i dont use passives in my game, i hate them with a passion. i instead use the rules of 3e for taking 10 or 20. i think those rules fits better. so there is no passives. i think the problem arises from the fact that i'm not the one asking them for a roll, but them having to tell me. i think the point is that they fear to miss anything or fear being ambushed and dieing. the dillema is not in the situation, it is int he players emotonnal state at that point. if th eplayers argue that they should have a way to see them by doing perception. it is already to the point where they just are afraid of anything bad happenning. and if you say no and something bad do happen, they will feel cheated out of a chance at preventing said thing. while if you say yes, you are the one who will feel like you were cheated out of an encounter you thought was worth it. in both cases, someone gonna be sad somewhere. and thats where things shouldn't be going in those games.
unfortunately, not everyone see it that way... i got 2 players who just amasses curses after curses, because its funnier that way. i got another player who do not care if he's heroic or not, all he cares about is how that one girl will react to his doings toward her. i got one who wants a good story, that barely ever happens because none of them can take a decision. if you ask them for a decision, they just go the other way. thats just the thing, they never liked D&D before because no other DMs wants them in their game. because they are problem players. all they have had were bad experiences until they met me. my playstyle is to say yes all the time, see where it leads, so i dont care for their behaviors. but it also means i have much less stories i can tell, because they will mostly never decide anything when it comes to taking part in a quest. they, right now, in my wednesday group, have like 7 quest in suspended animation. they are not even close to one of them. they know they have to go, they wnana go there, but can't take the decision of going there because none wants to force the others where they dont want to.
that's the thing, as much as i want them to be heroes, and i strive to put them there reguardless of how they act... most of them only wnts stuff for themsevles... as in play the evil guy. none of them can play a good guy, they are at best neutral at all times. you can't be a hero if all you have in mind is the anti-hero.... the one who picks all the curses, picks all the bad guys and kill them because the others wont go the distance. some of them are ghostrider, some of them are the punisher type. one of them is the all heroic fighter who can't seem to find the right way to do stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Passive basically is taking a 10. The DM should never feel obligated to tell someone to make a roll. The Player says "I do this" and the DM tells them what roll to make. There is a chest hidden in the rubble that you would like the characters to find, but they aren't looking around. So you take a 10, add the highest Perception modifiers for the group, and if they hit the DC, they see something shiny in the rubble. If they still don't do anything, that's on them. If you really want them to see it, don't even take the 10...as DM you get to decide they see something regardless of what they may or may not roll. But you can't force them to pick it up.
Indecision is the bane of Improv in general, and Role-Playing is Improv. It's going to happen, especially if your players are invested in their characters. They don't want them to die, so they don't do anything. At that point, they've basically retired from the adventuring life. You can't treat it like a video game where the "quests" wait for the player to get there. If they don't go forward toward a "quest", what happens? Does another group take care of the situation gaining the fame and fortune? Does whatever "evil" spill out and start affecting the world?
i dont use passives in my game, i hate them with a passion. i instead use the rules of 3e for taking 10 or 20. i think those rules fits better. so there is no passives. i think the problem arises from the fact that i'm not the one asking them for a roll, but them having to tell me. i think the point is that they fear to miss anything or fear being ambushed and dieing. the dillema is not in the situation, it is int he players emotonnal state at that point. if th eplayers argue that they should have a way to see them by doing perception. it is already to the point where they just are afraid of anything bad happenning. and if you say no and something bad do happen, they will feel cheated out of a chance at preventing said thing. while if you say yes, you are the one who will feel like you were cheated out of an encounter you thought was worth it. in both cases, someone gonna be sad somewhere. and thats where things shouldn't be going in those games.
unfortunately, not everyone see it that way... i got 2 players who just amasses curses after curses, because its funnier that way. i got another player who do not care if he's heroic or not, all he cares about is how that one girl will react to his doings toward her. i got one who wants a good story, that barely ever happens because none of them can take a decision. if you ask them for a decision, they just go the other way. thats just the thing, they never liked D&D before because no other DMs wants them in their game. because they are problem players. all they have had were bad experiences until they met me. my playstyle is to say yes all the time, see where it leads, so i dont care for their behaviors. but it also means i have much less stories i can tell, because they will mostly never decide anything when it comes to taking part in a quest. they, right now, in my wednesday group, have like 7 quest in suspended animation. they are not even close to one of them. they know they have to go, they wnana go there, but can't take the decision of going there because none wants to force the others where they dont want to.
that's the thing, as much as i want them to be heroes, and i strive to put them there reguardless of how they act... most of them only wnts stuff for themsevles... as in play the evil guy. none of them can play a good guy, they are at best neutral at all times. you can't be a hero if all you have in mind is the anti-hero.... the one who picks all the curses, picks all the bad guys and kill them because the others wont go the distance. some of them are ghostrider, some of them are the punisher type. one of them is the all heroic fighter who can't seem to find the right way to do stuff.
