| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like to metagame. I don't like seeing others metagaming. However, as a player, it's super hard to not go on the defensive when the GM asks for a Sense Motive while talking to a NPC or a Perception when you are in any given area. Yes, you can simply say that at this point it is up to the player to not cheat, but as I said, it's hard, and I think controlling this can be very rewarding factor in roleplay - makes that betrayal or that ambush seem that much better, from a storytelling point of view.
I have a few problems with the ways people handle this. And if you intend to pick apart my examples, then I ask to not bother. I am not the best at explaining things, so try to understand what my point is, don't reply specifically to an example without a basis against the argument.
-----
1) Passive score of (x + skill). X is usually 10.
That means that roughly 45% of the time, your passive ability is better than your active. It's likely you might bring up "Ever stared in the fridge for the milk, and though it's sitting right there, you just can't register it's in front of you?" Yes, that happens. But not even close to 45% of the time. That might be like 5% of the time, if that, and that would translate to rolling a 1 every now and then on my Perception roll. As I said, this isn't that bad, but it does allow for some strange situations ("As you are sitting at the bar, relaxing from the day's events, the gambler's, whom you are playing a friendly game against, eyes seem to be darting back and forth constantly. Something seems up, he appears worried." vs "You scan over the gambler, unsure of his truthiness (Colbert ftw), assessing his facial expressions and body language. He does not appear to be lying.").
-----
2) GM rolling the dice for the players.
This one is probably the most legit, but it does three things I don't like. One, it still brings about the same issue that exists if the player rolls it - knowing something's going on. This can be mitigated somewhat by rolling random dice at random times throughout sessions. My first DM did that as a scare tactic. Two, you constantly have to keep up with skill totals for all your players. This can be simple, if they hit a high point and it never goes up except once a level, but if you have conditional modifiers (rangers and the like), it becomes more of an issue and possibly gum up the works. Three, and this one is conditional, if you are in the Fudging Is Okay group, then you might be tempted to fudge just so something has a certain outcome - specifically what fudging is for, but having more opportunities to fudge means you will fudge more (and while I am in the above mentioned group, I do not think you should use fudging as a constant support to your story - it should be used lightly and occasionally as a way of safeguarding the fun for the players). While it's true you can fudge DCs instead of rolls if you use a different method, thus having the same results, sometimes it won't really be possible, such as just really high rolls. That situation is eliminated using this.
-----
3a) Taking down a list of passive numbers, rolled by the players or GM, at the beginning of any given period of time (usually each session), and referring to the list whenever necessary.
This one is probably the most bulletproof, as it keeps the randomness of rolls, prevents any unintentional metagaming by the players, and allows the players themselves to roll. My biggest issue is how this interacts with conditional modifiers (again, I'm looking at you, rangers - though there are others), which is similar to what was explained above. The second issue is what to do if after the last number on the list. You can cycle the list, but that's restricting the range of possibilities, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I like having lots of possible outcomes - if you don't, then simply ignore that point. Not even to mention that you might have a set roll very low, despite any modifiers to the skill, simply due to a short streak of bad luck.
--
3b) Taking down a list of passive numbers, using a an unordered base roll array (such as all {1-20}, or {5, 10, 15, 20}, or any set you want), and using them when needed.
I am probably most partial to this, probably using {1-20}. Recycling a list isn't as much of a problem in this, as it's a fair base across all players; though if you don't use a complete array, then you are restricting your possible outcomes in this way as well. There is a little more bookkeeping involved in this method, which is never a plus as a GM who already has a ton of stuff to watch. To mix the list, you can simply roll a dx (x being the number of numbers in your array) until you land each number, writing them in the order they are rolled. I would probably recommend rolling up a separate array for each party member, so as to not have either everyone or no one pick up on something at the same time. The biggest issue I see with this is it takes a decent amount of prep time for a smaller part of the game, and it mostly lands on the GM to keep track of everything.
