> There's a difference between taking 10 and a passive check. There's no difference. A passive check is a Take 10. > Taking 10 is allowed in situations where the character has time to doublecheck > his actions, meaning that he can make sure he doesn't slip up. Taking 10 does not require additional time, only that there be no direct interference or distraction.
Right. What constitutes distraction is up to the DM. I recommend keeping them distracted as much as possible.
I never understood why that was left out of the 4th Edition rules.
Probably because not having to make a roll for every little thing when there's no danger is self-evident. You just succeed in most cases. But then, I guess I've been in some games where that wasn't evident to the DM...
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
While passive checks use the take 10 rule, the take 10 rule itself is devised for when players are not in a rush, encounter or skill challenge, or so it says (basically) at page 127 in the rules compendium. So while passive skill checks USE take 10, the two are certainly different. Every passive check uses take 10, but not every take 10 is a passive check.
Anyway, the real issue is not whether the PC's find a trap or not, but the fact that when a player tells me that he wants to actively search for traps (because an NPC told them to watch out for traps, or because they just ran in a trap and are now cautious of springing another one), he doesn't get a real bonus for being actually on the lookout for something since, on average, rolling and taking 10 is the same. And that is why I propose to use a take 5 rule for passive checks instead of a take 10 rule. To reward players who want their character to be extra cautious with a bigger chance to actually find something.
I'll give an example: Two situations, different NPC's with the same bluff check result. One NPC, Tom, has always helped the party and there's a bond of trust between Tom and the party members. But for some reason, Tom tells them a lie. The players trust the NPC and hence wouldn't be paying much attention to him telling the truth or not. The second NPC, Brett, is a shady character who has double crossed the players many times before. The players need some information from him but Brett lies. Of course, the players are wary of Brett and are prepared to spot anything that could betray Brett's lie.
When talking to Tom, the players tell me nothing, so I use their passive checks. However, because my players don't trust Brett, one of them tells me he wants to make an insight check to tell if he's lying. With the current rules, they have an equal chance of discovering either Tom's or Brett's lie. If you use take 5 for passive checks, Tom would have an easier time fooling the players than Brett, because they trust him and he uses that trust.
Another simple real life example: When playing Metal Gear Solid 4 (or any other game that has mines or traps), I almost always run into the first mine that's set in a level, because I'm not expecting it (passive check). But once I know that there are mines around, I move much more cautiously and manage to avoid the other mines placed around the map, even when chased by enemies (because I am actively looking for them => active check). With the current rules in D&D, there would be no difference.
it isn't about surprising the players with traps, it's about using a system that's more fair to the players and rewards contextual thinking and immersion.
While passive checks use the take 10 rule, the take 10 rule itself is devised for when players are not in a rush, encounter or skill challenge, or so it says (basically) at page 127 in the rules compendium. So while passive skill checks USE take 10, the two are certainly different. Every passive check uses take 10, but not every take 10 is a passive check.
From the standpoint of getting on with the game without a bunch of mechanics, you can just assume that PCs "Take a Gazillion" when there's no threat. They just succeed. Mechanics only really matter in charged situations or when the results of success or failure are interesting. Otherwise, just tell the story.
Anyway, the real issue is not whether the PC's find a trap or not, but the fact that when a player tells me that he wants to actively search for traps (because an NPC told them to watch out for traps, or because they just ran in a trap and are now cautious of springing another one), he doesn't get a real bonus for being actually on the lookout for something since, on average, rolling and taking 10 is the same. And that is why I propose to use a take 5 rule for passive checks instead of a take 10 rule. To reward players who want their character to be extra cautious with a bigger chance to actually find something.
The actively searching player does get a bonus of sorts - he gets the chance to roll above a 10. You could also give him a situational bonus if an NPC told him to look out for something in particular, but I don't see why that wouldn't also benefit a player relying on passive.
When you reward a player for doing something, what you're saying is you want them to do that more often. Is being "extra cautious" more interesting or less interesting in the context of the story? Because if I had to watch my fellow players spam Perception checks all night because they were being rewarded to do so, I'd go crazy. I'd rather just run down the corridor and set the damn traps off myself so something interesting happens.