So your table is filled with problem players, and then you complain about how they play. That's like going to a shelter and being told that Sparky refuses to be potty trained and will pee anywhere. Then you take him home and he pees everywhere, then when your friends talk about their dogs, you tell them that they should let their dogs just pee everywhere. Just because your problem players force you to run your table that way doesn't mean that the majority of other DM's tables should run their games the same way.
If you have problem players, you should try to correct their behavior. If they get upset because they didn't make a active perception check, they had the opportunity to make a perception check when you were describing the scene. If they missed their opportunity, that's too bad. I bet they ask next time. Correct the bad behavior, don't accept it.
Secondly, you don't like passives, that's fine, except it's a little contradictory because "taking 10" is literally what a passive score is.
@Griz and Squigs: Amen! I don’t have those problems BECAUSE I say “no” sometimes, not in spit of it. If they give a GOOD reason, I let them roll, if they give a lame-assed reason they usually realize it before they’ve even finished speaking. Most of the time they want to PLAY more than they want to win. I also warned them at the beginning of the campaign that, statistically speaking, one of their characters would most likely be dead by level 5. If it then happens they are prepared, and if it doesn’t then they get to feel extra awesome. But simply because they understand that it’s possible for their characters to actually die they actually PLAY better.
the other reason I don’t have that problem is because I say “everybody roll perception” then, when I tell them which ones noticed the orc and which ones didn’t they have nothing to complain about. If the difference in success or failure is more than 1 of them noticing the orc, you’ve done it wrong. I get my fun throwing CRAZY shit at them, and then seeing what amazingly creative shit they can come up with to overcome it. In my book, if any one of them notices the orc i’ll Ask them if they tell the party. If that character alerts the others then they ALL know, and if they don’t then the others have absolutely no idea. They rolled the <8+ or whatever, so when I tell them they have no idea, they know why.
Passive scores represent the fact that characters are not deaf, dumb and blind when not actively looking for something. You don't walk around all day with a blindfold on and earplugs in, only to take them out when you wonder if maybe there's something in your vicinity you should know about. Passive scores represent a character's general awareness of their surroundings at a base level, and frankly I consult passives a whole lot more than I request actives. The players use their active skills when they want to; as a DM I use their passive scores modified by overall alertness.
Which, in general, means that when the character is in a tense but currently not dangerous situation - i.e. exploring a ruin, traversing the wilderness, on their toes in a far-foreign city - then I assume the characters are alert and keeping tabs on their surroundings and use their normal passive scores. if the characters are in a position of comfort and safety - tucked away in a warm inn somewhere, visiting a PC's hometown/family, or otherwise relaxing - then I consider them to be relaxed and confident in their safety, effectively lowering their passive by 4 (eqv. to Disadvantage) since they're not being wary. Unless, of course, the player tells me they're keeping their eyes open or starts acting wary, in which case they either get an active Perception check or I bump them back up to Alert.
There's also Paranoid, in which a character is in a state of super high alert and code-red tension. At this point most PCs will have requested active Perception checks, but if somebody is Paranoid and somehow not using their active score, I'll give them +4 to their passive score. However, they also tend to suffer from false alarms, little bits of "Bart...you notice something shifting out of the corner of one eye - " Bart: 'MYEH! I whirl around!" "...and see a few remaining tattered scraps of curtain fluttering in the faint breeze from a nearby window. Harmless. Bart: "...**** you so hard. No, really. So hard."
It's fun, and gives me some levers to pull behind the scenes to get my players immersed in the game. It's a nice way to make use of passive scores, which D&D in general is really bad at.
Side note: getting mad at your players when they use their skills and talents to bypass a combat encounter is kind of exactly the opposite of what a DM should do. it's your job to adjudicate the actions a player takes, not to judge the actions a player takes. I mean, unless your player is in front of a judge. Then it's your job to judge their actions, but only the way the judge would judge them, not the way you would judge them, because they're talking to a judge and they kinda asked for it at that point.
Nevertheless. If you're not prepared for your players to take your best-laid plans and go straight to Albuquerque with them, mayhaps leave the seat behind the screen to someone else.
