Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is "Passive" (for Passive Perception) really the right term??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8701917" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>As I said, you're trying to put the "realism" of the "in-game narrative" onto the game mechanic. And this is one of those times when we shouldn't do that. This is a game mechanic for the game's sake... to make the game work as a game.</p><p></p><p>If we did as you are aiming it-- have the Passive Perception be the number that is the in-world equivalent of not actively looking at all... you would need to add the modifier to the lowest die roll, a 1. It's the least work done on Perception-- a 1 + the modifier. That's putting the "in-game realism" of the wording into the game mechanics. But what would be the point? We now a game mechanic that is completely useless. A mechanic that'll never be used and never come up. So why even bother making a rule for it in the first place?</p><p></p><p>The 10 + modifier is there purely as a game construct. It is to allow players and DMs to not roll dice for Perception checks all the time, but still have an opportunity to discover someone on the off-chance there are creatures out there that are hiding. But there has to be <em>some</em> chance to notice them-- otherwise there's no reason to have PP in the game. So using 10 is the middle ground-- a mechanic that will work sometimes, but not always. Which is exactly what we would want from a mechanic as a mechanic. And that's why it is what it is.</p><p></p><p>Now if you don't like that mechanic as a mechanic, you certainly aren't alone... there are tons of DMs out there who don't even use Passive Perception because they just don't even like the concept. So I would say that if it is the <em>mechanic</em> of 10 + modifier you don't like... then sure, drop it to 5 + modifier so the party can find less creatures hiding, or just don't even use Passive Perception at all. But if it's purely the name you don't like because it doesn't align to what you think the mechanic with that name should be... then either rename it or just accept it as a purely a mechanic for mechanic's sake and not worry about it. Because this game is FILLED with mechanics that are given fluffy narrative-like names but which don't make any sense if you took them at face value within the world of the game, so picking this one out amongst all the others seems unnecessary. If you can accept the idea that 'Cure Wounds' more often than not do not cure any wounds and instead are giving back a character's endurance, luck, and stamina... you should be able to accept Passive Perception. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8701917, member: 7006"] As I said, you're trying to put the "realism" of the "in-game narrative" onto the game mechanic. And this is one of those times when we shouldn't do that. This is a game mechanic for the game's sake... to make the game work as a game. If we did as you are aiming it-- have the Passive Perception be the number that is the in-world equivalent of not actively looking at all... you would need to add the modifier to the lowest die roll, a 1. It's the least work done on Perception-- a 1 + the modifier. That's putting the "in-game realism" of the wording into the game mechanics. But what would be the point? We now a game mechanic that is completely useless. A mechanic that'll never be used and never come up. So why even bother making a rule for it in the first place? The 10 + modifier is there purely as a game construct. It is to allow players and DMs to not roll dice for Perception checks all the time, but still have an opportunity to discover someone on the off-chance there are creatures out there that are hiding. But there has to be [I]some[/I] chance to notice them-- otherwise there's no reason to have PP in the game. So using 10 is the middle ground-- a mechanic that will work sometimes, but not always. Which is exactly what we would want from a mechanic as a mechanic. And that's why it is what it is. Now if you don't like that mechanic as a mechanic, you certainly aren't alone... there are tons of DMs out there who don't even use Passive Perception because they just don't even like the concept. So I would say that if it is the [I]mechanic[/I] of 10 + modifier you don't like... then sure, drop it to 5 + modifier so the party can find less creatures hiding, or just don't even use Passive Perception at all. But if it's purely the name you don't like because it doesn't align to what you think the mechanic with that name should be... then either rename it or just accept it as a purely a mechanic for mechanic's sake and not worry about it. Because this game is FILLED with mechanics that are given fluffy narrative-like names but which don't make any sense if you took them at face value within the world of the game, so picking this one out amongst all the others seems unnecessary. If you can accept the idea that 'Cure Wounds' more often than not do not cure any wounds and instead are giving back a character's endurance, luck, and stamina... you should be able to accept Passive Perception. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is "Passive" (for Passive Perception) really the right term??
Top