I'll give an example: Two situations, different NPC's with the same bluff check result. One NPC, Tom, has always helped the party and there's a bond of trust between Tom and the party members. But for some reason, Tom tells them a lie. The players trust the NPC and hence wouldn't be paying much attention to him telling the truth or not. The second NPC, Brett, is a shady character who has double crossed the players many times before. The players need some information from him but Brett lies. Of course, the players are wary of Brett and are prepared to spot anything that could betray Brett's lie.
When talking to Tom, the players tell me nothing, so I use their passive checks. However, because my players don't trust Brett, one of them tells me he wants to make an insight check to tell if he's lying. With the current rules, they have an equal chance of discovering either Tom's or Brett's lie. If you use take 5 for passive checks, Tom would have an easier time fooling the players than Brett, because they trust him and he uses that trust.
It's always passive unless the PC asks to make a roll. Just do that and save yourself worrying about such trivialities. The PCs don't have to believe what an NPC says even if he's lying and rolls a natural 20 on the Bluff check and the PCs roll a 1 on the Insight check. So it's not worth wasting intellectual capital on.
Another simple real life example: When playing Metal Gear Solid 4 (or any other game that has mines or traps), I almost always run into the first mine that's set in a level, because I'm not expecting it (passive check). But once I know that there are mines around, I move much more cautiously and manage to avoid the other mines placed around the map, even when chased by enemies (because I am actively looking for them => active check). With the current rules in D&D, there would be no difference.
How often should your PCs be making active Perception checks in a dungeon?
Also, the more you try to simulate reality with D&D, the more unhappy you'll be. It's not meant to simulate reality. It's meant to be simple and allow you a fairly consistent framework with which to adjudicate success and failure in the context of a story. The second you start thinking about it in terms of what's more realistic, you're already going off the path.
it isn't about surprising the players with traps, it's about using a system that's more fair to the players and rewards contextual thinking and immersion.
The system as-is is fair enough. But, okay, now I see where you're going with this. It's "immersion," the DM's holy grail. It's a myth.
Some of the best DM advice I ever got: You can't control the thoughts and perceptions of other people and that's what immersion is - how they perceive your world and your story. If you can't control something, you should not spend your time worrying about it. Just make your game the most interesting you can (hint: it's not through Perception checks) and each player will walk away with a feeling of immersion that is appropriate to their level of interest in the game.
Contextual thinking is going to come from more than just Perception and Insight checks as well. It's more about putting things in front of the players that are important and compelling to their characters' goals. Everything else is superfluous because that's all they're really going to remember anyway. You're better off redirecting that effort to story or encounter complexity.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
I don't think the intention of Perception was that the character could never be caught off guard.
On the contrary -- and I'm just spitballin' here -- I think it MAY be exactly that. These are heroes after all. Examples: see Aragorn, Roland Deschain, and Batman... Rarely if ever taken by surprise, unless it's by a criminal mastermind or magically hidden surprise.
It seems to me that, in order to take a PC by surprise, a trap or lie has to be pretty darn well-hidden. In a situation where it's someone who wouldn't notice anyways, they're either very low-level or they're the kind of person who wouldn't see it (-1 to perception), like in the marauding mercenaries example used above.
Realizing Tom, the beloved friend of the heroes, is lying to them is a common and dramatic scene in lots of media. If someone has the passive perception to see it, I say give it to 'em. Meanwhile, the half-orc warlord with bad eyesight who suspected Tom the entire time STILL can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie
Here is how I do passive/take 10. It may not be exactly in the rules but I think it works well.
No one ever figures anything out with passive checks. They only learn that there is something to figure out. So if there is a room with traps, a passive perception lets the players know there is something suspicious about the room. But they always have to do a non passive check to learn the details.
Take 10. A player can take 10 only when they have some time to think/prepare. This generally means that exciting, important (and especially combat) check are never allowed to take 10. I also don't allow it for checks where I think extra time wouldn't help, so you will basically never see my players take 10 for diplomacy, acrobatic, or stealth (to name a few). Instead I try give my players skill check bonuses for smart decisions and good roleplaying.