Heh. Once you realize what a passive sensory score is - i.e. the character's basic level of situational awareness - it's fun to toy with those numbers based on how aware they may or may not be in a given situation. And let's face it - poking players' phobias is one of the not-so-secret delights of DMing
Heh. Once you realize what a passive sensory score is - i.e. the character's basic level of situational awareness - it's fun to toy with those numbers based on how aware they may or may not be in a given situation. And let's face it - poking players' phobias is one of the not-so-secret delights of DMing
Hehehehe
@Paladin: I think I figured out the problem. You have them roll to find out IF they notice the orc. I assume they will notice the orc, I’m the frickin’ DM, I KNOW they will spot that orc. I have them roll simply so I can narrate WHICH ONES spotted the orc. That way the players get to narrate what they do about it. It’s THEIR story, I just do most of the talking. Basically, stop trying to “beat” the players, just tell them what happens.
I'm considering the idea of making certain skills like an attack skill, and others like a defensive skill. Sort of Attack vs. AC type thing.
For example Deception is an attack skill, while Insight is an AC skill. You never roll Insight verses deception, it's always deception vs insight. Insight acting as armor class. Which is why it's got a passive score. I'll always let the players know when an enemy fails it's deception vs. a persons insight, but not if they fail. There will never be a need for a player to roll insight, since it's always vs another person.
Still musing on it... I mean, you get the randomness from one side rolling, you really don't need both sides rolling so long as you're consistent on who rolls and when.
Deception is the ability to lie convincingly or carry off a flamboozle; Insight is the ability to pierce lies and spot them in the telling (among other things). Deception defends against Insight, not the other way around. or, to be a bit more accurate, Deception involves the rough equivalent of an Insight saving throw.
Passive Insight is used like any other passive sense; it's a mark of the character's general level of basic competence at spotting a lie even when they're not necessarily actively looking for one. A character with low passive Insight just hears people speaking; a character with high passive Insight might notice someone sweating, notice their eyes flitting about, notice that their body language doesn't match the words they're using, or otherwise pick up on tells a low-Insight individual might miss.
An active Insight check is the character specifically deciding to put their talents to use trying to ferret out clues to whether they're being bullshitted or not - it can be below their passive Insight because once you take the ol' thinkgoo off autopilot and force it to Pay Attention, sometimes it'll decide to Pay Attention to the wrong shit, or you'll start thinking in circles and end up otherwise distracting yourself. Same for any other passive sense.
Man, I really wish the PHB was better about explaining what passive scores are for...
I disagree, when you attempt to decieve someone, that is the active action, it's the attack. You're attempting to trick your target into believing some falsehood. Where as insight is your defense against people trying to deceive you. If you weren't making a social attack, you'd be telling the truth. You don't accidentally lie. I mean it's absolutely silly in my mind for someone to have to actively decide to try and tell if someone is deceiving them. I mean without first getting some kind of inkling they were deceiving them in the first place, why are they deciding to roll insight? This is why I like the way I'm going. To have insight be the attack skill, you're not relying on the character's insight, you're relying on the players insight. It's not whether the npc lies convincingly it's whether you do, and if you don't, if the pc picks up on it to then attempt to roll to have permission to see through your bullshit based on the character's skills. So first the player needs to pick up on your hints that they should roll insight, or be paranoid and ask to roll insight in every conversation if they know they as a p[layer aren't perceptive enough, assuming they do pick up on your hints, which there's no guarantee the player will, they will then need to roll to succeed.
See having deception, which is clearly a purposeful act made against another person, vs insight, you take all that out of it. It's no longer your skill vs. the players, it's the enemies skill vs. the character's skill. If the enemy fails, you tell the player the enemies words seem a bit off using whatever flowery language you wish you signify the deception failure, while if the enemy succeeds you do the same thing but to make the enemies words seem convincing, and since the player never rolls, and they know they don't roll, the rp just continues on without being hindered in any way. Where as asking for an insight check interrupts the flow, and forces everyone to metagame pretend if they know they rolled badly.
Same with stealth, by taking away the active roll, you never need to worry about any metagame, or people having to pretend, or people having to outhink the dungeon master as to when to roll, etc, people can just play the game. No need for paranoid constant asking to roll nonsense, and no need to give anything away by breaking the flow with asking for a roll.
As for the active vs. passive thing, you describe I sort of agree. Quite often when you try to do something you fail whereas had you been relying on your honed talents without thinking about it you might not have. It's called being under pressure.
But, I like the idea of reducing as many rolls as possible, so less flow is interrupted.
It doesn’t really matter which one is which. It’s an opposed roll. Think of it more like comparing two attack rolls, or comparing two ACs if you are using passive stats for both. The passive number is always the defense, the active roll is always the offense.
Yeah but there's a clear time to roll deception. Deception is always something you choose to do.
