Monte Cook's first Legends and Lore is up

[Kzach]

I'm kind of worried about the following statement: "That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?"

I know that a lot of players don't actually read the rules or study their character sheets since the CB does the work for them, but designers...

So? Are you seriously saying he doesn't know that passive perception exists in the game already? Because that is not what is indicated in what he is saying. He's simply saying that there is a problem with it.

I think you're missing the subtlety of his points. In fact, I think most people are which is possibly the only thing wrong with the article.

 

[delericho]

I'm kind of worried about the following statement: "That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?"

I know that a lot of players don't actually read the rules or study their character sheets since the CB does the work for them, but designers...

"Passive Perception", in 4e terms, refers to a very specific thing, as noted on the character sheet. In some ways, it's much like a defense, like Fortitude, Will or Armour Class.

As far as I can make out, Monte isn't talking about 4e, and he isn't talking about "Passive Perception" as it exists in 4e. Instead, he's talking about the whole concept of a character noticing things without really looking. It's just rather unfortunate that he's coined a term that happens to match exactly one that exists in 4e, and does much the same thing.

(But probably not exactly the same thing. It's likely that we're only seeing part of the solution here. I would expect traps, and a bunch of other things, to be 'invisible' to passive perception, probably with Rogue's getting a "trap sense" class feature to give them an exception. Also, I would expect an active perception roll to automatically make everything one step easier to find. Neither of these really exist in 4e - the DC to find something with a Perception roll is the same DC for Passive Perception... which is actually something that has always bugged me about 4e.)

 

[delericho]

Actually this is something I would like to see in the future. With 4E not having ranks, I think we are moving away from the d20 roll for skills, and I support that. It would save a lot of trouble.

I just dislike the d20 sometimes, as it is such a huge range. +4 str and +0 strength is just not a huge amount of difference when rolling a d20

That's the price of having a universal mechanic.

To make small modifiers matter more, you need to roll multiple dice. You could make your system "roll 2d6 and add mod, beat 8", or "roll one d20, plus one per point of your modifier. If your mod is positive, take the best result; if negative, take the worst."

Personally, I would actually be inclined to eliminate ability checks completely, and roll everything that has been an ability check into a skill. Bashing down a door becomes a matter of Athletics. Remembering obscure information becomes a matter of Academics. And so on. But then, I'm coming at this from a point of view that a character's raw ability scores are far too important to the game, and I would like to see those drastically reduced in importance - and I'm not particularly bothered by those freak results where the weakling Wizard busts down a door that the Fighter couldn't. Presumably, the Fighter weakened it significantly on his attempt.

 

[wrecan]

Monte isn't revealing he doesn't know that Passive Perception exists in 4e. He's not so subtly reminding everyone that he invented Passive Perception back in 3e with "taking 10". Heck, as far as I know, he invented it in 2e working on the Options books, and the term just percolated around TSR and Wizards until the 4e developers took Monte's term and applied it to 4e.

 

[wrecan]

As to Monte's substance, I'm still not clear as to what benefit his system has over the current system. Right now, we can say that anybody trained in a Skill automatically sees the secret door. And that's pretty much what his new tiered system offers.

 

[keterys]

I kinda wish his first article had been something with a bit more punch, rather than something that Mike spoiled.

I also wish they'd talk about how the mechanics are (almost) equivalent to if DCs went by 10s and training went by 10s... basically just greatly widening the spread of DCs from the current system so that training is far more important.

There are benefits to finding out the minimum/maximum spread for a group - basically, things that can only be found if they attempt to search specifically for it, things that are automatically found... and having that benefit for _all_ skills, not just perception or insight? Sure. But, they're not selling the system very well yet I don't think.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As to Monte's substance, I'm still not clear as to what benefit his system has over the current system. Right now, we can say that anybody trained in a Skill automatically sees the secret door. And that's pretty much what his new tiered system offers.

Yes, for most part... but it has to be applied correctly with appropriate taking 10, taking 20 and DM´s best friend...

now I actually use passive perception as an indicator, when you are allowed to make an active perception check... which translates into: if you are trained to a certain level, you not only find it usually, but you don´t have to worry about when to search...
And if you had to use your brain, your chances are still low... except when the DM gives out the little bonus or allows taking 20...

The advantage of having skill levels is, that you may have items and stats that give a bonus to your check, increasing your chances, IF you had the chance to throw the dice at all. So if you are untrained, you may have a perception modifier of +20, you see everything, but you still don´t notice that what you see is actually a trap!

Which in the end more or less bings us back to the 3.0 skill system with some modifications...

 

[the Jester]

For pure exploration (finding interesting clues and secret passages), dice rolls just get in the way. If the dm made it, the players, if they have picked up on any clues whatsoever, should find it.

Uh... that's fine for some playstyles, but gets a big fat "HELL NO" for my game.

There's nothing secret about a secret door the party automatically finds. There's nothing hidden about a hidden treasure that the party automatically finds. There's nothing concealed about a concealed lair that the party automatically finds.

Some great classic adventures have hidden Easter eggs, sometimes really important ones, that many- perhaps even most- groups miss. Not only am I okay with this, I think it's great. There's a lot to be said for finding Thrommel hidden in the Temple of Elemental Evil, especially if you and other groups have played it before without finding him.

 

[darkwing]

Uh... that's fine for some playstyles, but gets a big fat "HELL NO" for my game.

There's nothing secret about a secret door the party automatically finds. There's nothing hidden about a hidden treasure that the party automatically finds. There's nothing concealed about a concealed lair that the party automatically finds.

As far as secret doors go, I didn't say automatically finds, I said automatically finds if the PCs have picked up on the DM's clues. The players should be the ones looking through their descriptions of what their characters are doing. If, due to the DM describing the room in such a way that the players know there might be something up, they look under the carpet where a hidden celler door is then they find it, no dice rolls. If they don't look under that carpet, they don't find it, no dice rolls. It's way more interesting that way than the DM rolling some dice behind a screen and saying 'ok, the elf finds a secret door' or the adventurers rolling in every single damn room (or worse, for every object in every room) to look for things.

For your other comment, I'm not in the habit of running the same adventures multiple times with the same group or even with different groups. Maybe if you're making a CRPG that's going to be played over and over then sure use dice rolls.

 

[Incenjucar]

So? Are you seriously saying he doesn't know that passive perception exists in the game already? Because that is not what is indicated in what he is saying. He's simply saying that there is a problem with it.

I think you're missing the subtlety of his points. In fact, I think most people are which is possibly the only thing wrong with the article.

So, Monte is continuing the tradition of Legend and Lore articles being examples of some of the poorest communication on the internet this side of time cube?