Well, first of all, thanks for all the replies so far.
I think I like SirLancelittle's approach more than mine. I now see that my proposal does have it's flaws, like the advantage of spamming perception and insight checks. And I think that 'You enter a dimly lit room, there are three strange holes in the wall and one of the tiles seems out of place' sounds more intriguing than 'You enter a dimly lit room, there's a trap'. Also it still makes the players think as opposed to listen me talk and see what happens.
I guess I just wanted to make a rule out of something that should be solved by the DM by creative storytelling, probably because I'm not really good at that since I'm still pretty new to DMing and D&D in general.
And I think I finally get the why and how of passive skill checks now. It may be only a small part of the whole, but I think it can be very frustrating for the players if the DM doesn't get a certain concept or misuses the rules.
Well, first of all, thanks for all the replies so far.
I think I like SirLancelittle's approach more than mine. I now see that my proposal does have it's flaws, like the advantage of spamming perception and insight checks. And I think that 'You enter a dimly lit room, there are three strange holes in the wall and one of the tiles seems out of place' sounds more intriguing than 'You enter a dimly lit room, there's a trap'. Also it still makes the players think as opposed to listen me talk and see what happens.
I guess I just wanted to make a rule out of something that should be solved by the DM by creative storytelling, probably because I'm not really good at that since I'm still pretty new to DMing and D&D in general.
The rules aren't too clear on what Perception is able to see, and what it isn't. It's really a DM's call, which can be a problem for players who think it lets them see everything. But I think there's good precedent for a successful check not giving the whole story, it's just not that easy to find. For instance, there's an encounter in Dungeon Delve in which a Perception check tells you that a figure is hiding, but not exactly what kind of creature the figure is.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Well, first of all, thanks for all the replies so far.
I think I like SirLancelittle's approach more than mine. I now see that my proposal does have it's flaws, like the advantage of spamming perception and insight checks. And I think that 'You enter a dimly lit room, there are three strange holes in the wall and one of the tiles seems out of place' sounds more intriguing than 'You enter a dimly lit room, there's a trap'. Also it still makes the players think as opposed to listen me talk and see what happens.
I guess I just wanted to make a rule out of something that should be solved by the DM by creative storytelling, probably because I'm not really good at that since I'm still pretty new to DMing and D&D in general.
And I think I finally get the why and how of passive skill checks now. It may be only a small part of the whole, but I think it can be very frustrating for the players if the DM doesn't get a certain concept or misuses the rules.
An easy rule of thumb to keep in mind is that, outside of when the rules specifically call for one, the DM should only ask for a check if (1) the PCs are in a charged situation - a fight, tense scene, or otherwise when the outcome is in doubt - and (2) when success or failure are both interesting. If the circumstance is neither, just narrate the outcome as a success (or sometimes a "soft" failure if it's interesting in context).
Example: If the PCs are not in combat, but there's a 50' ledge to climb up to, do you ask for a check? No. Given enough time, preparation and assists, the PCs will climb up there with no problem. Otherwise, you'll be asking them to keep rolling until they succeed and there's no point to that and certainly no fun to be had. If, however, they're looking at that ledge and an artillery monster walks out onto it and starts raining down arrows upon them, then, yes, you ask for Athletics checks to climb that wall.
Another one DMs get confused about and players tend to capitalize on: Skill checks don't allow you to do things. Actions do. The result of the skill check just determines the relative success of the action. So you should enforce that notion in how you tell the story. A PC can't make a Diplomacy check to talk to the king. The PC must talk to the king and then if success or failure on the check is interesting, the DM calls for a Diplomacy check. Same thing goes for Perception checks to find a trap. It isn't enough to just ask to make a Perception check. The PC must take the action, then you call for a roll. That action might entail getting closer to the trap to check it out. If you make sure you're following this tact, you'll likely see more interaction and thinking which appears to be your goal.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
In my home game, the rule I use is that only active perception checks can find things that are hidden with exceptional care (like traps or hidden doors). However, if their passive perception beats the DC, I give them a clue that there may be something amiss. For me, this is a good compromise between automatically discovering a trap and having arbitrary "gotcha" traps.