Wheras insight is something everyone is doing to some degree all the time, and it's debatable how much benefit actively using insight would actually have. I mean even if you do actively use it, you're either choosing to roll based off your own insight or guessing or paranoid asking in every encounter, or never thinking to ask because your insight isn't as good as your character's.
I'm considering the idea of making certain skills like an attack skill, and others like a defensive skill. Sort of Attack vs. AC type thing.
For example Deception is an attack skill, while Insight is an AC skill. You never roll Insight verses deception, it's always deception vs insight. Insight acting as armor class. Which is why it's got a passive score. I'll always let the players know when an enemy fails it's deception vs. a persons insight, but not if they fail. There will never be a need for a player to roll insight, since it's always vs another person.
Still musing on it... I mean, you get the randomness from one side rolling, you really don't need both sides rolling so long as you're consistent on who rolls and when.
Similar to how a hide check forces a roll vs the passive perception of the target, a deception normally goes against the passive insight, unless that character has a reason to believe they're lying, then they can roll insight.
“Still musing on it... I mean, you get the randomness from one side rolling, you really don't need both sides rolling so long as you're consistent on who rolls and when.” -ardenwolf
the consistency does not need to be “deception/stealth always rolls and insight/investigate never does” just make the consistency that “the ACTIVE check always rolls” if the orc hid in the bushes 3 hours ago, but the Ranger is actively looking for it now, then Investigation is the active roll. If the orc is generally on guard, and the players suddenly hide from it, then Stealth becomes the active roll.
Man, this whole little mini-discussion really highlights the weakness of 5e, or any D20 system really, when it comes to opposed skills. Miss my GURPS quick contests.
Nevertheless. I'm liking Sposta's version of that one better. Whosoever declares an action is doing something; it's even called "declaring an action". Actions are not resolved with passive scores. if someone is actively using Deception, then the passive Insight of the deceivee (modified suitably for how outrageous a bill of goods the PC is trying to sell) can serve as a basic DC. If a player is using Insight to try and gauge facts or moods of an NPC without that NPC's active knowledge (such as observing from a distance, or while someone else is talking), then Insight is the active skill and would be opposed by passive Deception (or more often just roughly gauged at the table). Remember as well, Insight is more than just "is this guy bullshitting me?" and Deception can be more than just "is this guy gullible enough to buy what I'm selling?"
Makes sense. Actually it works really well for ambushes or two groups stealthing near each other to just use passive for both, unless one side arbitrarily decides to do something active.
Part of the reason ambushes never work, is everyone rolling dice. No matter what someone will roll absurdly low shit, and someone will roll absurdly high. Using passive for both, the ambushing party has had time to acquire a stealthy position, and been maintaining it for awhile. They are working together to set this ambush, it makes no sense for someone in the ambush to roll a one. That said, they wouldn't get a twenty either, as they are holding their positions, which means the occasional cough, moving to relieve pressure etc.
Meanwhile the party has been traveling, some might zone out a bit, some might be looking the wrong direction even if perceptive, etc, so passive makes sense there too. Neither party is being active.
Compare passive numbers, then start the scene. If anyone suspects there are more in the ambush than they saw, or exposed themselves in the original attack, they can use the search combat action, is what it's for.
Same as if two groups are stealthing by each other, and both have a higher stealth passive than the other groups perception passive, then both groups pass by each other unaware, or run into each other, catching each other by surprise. (Which is effectively no surprise mechanically but definitely rp wise)
Prevents the whole stupid having everyone roll perception, and every enemy roll stealth nonsense that slows the game down.
If NPC's are Ambushing a party, I'll roll for the NPCs as a group. This sets the DC for the Party. 5 Generic Orcs are going to have basically the same Stealth ability, so just roll 1 time for the entire group. If they have a Specialty Orc, I'll take that into consideration...like a Shaman casting Pass Without Trace or the equivalent of a Ranger who can Cover them. Then, if the Party is just riding along, not paying particularly attention, I'll use their Passive Perceptions against the rolled DC. If they have certain people doing lookout, I'll have them roll Perception Checks periodically and when they are close to the Ambush site, I'll use that roll.
Something else I've done, at the beginning of each session I have the Players each roll a d20 about 15 times and then hand it to me on a sheet of paper. When they need an Ability check for something they wouldn't know the results of...such as Perception or Insight, I'll use the top number and keep going down the list. That way they don't know if they have a high or low roll. If a Player rolls a 3 on a Perception check, they know they rolled poorly and so become ready. I also have my own sheet for NPC's so I can go down it without rolling a die. That way the Players don't know something is up.
