D&D 5E Passive Perception

[wedgeski]

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<snip>

Absolutely everything you said in your first two paragraphs applies equally to a game with DC's provided in-text. If the PC's tell me they're going to do something and it obviates the need for a die roll, I simply tell them the outcome. "Oh, you look under the rug? You find the map scratched into the floorboards."

Equally, as has been said, the PC's are often way better at stuff than their players, and have much better information on their environment as well...unless you spend twenty minutes describing every minute detail of every room, which I doubt. Game mechanics model these factors as well, not just the chance of failure.

 

[iserith]

Absolutely everything you said in your first two paragraphs applies equally to a game with DC's provided in-text. If the PC's tell me they're going to do something and it obviates the need for a die roll, I simply tell them the outcome. "Oh, you look under the rug? You find the map scratched into the floorboards."

Of course, and I've said as much upthread. I would still prefer that modules contain a statement that reminds DMs of this because otherwise it looks like the author is mandating uncertainty despite the players' approach. I've observed a lot of silly situations in games where the DM wasn't aware that they should override the text when players made good decisions.

Equally, as has been said, the PC's are often way better at stuff than their players, and have much better information on their environment as well...unless you spend twenty minutes describing every minute detail of every room, which I doubt. Game mechanics model these factors as well, not just the chance of failure.

Naturally. Which is why you do your best as a player and then, if that's not good enough to remove uncertainty, you have your character's stats to fall back on when it's time to roll.

 

[Astrosicebear]

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.

True. But PP is a quality of life improvement for the players and the DM. Like new features in Windows like drag and drop, or contextual search... not everyone will use them, but the tools are there. Some ppl might still want to use DOS and keep it oldskool while others use a more modernized version.

If PP saves me from hearing a player say over, and over, and over, "Im always searching" or "im always alert" then Ill take it.

I used to keep a DM sheet on my players in 3.5 and PFRPG... AC, HP, spot/perception, saves, etc. Now in 5E i keep 1 sticky note with their PP scores. And rarely even need to glance at it, but when I do im glad its there.

 

[KarinsDad]

True. But PP is a quality of life improvement for the players and the DM. Like new features in Windows like drag and drop, or contextual search... not everyone will use them, but the tools are there. Some ppl might still want to use DOS and keep it oldskool while others use a more modernized version.

If PP saves me from hearing a player say over, and over, and over, "Im always searching" or "im always alert" then Ill take it.

I agree 100%, but I just see Passive Perception as "Drag and Drop" where sometimes, it drops early or I cannot drag it in the first place. In other words, the problems with Passive Perception can make it unpleasant to use. So, I use it sparingly. I suspect that I mostly use it for NPCs when the PCs are trying to move stealthy (but not for PCs when the NPCs are trying to move stealthy).

To me, Passive Perception is like using a hammer for every solution when a screwdriver or a socket wrench might work better. There are cases where it works ok (like the one where you stated of a player having to say "I'm searching" over and over), but typically, I'd prefer better tools.


I probably should sit down with a half dozen different common scenarios and figure out what works best for me, but since the answers are not obvious, that sounds like a lot of work. Unfortunately (unless I missed something), none of the alternative solutions to passive perception offered here seem to work much better. So, it's that, or active perception or modifying DCs or some such. Meh. None of these seem preferable most of the time.

 

[iserith]

True. But PP is a quality of life improvement for the players and the DM. Like new features in Windows like drag and drop, or contextual search... not everyone will use them, but the tools are there. Some ppl might still want to use DOS and keep it oldskool while others use a more modernized version.

Passive Perception strikes me less as a tool and more as a band aid on an underlying issue though.

If PP saves me from hearing a player say over, and over, and over, "Im always searching" or "im always alert" then Ill take it.

I don't use PP and players in my games never do that. I imagine there's a reason that some players do that though and it's likely because of that underlying issue I mentioned above.

Also, it should be noted that a character that is doing anything else - like navigating, drawing a map, foraging, tracking, etc. - doesn't get to use their passive Perception to detect hidden threats, according to the rules. That's a strong disincentive to never do those things since you increase your chances of running afoul of a trap or being surprised by a monster.

I used to keep a DM sheet on my players in 3.5 and PFRPG... AC, HP, spot/perception, saves, etc. Now in 5E i keep 1 sticky note with their PP scores. And rarely even need to glance at it, but when I do im glad its there.

I used to do the sticky with PP in D&D 4e. Since I feel I don't need PP in D&D 5e because of the way the game works, I don't even need that.

 

[keterys]

For those who dislike passive perception, do you ever roll a single d20 and secretly add it to their perception bonuses to see if the party notices something? It has the benefit of still being slightly random (avoiding the whole knowing in advance if their passives are good enough), though still has the problem of the same people always succeeding / failing in effect.

 

[iserith]

For those who dislike passive perception, do you ever roll a single d20 and secretly add it to their perception bonuses to see if the party notices something? It has the benefit of still being slightly random (avoiding the whole knowing in advance if their passives are good enough), though still has the problem of the same people always succeeding / failing in effect.

Nah. I generally telegraph hidden things in some way when I describe the environment (either in that moment or well before). Then I ask, "What do you do?" If the players describe their actions as searching or trying to find hidden things, then I decide if their action has an uncertain outcome or not and ask for a roll if it does.

I don't like secret rolls and my approach is random (when their stated action is deemed to have an uncertain outcome), and doesn't have the problem of the same people always succeeding or failing.

 

[KarinsDad]

For those who dislike passive perception, do you ever roll a single d20 and secretly add it to their perception bonuses to see if the party notices something? It has the benefit of still being slightly random (avoiding the whole knowing in advance if their passives are good enough), though still has the problem of the same people always succeeding / failing in effect.

True, but why just get rid of one of the problems? Why not get rid of both?

Just describe the room and see what the players do. If the players search actively, then assign them active rolls. If one PC does something unique or special, just give him an active roll. Don't allow players to re-roll, just because someone rolled low (i.e. the Rogue rolled low, so the Fighter tries). Also, shift some of the active rolls from Perception to Investigation.

The problem with active rolls is that it telegraphs to the players that something is there. To avoid that, the DM could roll for the player, or alternatively, the DM could ask for active rolls when they are not needed. When the PCs all fail (because there is nothing there) and try to keep at it, just tell them that they already searched and found nothing. Move on.

Course, none of these solutions is 100% satisfying.

 

[iserith]

The problem with active rolls is that it telegraphs to the players that something is there. To avoid that, the DM could roll for the player, or alternatively, the DM could ask for active rolls when they are not needed. When the PCs all fail (because there is nothing there) and try to keep at it, just tell them that they already searched and found nothing. Move on.

If the DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions as "progress combined with setback" after a failed check (Basic Rules, page 58), then there's no need to worry these things. As I mentioned above, they "search the room top to bottom" but don't spend 10x the time needed for auto-success. They roll and fail. So I narrate "You spend some time searching the room and just as [PC] notices the floor beneath the rug is hollow, you can hear footsteps echoing down the hall outside the door. What do you do?"

 

[KarinsDad]

If the DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions as "progress combined with setback" after a failed check (Basic Rules, page 58), then there's no need to worry these things. As I mentioned above, they "search the room top to bottom" but don't spend 10x the time needed for auto-success. They roll and fail. So I narrate "You spend some time searching the room and just as [PC] notices the floor beneath the rug is hollow, you can hear footsteps echoing down the hall outside the door. What do you do?"

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.