D&D 5E Passive Perception

[iserith]

Which equates failure to progress. Ok I guess, but it seems kind of contrived. You failed, but I'm going to make it a partial success (i.e. progress) and throw some more bad stuff at you, just because you rolled low on the dice.

The perception check suddenly results in a random encounter. Huh?

I get the fact that it avoids one set of problems, but it seems to introduce a new set for DMs that prefer cause and effect.

This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's important to divorce the idea of failure on a check necessarily equaling failure of an action. When the rules talk about failure, it's invariably failure of the die roll plus modifiers to meet or beat a DC(or AC for that matter). This then tells the DM that the PC either makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback. A check is just to help the DM resolve uncertainty so he or she can narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. It doesn't actually say anything in and of itself in a causal way - it's the check that failed, not necessarily the PCs.

Training oneself to think this way may be difficult, however, given many years of ruling failure on a die roll equaling total failure of an action. It helps to set the stakes before the roll and make it clear to the players. So in that example I used, I might say, "Okay, you want to spend some time searching the room. Go ahead and make a Wisdom (Perception) check. If the check succeeds, you'll find something interesting. If the check fails, you'll find something interesting, but in the doing you'll make some noise and draw unwanted attention." This is also a good way to make sure everyone's on the same page with regard to the stakes of a situation and to increase the tension while making the roll.

 

[wedgeski]

Training oneself to think this way may be difficult, however, given many years of ruling failure on a die roll equaling total failure of an action.

I have to say that, through this and other posts, you're describing an interesting table style, but it's really not for me.

 

[iserith]

I have to say that, through this and other posts, you're describing an interesting table style, but it's really not for me.

Thanks, and that's fair enough. As I see it, I'm just advocating an approach that I feel best works with the D&D 5e paradigm and avoids a lot of the issues that are being raised in this thread. If we were talking about playing D&D 4e or D&D 3e, I'd be singing a different song altogether. My approach changes based on what best fits the game in my view.

 

[KarinsDad]

"Okay, you want to spend some time searching the room. Go ahead and make a Wisdom (Perception) check. If the check succeeds, you'll find something interesting. If the check fails, you'll find something interesting, but in the doing you'll make some noise and draw unwanted attention."

You do this in a game?

You tell the players that regardless of rolls, that they will find something interesting automatically?

And you tell them that they will draw unwanted attention due to searching if they fail their search check?

The players know this information ahead of time? Strange. It sounds like a board game, picking up a card from the "treasure" pile. In a roleplaying game, the PCs (and often the players) shouldn't know ahead of time what will happen. They should decide to do an action or not without necessarily knowing the results and the consequences ahead of time. They can guess at likely possible results and consequences, but they shouldn't actually know for sure.

The DM knows that there are NPCs nearby, the players shouldn't (unless they found this out earlier). The DM knows that there is something interesting to find, the players shouldn't (unless the scenario explicitly states that there is an item in this location and the players found that out earlier).


My response as a player would be: "I think the stealthy party members should try to search so that we both find something AND have a good chance to not draw unwanted attention".

Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are saying here, but this seems a bit odd.

 

[iserith]

You do this in a game?

You tell the players that regardless of rolls, that they will find something interesting automatically?

And you tell them that they will draw unwanted attention due to searching if they fail their search check?

The players know this information ahead of time?

Yes, yes, yes, and no. They know it after they've committed to the action. When I've framed the stakes, they've already acted. There can be some negotiation here, of course, but they're searching the place because they already said so.

Strange. It sounds like a board game, picking up a card from the "treasure" pile. In a roleplaying game, the PCs (and often the players) shouldn't know ahead of time what will happen. They should decide to do an action or not without necessarily knowing the results and the consequences ahead of time. They can guess at likely possible results and consequences, but they shouldn't actually know for sure.

The DM knows that there are NPCs nearby, the players shouldn't (unless they found this out earlier). The DM knows that there is something interesting to find, the players shouldn't (unless the scenario explicitly states that there is an item in this location and the players found that out earlier).

My response as a player would be: "I think the stealthy party members should try to search so that we both find something AND have a good chance to not draw unwanted attention".

Too late for that. By the time I'm framing stakes, it's because you've described what you wanted to do and I'm preparing to narrate the result the adventurer's action. No backsies!

 

[Bawylie]

I don't think it seems like a board game. But it definitely enhances the game itself. For one, it lets players know the consequences of their actions - this gives a real sense of agency & ownership. And moving off a binary pass/fail greatly expands the universe of possibilities. I find players prefer to know what they're risking or what they stand to gain. It gives the die roll a more emotional impact - something that rolling in the dark lacks.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, yes, yes, and no. They know it after they've committed to the action. When I've framed the stakes, they've already acted. There can be some negotiation here, of course, but they're searching the place because they already said so.



Too late for that. By the time I'm framing stakes, it's because you've described what you wanted to do and I'm preparing to narrate the result the adventurer's action. No backsies!

Ok, good. It was just my misunderstanding based on you quoting text as if the DM was saying it out loud ahead of time.

 

[keterys]

Essentially, if the players _could_ succeed given time, and there's nothing bad that happens if they take some time, you don't even need to roll. It's the old "take 20" equivalent. Maybe they roll high enough quick or slow, but the important part is that it just happens and you move on.

If there are any actual stakes - you might accidentally trigger the trap, a patrol might come by, you might notice one thing but not another thing also happening, etc - then you make the roll and run with it.

It's more a mechanic from very narrative based games, rather than from board games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But the DM constantly allocates DCs. It's how the game functions. Whether a DM scales for his party specialists is a separate issue.

The DM should remain unbiased, and set the DC honestly based on the circumstances at hand and how the players describe their actions. DM Rule #2: Be Fair.

If the module doesn't list a DC for a task, then it had better list enough details of the situation that the DM has an unbiased framework to base estimates around, which is much easier said than done. There are only so many ways that you can check for a false compartment in a desk drawer. If they don't list the DC for that task, then you don't have enough information to determine the DC for any similar tasks.