For example, using the above Ambush. The Orcs with a Shaman set up an ambush. I'll look at the 1st free number on the NPC sheet, add their Stealth skill and Pass Without a Trace giving them the DC of 23. The party is riding towards the ambush with the Ranger keeping an eye out front and the Thief keeping an eye behind them. The Orcs plan on springing the ambush right when the Party is in the center of the pass. The Ranger gets a Perception check, but because I don't want them to know something is up by having them do a roll, I'll consult the sheet for the Ranger, add their Perception and Proficency modifiers and they end up with a 19 (same as a bad roll, but now the Ranger doesn't know they got a bad roll). The rest of the party's Passive Perception isn't high enough to notice, but as they get into the Ambush area, the Thief gets their chance. Checking their sheet, they end up with a 25. I tell the Thief they hear the clink of rocks allowing him to warn the party in enough time that the Orcs don't get a surprise round.
It's more upkeep for the DM, but it prevents the Players from knowing things based on how they roll that their Characters wouldn't.
To be honest, I never even roll for the orcs. I usually just decide how “Stealthy” they are being and assign an appropriate DC between 12-17 most of the time.
Well orcs have a passive perception of 10. So that's why it also depends on the monsters they're trying to be sneaky around. It's easier to sneak on a orc (Passive Perception: 10) than a beholder (Passive Perception: 21).
i dont use passives in my game, i hate them with a passion. i instead use the rules of 3e for taking 10 or 20.
i think those rules fits better. so there is no passives. i think the problem arises from the fact that i'm not the one asking them for a roll, but them having to tell me.
i think the point is that they fear to miss anything or fear being ambushed and dieing. the dillema is not in the situation, it is int he players emotonnal state at that point.
if th eplayers argue that they should have a way to see them by doing perception. it is already to the point where they just are afraid of anything bad happenning. and if you say no and something bad do happen, they will feel cheated out of a chance at preventing said thing. while if you say yes, you are the one who will feel like you were cheated out of an encounter you thought was worth it. in both cases, someone gonna be sad somewhere. and thats where things shouldn't be going in those games.
unfortunately, not everyone see it that way...
i got 2 players who just amasses curses after curses, because its funnier that way.
i got another player who do not care if he's heroic or not, all he cares about is how that one girl will react to his doings toward her.
i got one who wants a good story, that barely ever happens because none of them can take a decision. if you ask them for a decision, they just go the other way.
thats just the thing, they never liked D&D before because no other DMs wants them in their game. because they are problem players. all they have had were bad experiences until they met me. my playstyle is to say yes all the time, see where it leads, so i dont care for their behaviors. but it also means i have much less stories i can tell, because they will mostly never decide anything when it comes to taking part in a quest. they, right now, in my wednesday group, have like 7 quest in suspended animation. they are not even close to one of them. they know they have to go, they wnana go there, but can't take the decision of going there because none wants to force the others where they dont want to.
that's the thing, as much as i want them to be heroes, and i strive to put them there reguardless of how they act... most of them only wnts stuff for themsevles... as in play the evil guy. none of them can play a good guy, they are at best neutral at all times. you can't be a hero if all you have in mind is the anti-hero.... the one who picks all the curses, picks all the bad guys and kill them because the others wont go the distance. some of them are ghostrider, some of them are the punisher type. one of them is the all heroic fighter who can't seem to find the right way to do stuff.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Passive basically is taking a 10. The DM should never feel obligated to tell someone to make a roll. The Player says "I do this" and the DM tells them what roll to make. There is a chest hidden in the rubble that you would like the characters to find, but they aren't looking around. So you take a 10, add the highest Perception modifiers for the group, and if they hit the DC, they see something shiny in the rubble. If they still don't do anything, that's on them. If you really want them to see it, don't even take the 10...as DM you get to decide they see something regardless of what they may or may not roll. But you can't force them to pick it up.
Indecision is the bane of Improv in general, and Role-Playing is Improv. It's going to happen, especially if your players are invested in their characters. They don't want them to die, so they don't do anything. At that point, they've basically retired from the adventuring life. You can't treat it like a video game where the "quests" wait for the player to get there. If they don't go forward toward a "quest", what happens? Does another group take care of the situation gaining the fame and fortune? Does whatever "evil" spill out and start affecting the world?
Even villains have a "Hero's Journey"
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
So your table is filled with problem players, and then you complain about how they play. That's like going to a shelter and being told that Sparky refuses to be potty trained and will pee anywhere. Then you take him home and he pees everywhere, then when your friends talk about their dogs, you tell them that they should let their dogs just pee everywhere. Just because your problem players force you to run your table that way doesn't mean that the majority of other DM's tables should run their games the same way.
