Passive vs Active skill checks

[Ourph]

So basically I should always let them take 10 (outside combat)?? This can have a serious negative effect on the excitement of skill checks in my opinion...

How do you handle issue above in your games?

It depends on whether your group actually finds rolling skill checks exciting. My group doesn't, so I encourage them to take 10 whenever possible. In fact, I think defaulting to taking 10 most of the time makes the few times when they are FORCED to roll a skill check more exciting, because it's usually a high tension situation in the first place and the roll adds on the possibility for abject failure or amazing success. If your group finds rolling for skill checks to be exciting and fun, there is nothing wrong with throwing out passive checks and taking 10 and just rolling for everything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see what is really wrong with the system as outlined in the rules. It works fine. Yes, a PC might make an active check that gives them a worse result than a passive check would. So what? On the average they'll do equally well. There's no 'problem' involved.

 

[jbear]

I don't see what is really wrong with the system as outlined in the rules. It works fine. Yes, a PC might make an active check that gives them a worse result than a passive check would. So what? On the average they'll do equally well. There's no 'problem' involved.

The 'problem' comes in when a PC has an unusually high perception score. Like an Elven Shaman with a perception background for example.

If you allow Passive Perception to automatically detect traps it takes a lot of the tension out of the game.

I don't have much fondness for Passive Perception as a DM, personally. I'm still trying to come to terms with finding ways to reward the aforementioned elven shaman for her annoyingly high perception and finding ways to challenge the group when it comes to spotting anything hidden.

I really like DEFCON 1's idea about the trap challenging the passive score rather than the other way around, hence avoiding the metagame alert involved when you ask someone to roll a perception check.

I'm hoping more people will bring more ideas for me to chew on.

 

[bveld]

A passive check gives the players a clue that something should be paid attention to ("You hear faint mumbling as you approach the door.").

An active check gives further detail, should the player decide to pay attention

Thanks for all the replies. I will discuss it with my group but I think the above mentioned approach (suggested by many of you) is the way to go.

 

[Pbartender]

If you allow Passive Perception to automatically detect traps it takes a lot of the tension out of the game.

I'd tend to disagree, here...

If you don't know the trap is there (ie, you haven't searched for them yet, or you searched and found nothing), there's really no tension at all. For traps, the tension comes during the period when you know the trap is there, but you haven't disabled or bypassed it yet... Or when the trap has already been sprung, and you are desperately trying to find a way to avoid or minimize the resulting damage.

That is to say, the excitement of a trap isn't usually in the finding of it, but in dealing with its potential effects once it's been found.

That's why I like using passive Perception the way I do... It actually increases the tension when the players know something is wrong, but don't know or understand exactly what is out of place and so must take risky action (possibly, inadvertently setting off a trap before it's found, in this case) to learn more.

 

[Stalker0]

I've seen passive skills used a number of ways.

In general, I go with one of two models: A lot of passive or little passive.

If I'm going a lot of passive, then pretty much perception becomes a passive skill in its entirety.

Player: I listen at the door, passive perception is 30.
DM: Alright you find X.

Players: Alright we go into the room
DM: Checks his sheet of passive perception numbers: Alright you all find X.


Otherwise, I just ignore passive perception entirely and have people roll all the time.


If I'm using passive perception for traps, then what I do is keep the passive perception and roll and active hide check for the trap. This is a one time roll representing the difficulty in finding the trap and prevents the binary issue.



I will note however, that there are mechanical repercussions to use a passive system vs an active one. For example, sense motive checks.

Bluff vs Sense Motive is actually entirely in the favor of the SM people in most Dnd settings. The reason is I'm rolling one man's bluff against several people's sense motive....and only 1 sense motive check has to succeed to see through the bluff.

Now with a passive system, I am only really rolling against the highest SM in the party. With an active system, I am rolling against every person, because if anyone rolls high it could become the skill I have to beat. That makes the check actually a lot harder.

 

[DracoSuave]

The 'problem' comes in when a PC has an unusually high perception score. Like an Elven Shaman with a perception background for example.

If you allow Passive Perception to automatically detect traps it takes a lot of the tension out of the game.

Tension only exists when players are aware of things, or are suspicious things exist. This means that you must allow them the idea these things exist. If the trap has caught them, then it's too late for that trap, it's drama has gone.

Conversely, you don't want players stopping the game every five seconds just to 'check for traps' when it isn't appropriate. Any time a skill check becomes rote 'just cause' you're actually wasting time and you're making the process -less- tense. It's just a chore.

So -let- the high perception character be able to see traps--it takes Thievery to figure out what the trap does, and how to circumvent it, and that's MORE of an opportunity for tension.

'You see the floor has uneven stones... the dust has falling into cracks around them, and you surmise that they must be pressure plates of some type. The bugbear overlord grins as he steps on one, and you hear a loud ticking like a giant clock. Other plates raise a bit.'
'So what does it do and how will it kill us?'
'That's an excellent question that you do not have the answers to.'
'Oh... so are they good? Are they bad?'
'Even more great questions. And you have even less answers!'
'Bugger.'

 

[Pbartender]

Conversely, you don't want players stopping the game every five seconds just to 'check for traps' when it isn't appropriate. Any time a skill check becomes rote 'just cause' you're actually wasting time and you're making the process -less- tense. It's just a chore.