-----
Actually, now that I think about it, the conditional modifiers apply to any situation of using a passive skill without the player's knowledge. It's not particularly a huge issue, but it does yield some extra number crunching for the GM and can easily slow down conversations or other game play.
My group simply allows the players to roll any skill check when required, whether passive or not.
Feel free to counter any of my arguments. I am not at all set in my ways on the above, that's just how I currently see it.
tl;dr So to bring us to the actual thread title, are there any other ways not mentioned here that you use or have heard of for passive skills (most notably Perception and Sense Motive)?
When i gm i pre roll sense motives for players. I have a combat matrix with AC, flat, touch, cmd, will save(if you fail you don't even know you made a check, until i tell you to full attack the wizard after the whole party failed their sense motive for the dominate person) and some skills like perception and sense motive that i update before the start of each session.
Often my players ask about skill checks when searching or talking to people, if they do that i give them a small bonus for really paying attention if they haven't been asking me about it every 10 seconds for the past few hours.
I usually go with the passive value unless the player declares that they are rolling, but restrict the result to general information. For Sense Motive, that would be "something doesn't seem entire right about his reaction," while for perception it would be "you catch something in the corner of your eye that seems out of place." It's enough to give the player something to work with, but not enough to cancel out the benefits of the player rolling because they are looking for something specific.
When i gm i pre roll sense motives for players. I have a combat matrix with AC, flat, touch, cmd, will save(if you fail you don't even know you made a check, until i tell you to full attack the wizard after the whole party failed their sense motive for the dominate person) and some skills like perception and sense motive that i update before the start of each session.
Often my players ask about skill checks when searching or talking to people, if they do that i give them a small bonus for really paying attention if they haven't been asking me about it every 10 seconds for the past few hours.
I say active scores trump passive scores. But again, you run into the issue of not being able to do something when actively seeking to, yet able to do it when you are passive in a situation.
It's a little bit more mental math for the GM, but I let my players know that in these situations, I might do "upside down" checks...by this I mean that I might (predetermined on my part) resolve the check using 21- (PC's die roll) so that if they roll a 3, that might "really" be an 18. Then just add their modifiers accordingly. To be dogmatic, I should really roll a die to determine randomly if a check is upside down or not.
They normally report the result as "rolled a 3, +8 total modifiers"
They don't know if that means they got an 11 and thus did NOT beat DC 15, or they got a 26 and did beat DC 15.
They can't metagame the odds they passed (or brutally failed), they still know the ultimate result is based on what they rolled right then, and everyone can move on without a lot of GM data gathering.
That's actually quite clever.
However, it still runs into the issue of dice being rolled in a situation in which the character should have absolutely no knowledge of any sort of occurrence but the player getting that information.
I can spend a few hours before the game rolling dice though so theres not so much need for passive checks. Giving the players a small +2 bonus for going "active" at the right time gets the plot hooks i want to get across into the players hands anyway and it means that they are paying attention at the tight times in and out of character as well.
I only don't give it them if they bug me to make checks everytime the speak to a barmaid.
As a DM, if I call for a Sense Motive check, that usually doesn't mean the NPC has something to hide - it means I'm giving the players/PCs a chance for an extra clue about the NPC's motivations. I might call for a check, then let the players know that the NPC seems very sincere, or seems nervous when a particular topic is mentioned, or so forth.
I've been doing it this way for a long time, and my players are used to it. They really don't tend to assume that there's something negative/suspicious just because I call for the roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly - and this might not be popular - but I fudge it. A lot. I keep in mind who amongst my players has high Perception or high Sense Motive checks and occaisionally reward them by using them to further the story. The things that I want hidden for the good of the campaign remain hidden and the things that could be helpful to the players that I want revealed get revealed. When its best for the story that they get misdirected then they get misdirected.
A lot of times games can devolve into the GM vs. the Players and that's something I always try to stay away from. My role is to guide them through the campaign I've built and to form time to time let each member shine in their own way. My party trusts me enough that this has always been a perfectly acceptable option. They aren't trying to foil me and I'm not trying to outsmart them.