If you have problem players, you should try to correct their behavior. If they get upset because they didn't make a active perception check, they had the opportunity to make a perception check when you were describing the scene. If they missed their opportunity, that's too bad. I bet they ask next time. Correct the bad behavior, don't accept it.
Secondly, you don't like passives, that's fine, except it's a little contradictory because "taking 10" is literally what a passive score is.
Published Subclasses
@Griz and Squigs: Amen! I don’t have those problems BECAUSE I say “no” sometimes, not in spit of it. If they give a GOOD reason, I let them roll, if they give a lame-assed reason they usually realize it before they’ve even finished speaking. Most of the time they want to PLAY more than they want to win. I also warned them at the beginning of the campaign that, statistically speaking, one of their characters would most likely be dead by level 5. If it then happens they are prepared, and if it doesn’t then they get to feel extra awesome. But simply because they understand that it’s possible for their characters to actually die they actually PLAY better.
the other reason I don’t have that problem is because I say “everybody roll perception” then, when I tell them which ones noticed the orc and which ones didn’t they have nothing to complain about. If the difference in success or failure is more than 1 of them noticing the orc, you’ve done it wrong. I get my fun throwing CRAZY shit at them, and then seeing what amazingly creative shit they can come up with to overcome it. In my book, if any one of them notices the orc i’ll Ask them if they tell the party. If that character alerts the others then they ALL know, and if they don’t then the others have absolutely no idea. They rolled the <8+ or whatever, so when I tell them they have no idea, they know why.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Passive scores represent the fact that characters are not deaf, dumb and blind when not actively looking for something. You don't walk around all day with a blindfold on and earplugs in, only to take them out when you wonder if maybe there's something in your vicinity you should know about. Passive scores represent a character's general awareness of their surroundings at a base level, and frankly I consult passives a whole lot more than I request actives. The players use their active skills when they want to; as a DM I use their passive scores modified by overall alertness.
Which, in general, means that when the character is in a tense but currently not dangerous situation - i.e. exploring a ruin, traversing the wilderness, on their toes in a far-foreign city - then I assume the characters are alert and keeping tabs on their surroundings and use their normal passive scores. if the characters are in a position of comfort and safety - tucked away in a warm inn somewhere, visiting a PC's hometown/family, or otherwise relaxing - then I consider them to be relaxed and confident in their safety, effectively lowering their passive by 4 (eqv. to Disadvantage) since they're not being wary. Unless, of course, the player tells me they're keeping their eyes open or starts acting wary, in which case they either get an active Perception check or I bump them back up to Alert.
There's also Paranoid, in which a character is in a state of super high alert and code-red tension. At this point most PCs will have requested active Perception checks, but if somebody is Paranoid and somehow not using their active score, I'll give them +4 to their passive score. However, they also tend to suffer from false alarms, little bits of "Bart...you notice something shifting out of the corner of one eye - "
Bart: 'MYEH! I whirl around!"
"...and see a few remaining tattered scraps of curtain fluttering in the faint breeze from a nearby window. Harmless.
Bart: "...**** you so hard. No, really. So hard."
It's fun, and gives me some levers to pull behind the scenes to get my players immersed in the game. It's a nice way to make use of passive scores, which D&D in general is really bad at.
Side note: getting mad at your players when they use their skills and talents to bypass a combat encounter is kind of exactly the opposite of what a DM should do. it's your job to adjudicate the actions a player takes, not to judge the actions a player takes. I mean, unless your player is in front of a judge. Then it's your job to judge their actions, but only the way the judge would judge them, not the way you would judge them, because they're talking to a judge and they kinda asked for it at that point.
Nevertheless. If you're not prepared for your players to take your best-laid plans and go straight to Albuquerque with them, mayhaps leave the seat behind the screen to someone else.
Please do not contact or message me.
@yurei: I LOVE the “paranoid” jump scare. I’ma steal that. Lololol
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Heh. Once you realize what a passive sensory score is - i.e. the character's basic level of situational awareness - it's fun to toy with those numbers based on how aware they may or may not be in a given situation. And let's face it - poking players' phobias is one of the not-so-secret delights of DMing
Please do not contact or message me.
Hehehehe
@Paladin: I think I figured out the problem. You have them roll to find out IF they notice the orc. I assume they will notice the orc, I’m the frickin’ DM, I KNOW they will spot that orc. I have them roll simply so I can narrate WHICH ONES spotted the orc. That way the players get to narrate what they do about it. It’s THEIR story, I just do most of the talking. Basically, stop trying to “beat” the players, just tell them what happens.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm considering the idea of making certain skills like an attack skill, and others like a defensive skill. Sort of Attack vs. AC type thing.