So -let- the high perception character be able to see traps--it takes Thievery to figure out what the trap does, and how to circumvent it, and that's MORE of an opportunity for tension.

Exactly... The passive perception check should be telling the players when it is appropriate to start worrying.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Tension only exists when players are aware of things, or are suspicious things exist. This means that you must allow them the idea these things exist. If the trap has caught them, then it's too late for that trap, it's drama has gone.

Conversely, you don't want players stopping the game every five seconds just to 'check for traps' when it isn't appropriate. Any time a skill check becomes rote 'just cause' you're actually wasting time and you're making the process -less- tense. It's just a chore.

So -let- the high perception character be able to see traps--it takes Thievery to figure out what the trap does, and how to circumvent it, and that's MORE of an opportunity for tension.

'You see the floor has uneven stones... the dust has falling into cracks around them, and you surmise that they must be pressure plates of some type. The bugbear overlord grins as he steps on one, and you hear a loud ticking like a giant clock. Other plates raise a bit.'
'So what does it do and how will it kill us?'
'That's an excellent question that you do not have the answers to.'
'Oh... so are they good? Are they bad?'
'Even more great questions. And you have even less answers!'
'Bugger.'

Yup, you and PBartender have it exactly!

Stumbling around in the dungeon where there might potentially be traps (and where might there NOT potentially be traps) really isn't building up tension. The possibility always exists in any unexplored environment already, plus it isn't really very dramatic when the tension level is always at 100%. Pretty soon the players just start making active checks every 5' and the 'tension' dissolves into tedium.

Passive Perception should work just like active Perception. The whole reason it exists with reference to traps and such is so that the players need not waste table time constantly rolling checks. Instead they can assume the characters are being reasonably cautious and get on with it. You should describe things the same way when a passive check succeeds as you do when an active one succeeds. Exactly what the characters sense is up to the DM but in either case I favor simple description of the condition that comes to their notice, disturbed dust, etc.

The real tension and the real utility of traps in general is when the trap has been detected. THEN you have tension. Generally speaking the 4e trap design philosophy isn't focused on hidden gotcha type traps that spring up in the middle of nowhere. The real utility for traps is as part of the story, part of the atmosphere, and as encounter elements. A random hidden pit trap in the middle of a hallway sounds great in theory but it isn't really all that exciting in practice. The trap goes off, the victim takes damage, the rest of the party extricates them from the trap, they get some healing, they go on. Even if said trap is more intricate and constitutes an ongoing problem (like a stress trap) it is better off placed in a specific location and it is almost always more interesting if the trap springs AFTER the players know it is there and can make some checks or take precautions.

In terms of other ordinary uses of Perception like listening at a door the tension already exists. Hearing the enemy on the other side can heighten it. I don't see how the possibility of rolling below your passive number changes anything there. Passive is just a shortcut to avoid stupid numbers of active checks. If the PCs are actively checking then they should roll and they will suffer the possibility of a low roll and the advantage of a high roll. A PC rolling low might just have been unlucky and the monsters happened to be making less noise than usual for that few seconds, or vice versa with a high roll. The luck of the dice is just a part of the game, and an added source of tension at that.

 

[Imaro]

Tension only exists when players are aware of things, or are suspicious things exist. This means that you must allow them the idea these things exist. If the trap has caught them, then it's too late for that trap, it's drama has gone.

I am going to go ahead and disagree here... If a character falls into a pit trap whose bottom is covered in a sticky, glue-like substance, or a slick oily substance... how is there no drama in trying to get out... especially if the PC's are pressed for time or threatened with danger the longer they stay here.

Another example... there's plenty of tension after the hidden needle sticks one of the PC's as he is trying to open a chest... some are trying to figure out what that rust colored subsatnce on the needle is... the stuck PC is worried about what it's affect will be, whether he can make the saving throw and so on. So no, I don't agree that there is no drama once the trap catches the PC.

Conversely, you don't want players stopping the game every five seconds just to 'check for traps' when it isn't appropriate. Any time a skill check becomes rote 'just cause' you're actually wasting time and you're making the process -less- tense. It's just a chore.

I'll agree with your first sentence... but I think this, IMO, is more a DM thing. In other words, don't place traps everywhere... instead place them logically in places or on things that make sense. Valuables, should be trapped... Kobold lairs should have extensive traps...a owlbear lair...not so much and so on.

So -let- the high perception character be able to see traps--it takes Thievery to figure out what the trap does, and how to circumvent it, and that's MORE of an opportunity for tension.

Eh, I just don't think every trap is (or should be) some complex, esoteric device that must be studied to be understood. In fact I would argue that for some creatures this would seem highly inappropriate... and would border on ludicrous if every trap the PC's ever run into is like this.

'You see the floor has uneven stones... the dust has falling into cracks around them, and you surmise that they must be pressure plates of some type. The bugbear overlord grins as he steps on one, and you hear a loud ticking like a giant clock. Other plates raise a bit.'
'So what does it do and how will it kill us?'
'That's an excellent question that you do not have the answers to.'
'Oh... so are they good? Are they bad?'
'Even more great questions. And you have even less answers!'
'Bugger.'

Cool example, and yes this would make for an interesting encounter... but again... I can't see every trapbeing this mysterious, complex and esoteric?