Cranewings, "rolling for sense motive" doesn't mean that the PC is taking out a magnifying glass and examining facial tics, or holding a finger to their neck to check for elevated pulse, or holding a hand to their forehead to see if the other's temp is risen. It merely means the PC is actually attentive to what is being said and the body language of the speaker, and listening for inconsistencies in the story.
Also, spamming Perception in character would speak to a paranoid state of mind. Or post-traumatic stress disorder as you mentoned. Neither of those mental states indicate complacency. If anything Id give such a character perception bonuses in certain situations, but Charisma penalties for many social situations. Spamming Perception simply to be an out-of-character jerk? Yes, penalise that.
But, on topic: Dotting to follow. I've had the same question and would love to see what this thread produces. Because I'm lazy I think that, for now, Ill just call for Sense Motive checks at regular intervals during certain conversations. (Partly because I have players new to rpgs and they might overlook this skill)
Do you armwrestle PC's to resolve Strength checks, as well?
You don't?
Honestly - and this might not be popular - but I fudge it. A lot.
Ditto on that. I try to keep combat by the books, but RP has a lot of gray area. Did the fighter make the 15 DC to notice the informant is lying? Well, he rolled a 14... He might get a wierd feeling about the situation, but he can't quite place it's source.
Did he get a 4? Thats different. The fighter is exhausted from the earlier battle and isn't the best person for the job to begin with.
10+score. Certain things can't be noticed passively and other checks take penalty.
|
I have my players preroll for perception, sense motive and will saves and keep it on a sheet. When I want to give them a chance to notice something I just check off one of the prerolls. I also do it for things that might cause metagaming like looking for traps or sense motive.
I use the will saves rarely but once in a while someone will get dominated or charmed and I want it to be secret.
Checking for traps i let them roll and always say "seems to be...", i don't mind a little meta around traps since if you roll a 1 and you get wail of the bansee'd its not fun, thats a perfect time to spend hero points.
I ask my players to roll Sense Motive and Perception and trust them not to metagame. I works 90%+ of the time. I also randomly ask them for rolls when the enter a new area or talk to a npc just to keep them on their toes.
I sometimes use passive checks if I think it may be a problem for some reason, or just to keep the game flowing.
I do the 3a thing --- have everyone roll several times ahead of time and keep a list.
There IS a danger of forgetting conditional modifiers, but players will usually remind me of their modifiers when they do they do the group roll, and I can write them down by the character's name. It hasn't caused a problem that I can recall.
Would be cool if there was a "Perception tracker" like there is a magnetic Initiative tracker by GameMastery.
Personally, I roll for them. I use Combat Manager, (http://combatmanager.com/) so I can roll for all the players at once, and there is no random dice rolling to set them off at all. Of course, that's assuming there's a computer at the table, but I always DM with one now.
I hadn't considered doing Will saves in the same way. It makes sense, for some spells.
While I want a solid passive option for any applicable scores, I do recognize it takes something away from the players.
For example, my first DM has played in games where the DM kept track of HP. This guy would get the totals every level, subtract/add any damage/healing, explain damage in a descriptive way (so they know if it was a nick or a strong blow, etc.), would tell their conditions if asked, and so on.
I understand the concept behind it, and while some people might really like that idea, it's just not for me. I like to be in control of my character. It may be small, and truly, assuming all parties involved are playing honestly, it yields no real difference mechanically. However, there is something to be said about know exactly how much more your character can take, and being able to handle healing more efficiently.
That's kinda the take for me to passive scores, though. I know it might not be for everyone, and that's completely fine, but I would like to come up with a solid way of handling it.
10+score. Certain things can't be noticed passively and other checks take penalty.
I would also use "take ten" for passive use of Perception and Sense Motive.
After all, the rules for Perception say that the NPCs are supposed to take ten for their passive use of Perception when on guard duty, etc. Seems only fair.