For example Deception is an attack skill, while Insight is an AC skill. You never roll Insight verses deception, it's always deception vs insight. Insight acting as armor class. Which is why it's got a passive score. I'll always let the players know when an enemy fails it's deception vs. a persons insight, but not if they fail. There will never be a need for a player to roll insight, since it's always vs another person.
Still musing on it... I mean, you get the randomness from one side rolling, you really don't need both sides rolling so long as you're consistent on who rolls and when.
That's...kind of backwards?
Deception is the ability to lie convincingly or carry off a flamboozle; Insight is the ability to pierce lies and spot them in the telling (among other things). Deception defends against Insight, not the other way around. or, to be a bit more accurate, Deception involves the rough equivalent of an Insight saving throw.
Passive Insight is used like any other passive sense; it's a mark of the character's general level of basic competence at spotting a lie even when they're not necessarily actively looking for one. A character with low passive Insight just hears people speaking; a character with high passive Insight might notice someone sweating, notice their eyes flitting about, notice that their body language doesn't match the words they're using, or otherwise pick up on tells a low-Insight individual might miss.
An active Insight check is the character specifically deciding to put their talents to use trying to ferret out clues to whether they're being bullshitted or not - it can be below their passive Insight because once you take the ol' thinkgoo off autopilot and force it to Pay Attention, sometimes it'll decide to Pay Attention to the wrong shit, or you'll start thinking in circles and end up otherwise distracting yourself. Same for any other passive sense.
Man, I really wish the PHB was better about explaining what passive scores are for...
Please do not contact or message me.
I disagree, when you attempt to decieve someone, that is the active action, it's the attack. You're attempting to trick your target into believing some falsehood. Where as insight is your defense against people trying to deceive you. If you weren't making a social attack, you'd be telling the truth. You don't accidentally lie. I mean it's absolutely silly in my mind for someone to have to actively decide to try and tell if someone is deceiving them. I mean without first getting some kind of inkling they were deceiving them in the first place, why are they deciding to roll insight? This is why I like the way I'm going. To have insight be the attack skill, you're not relying on the character's insight, you're relying on the players insight. It's not whether the npc lies convincingly it's whether you do, and if you don't, if the pc picks up on it to then attempt to roll to have permission to see through your bullshit based on the character's skills. So first the player needs to pick up on your hints that they should roll insight, or be paranoid and ask to roll insight in every conversation if they know they as a p[layer aren't perceptive enough, assuming they do pick up on your hints, which there's no guarantee the player will, they will then need to roll to succeed.
See having deception, which is clearly a purposeful act made against another person, vs insight, you take all that out of it. It's no longer your skill vs. the players, it's the enemies skill vs. the character's skill. If the enemy fails, you tell the player the enemies words seem a bit off using whatever flowery language you wish you signify the deception failure, while if the enemy succeeds you do the same thing but to make the enemies words seem convincing, and since the player never rolls, and they know they don't roll, the rp just continues on without being hindered in any way. Where as asking for an insight check interrupts the flow, and forces everyone to metagame pretend if they know they rolled badly.
Same with stealth, by taking away the active roll, you never need to worry about any metagame, or people having to pretend, or people having to outhink the dungeon master as to when to roll, etc, people can just play the game. No need for paranoid constant asking to roll nonsense, and no need to give anything away by breaking the flow with asking for a roll.
As for the active vs. passive thing, you describe I sort of agree. Quite often when you try to do something you fail whereas had you been relying on your honed talents without thinking about it you might not have. It's called being under pressure.
But, I like the idea of reducing as many rolls as possible, so less flow is interrupted.
It doesn’t really matter which one is which. It’s an opposed roll. Think of it more like comparing two attack rolls, or comparing two ACs if you are using passive stats for both. The passive number is always the defense, the active roll is always the offense.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah but there's a clear time to roll deception. Deception is always something you choose to do.
Wheras insight is something everyone is doing to some degree all the time, and it's debatable how much benefit actively using insight would actually have. I mean even if you do actively use it, you're either choosing to roll based off your own insight or guessing or paranoid asking in every encounter, or never thinking to ask because your insight isn't as good as your character's.
Similar to how a hide check forces a roll vs the passive perception of the target, a deception normally goes against the passive insight, unless that character has a reason to believe they're lying, then they can roll insight.
Published Subclasses
“Still musing on it... I mean, you get the randomness from one side rolling, you really don't need both sides rolling so long as you're consistent on who rolls and when.” -ardenwolf
the consistency does not need to be “deception/stealth always rolls and insight/investigate never does” just make the consistency that “the ACTIVE check always rolls” if the orc hid in the bushes 3 hours ago, but the Ranger is actively looking for it now, then Investigation is the active roll. If the orc is generally on guard, and the players suddenly hide from it, then Stealth becomes the active roll.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Man, this whole little mini-discussion really highlights the weakness of 5e, or any D20 system really, when it comes to opposed skills. Miss my GURPS quick contests.
