Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7081206" data-attributes="member: 5100">I use Passive LotsOfStuff. Why? Rolling dice when it isn't interesting to the narrative is stupid.If there's a secret door that, not discovering will kill the adventure, then I want them to find it. But... I want to make sure it's the guy who invested heavily in Perception who finds it. Ditto with reading people (Intuition), showing off with basic parkour (Athletics/Acrobatics), non-critical knowledge checks, etc. I don't make characters roll to see if they picked up their stupidly heavy backpack correctly, either, which is just passive Strength.Now, if there's something interesting I can do with the result, then we'll roll. Normally, that means failing the roll would be interesting. Sometimes, &quot;interesting&quot; just means they have to take the long way around instead of the shortcut. Sometimes, it actually just means that they don't get that +1 sword that was hidden beneath the statue. But none of that means they're stopped or get an auto-win.Of course, having a real chance of &quot;losing&quot; is important to the game. I've killed characters and would not prevent a TPK. I just won't let the win/lose proposition come down to a single die roll with no alternative.The other reason to use passive checks is, as&nbsp;&nbsp; [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION] says, to set the DC for a contest. This is especially true for contests where only one side is aware the contest is even happening (stealth, lying, etc.).I generally don't use passive checks for repetitive actions (searching for secret doors). Most of the time, there's a pattern to the action. I just roll one or two dice and use those results for the one or two meaningful checks. If there's nothing to find, I still roll. It just doesn't matter what I got. The 3E &quot;take 20&quot; rule was more about repetitive checks than the concept of a passive check. Passive checks are best reserved for passive or uninteresting things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7081206, member: 5100"] I use Passive LotsOfStuff. Why? Rolling dice when it isn't interesting to the narrative is stupid. If there's a secret door that, not discovering will kill the adventure, then I want them to find it. But... I want to make sure it's the guy who invested heavily in Perception who finds it. Ditto with reading people (Intuition), showing off with basic parkour (Athletics/Acrobatics), non-critical knowledge checks, etc. I don't make characters roll to see if they picked up their stupidly heavy backpack correctly, either, which is just passive Strength. Now, if there's something interesting I can do with the result, then we'll roll. Normally, that means failing the roll would be interesting. Sometimes, "interesting" just means they have to take the long way around instead of the shortcut. Sometimes, it actually just means that they don't get that +1 sword that was hidden beneath the statue. But none of that means they're stopped or get an auto-win. Of course, having a real chance of "losing" is important to the game. I've killed characters and would not prevent a TPK. I just won't let the win/lose proposition come down to a single die roll with no alternative. The other reason to use passive checks is, as [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION] says, to set the DC for a contest. This is especially true for contests where only one side is aware the contest is even happening (stealth, lying, etc.). I generally [U]don't[/U] use passive checks for repetitive actions (searching for secret doors). Most of the time, there's a pattern to the action. I just roll one or two dice and use those results for the one or two meaningful checks. If there's nothing to find, I still roll. It just doesn't matter what I got. The 3E "take 20" rule was more about repetitive checks than the concept of a passive check. Passive checks are best reserved for passive or uninteresting things. [/QUOTE]

Verification