if it fails against at least half of them. So, a group with only one very perceptive member will still not notice things very often.

The one with the enormous Perception will of course think something might be wrong, but if he's in the minority, then the others just say "I didn't hear anything," and he shrugs, thinking maybe it was just the wind. If you want to have suspense for the players too, do that every so often when there really isn't anything there. Roll a die, say "John, you think you hear something in the bushes, but the rest of you don't hear anything." And then when they investigate there's nothing there.

 

[Quickleaf]

Unless you have a pixelbitcher DM who shuts down every option other than solving the puzzle, *sigh*. I got really frustrated playing an INT 8 Dwarf barbarian recently, we were trapped in a room with a complex solve-or-die puzzle. The DM made everything in the room immune to my maul - and I was easily doing 20 damage/strike - including the doors - and all the furnishings - to ensure there was no way out other than by solving the puzzle. It felt like I was trapped in a CRPG.

Man that sucks! And it breaks at least 2 of Quickleaf's Puzzle Rules, for which there really is no excuse - not even DM ignorance!

Did you try attacking the darkness?