Nevertheless. I'm liking Sposta's version of that one better. Whosoever declares an action is doing something; it's even called "declaring an action". Actions are not resolved with passive scores. if someone is actively using Deception, then the passive Insight of the deceivee (modified suitably for how outrageous a bill of goods the PC is trying to sell) can serve as a basic DC. If a player is using Insight to try and gauge facts or moods of an NPC without that NPC's active knowledge (such as observing from a distance, or while someone else is talking), then Insight is the active skill and would be opposed by passive Deception (or more often just roughly gauged at the table). Remember as well, Insight is more than just "is this guy bullshitting me?" and Deception can be more than just "is this guy gullible enough to buy what I'm selling?"
Please do not contact or message me.
Makes sense. Actually it works really well for ambushes or two groups stealthing near each other to just use passive for both, unless one side arbitrarily decides to do something active.
Part of the reason ambushes never work, is everyone rolling dice. No matter what someone will roll absurdly low shit, and someone will roll absurdly high. Using passive for both, the ambushing party has had time to acquire a stealthy position, and been maintaining it for awhile. They are working together to set this ambush, it makes no sense for someone in the ambush to roll a one. That said, they wouldn't get a twenty either, as they are holding their positions, which means the occasional cough, moving to relieve pressure etc.
Meanwhile the party has been traveling, some might zone out a bit, some might be looking the wrong direction even if perceptive, etc, so passive makes sense there too. Neither party is being active.
Compare passive numbers, then start the scene. If anyone suspects there are more in the ambush than they saw, or exposed themselves in the original attack, they can use the search combat action, is what it's for.
Same as if two groups are stealthing by each other, and both have a higher stealth passive than the other groups perception passive, then both groups pass by each other unaware, or run into each other, catching each other by surprise. (Which is effectively no surprise mechanically but definitely rp wise)
Prevents the whole stupid having everyone roll perception, and every enemy roll stealth nonsense that slows the game down.
If NPC's are Ambushing a party, I'll roll for the NPCs as a group. This sets the DC for the Party. 5 Generic Orcs are going to have basically the same Stealth ability, so just roll 1 time for the entire group. If they have a Specialty Orc, I'll take that into consideration...like a Shaman casting Pass Without Trace or the equivalent of a Ranger who can Cover them. Then, if the Party is just riding along, not paying particularly attention, I'll use their Passive Perceptions against the rolled DC. If they have certain people doing lookout, I'll have them roll Perception Checks periodically and when they are close to the Ambush site, I'll use that roll.
Something else I've done, at the beginning of each session I have the Players each roll a d20 about 15 times and then hand it to me on a sheet of paper. When they need an Ability check for something they wouldn't know the results of...such as Perception or Insight, I'll use the top number and keep going down the list. That way they don't know if they have a high or low roll. If a Player rolls a 3 on a Perception check, they know they rolled poorly and so become ready. I also have my own sheet for NPC's so I can go down it without rolling a die. That way the Players don't know something is up.
For example, using the above Ambush. The Orcs with a Shaman set up an ambush. I'll look at the 1st free number on the NPC sheet, add their Stealth skill and Pass Without a Trace giving them the DC of 23. The party is riding towards the ambush with the Ranger keeping an eye out front and the Thief keeping an eye behind them. The Orcs plan on springing the ambush right when the Party is in the center of the pass. The Ranger gets a Perception check, but because I don't want them to know something is up by having them do a roll, I'll consult the sheet for the Ranger, add their Perception and Proficency modifiers and they end up with a 19 (same as a bad roll, but now the Ranger doesn't know they got a bad roll). The rest of the party's Passive Perception isn't high enough to notice, but as they get into the Ambush area, the Thief gets their chance. Checking their sheet, they end up with a 25. I tell the Thief they hear the clink of rocks allowing him to warn the party in enough time that the Orcs don't get a surprise round.
It's more upkeep for the DM, but it prevents the Players from knowing things based on how they roll that their Characters wouldn't.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
To be honest, I never even roll for the orcs. I usually just decide how “Stealthy” they are being and assign an appropriate DC between 12-17 most of the time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well orcs have a passive perception of 10. So that's why it also depends on the monsters they're trying to be sneaky around. It's easier to sneak on a orc (Passive Perception: 10) than a beholder (Passive Perception: 21).
Published Subclasses