Interesting. I've never played in a game like this, and I wouldn't ever care to. I'm sure your players have a blast though, but I like to play the game aspect of role playing game, and not just the role playing side of things.
D&D 5E Passive Perception
- Thread starter Jaracove
- Start date
Interesting. I've never played in a game like this, and I wouldn't ever care to. I'm sure your players have a blast though, but I like to play the game aspect of role playing game, and not just the role playing side of things.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
If they took that path, then it really wouldn't sit well with me. The DC for any check really, really needs to not depend on the party if it is to make any sort of sense as an objective world.
If the DM is encouraged to use higher DCs when there is a Perception-master in the party, then that creates a lot of meta-character stuff that can be difficult to work through :-/
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I'm playing a roleplaying game, too. My guess is you're playing the game like this right now but you're missing what I'm saying. Everyone states how they attack the monster ("I swing my sword at it!"). It's necessary to play the game. As to whether or not there's an attack roll, why would there need to be one if the monster isn't defending itself in any way (for example)? Or what if there's a wall of force in between the character and monster? Do you call for an attack roll then or just narrate the result of the arrow or sword harmlessly bouncing off the invisible barrier? I'm doing the latter because I already know the result. A roll is unnecessary.
This is getting a little bit off-topic of course, so to bring it back to the thread's discussion, how Perception works - or any other attack roll or ability check in the game for that matter - is adjudicated in the same fashion. It all goes back to the basic conversation of the game on page 3 of the Basic Rules: The DM narrates the results of the adventurers actions. If the outcome is uncertain in the DM's eyes, then a roll is called for. In fact, the DMG tells us that there are drawbacks to calling for a roll for every little thing: "...roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."
You are penalizing a player by ignoring passive perception, especially if they have invested in it. Just like you are penalizing a player if you make him or her miss attack rolls if they don't give an "accurate" description of where they are striking. What if I want my character to be incredible, almost super human, and spotting things, whereas I myself as a player may not be that great?
I don't want to have to come up with fiddly descriptions for everything my character does every time. That just feels a lot like work to me. Likewise if I just say "I attack the Orc with my sword" you wouldn't make me miss for not saying exactly *where* I attack.
Can't say I agree that role playing diminishes when rolling is involved. I've seen a lot of great role play happen when 1's have been rolled for example. I don't think you should be asking for rolls for every little thing - and the game makes a point of that - but at the same time I don't think you should auto fail just because a player doesn't think to state something either.
Last edited:
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I'm removing passive checks from my games altogether. They are unnecessary and don't fit the D&D 5e paradigm in my view.
That is not what I am doing at all. "Accuracy" has little to do with it. Only a statement of goal and approach is required. "The players describe what they want to do."
Build a character with a decent Perception bonus. Also, pay attention to when the DM describes the environment and engage with it. Both of these things are skills. The former is skill at building a character; the latter is skill at playing the game. Go for success without a roll at all, then if you need to roll because the DM says your action has an uncertain outcome, you have good stats to fall back on.
No, I would not make you miss for saying that. It's a clear statement of goal and approach. Just like "I search the room from top to bottom" is a clear statement of goal and approach.
You can actually read transcripts of my game if you want. Perhaps it will make things clearer.
I think an example that the writers of the DMG had in mind would be if you search the flagstones in front of the scorched door where a tripwire is hidden and the DM makes you roll to find it even though it's right there in front of your face. You made a good decision to search there and still the DM is making you roll. So why bother making good decisions like engaging with that door and investigating if it's only your rolls that matter?
Psikerlord#
Explorer
But the DM constantly allocates DCs. It's how the game functions. Whether a DM scales for his party specialists is a separate issue.
wedgeski
Adventurer
I think this is a very odd way of doing things. I provide modifiers to the *roll*, and leave the DC static. Not only does that maintain a certain objective view of the game world (a thorny subject in itself), but it shows the players that their actions, strategies, preparations, and expertise are affecting the situation. Or do you narrate how the DC has been affected by their actions?
I readily admit that passive DC's can be an issue. Ramping passive perception to maximum level has been the job of at least one PC in every group I've DM'd from the day the rule was invented. Trouble is, the designers don't seem to know what to do about it either. IIRC there are some very odd sections in Phandelver that describe different DC's for the same thing, depending on whether the player is using an active or passive check.
Only for those DMs who use passive perception for this and for groups where players go nuts over things like Perception.
In our group of 6 5E PCs, nobody has a Wisdom of 16, even the Cleric. So, nobody could have a Perception of +5 at level one (although the Bard has a +7 at level 5).
This is the reason I never use Passive Perception for traps. It's a subpar game mechanic.
Not necessarily.
If the DC is 16 and the PC has a +5, passive perception misses the DC.
If a PC has just opened the door and you know that he already missed the DC the moment he does that and the players says "What do we see in the room?", do you automatically now give him an active perception check in addition to the passive perception that he already got? Just because he asked a simple normal question about room contents?
Or do you wait until he says something a little more explicit like "I want to search the room." before you give him the active check?
Not using passive perception, in this example, can just mean that as DM, you describe everything obvious in the room and don't worry about one PC having +5 in the skill, another having +3 and a third having +1. With bounded accuracy, there is little difference between these three PCs. There is no longer one low level PC with a -1 to the skill and another with a +12.
You allow the players and the roleplaying to determine if an active check is needed and the player rolls when asked by the DM. Simple, easy, and it removes the weird baggage that comes along with the passive perception concept.
With regard to modules, the DC should be written there because not all DMs play the same. And even for a DM who does not use passive perception, that DC is necessary to have an approximate difficulty (which the DM is then free to modify based on what is going on).
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
When the DM assigns a DC to a task, the DM is saying that resolving the task is uncertain and has a chance of failure (Basic Rules, page 58). Doing this before hearing the approach the PCs will be using to overcome the challenge is putting the cart before the horse in my view. In the game, I frame the challenge and ask "What do you do?" If the players make such good decisions that they remove any uncertainty in overcoming the challenge I've presented, then I simply narrate the result as per "How to Play," (Basic Rules, page 3).
Not having to roll dice shows the players that their actions, strategies, preparations, and expertise and affecting the situation. In D&D 5e, the smart play (in my view) is to try to avoid rolling dice. A player should go for auto-success wherever possible by listening to the DM describe the environment, engaging with it, and making good decisions. Asking to roll dice is just asking for uncertainty and a chance to fail. Which can be fun, of course - I always make failure fun for the players if not the characters - but from a game standpoint, people tend to want to strive for success and certainty first. I try to balance giving out automatic success and asking for rolls so that players also strike a balance between good decision-making and relying on their character builds. I do this because I don't want players to think they have to play "Try and Guess the DM's Solution" and because I want them to feel like their decisions and characterizations matter more than the result of dice.
If the DM is framing a scene well, not forcing the players to pixelbitch, doesn't see every action as a check, adjudicates with interesting failure in mind, and is telegraphing hidden threats to afford players an opportunity to make meaningful decisions, there is absolutely no need for passive Perception. I'd prefer the designers teach DMs how to do those things rather than rely on a mechanic to protect the players from DMs who do not.
Similar Threads
