Based on this poll I’m currently working on my first professional design work featuring the Pathfinder system. (The 3-to-1 advantage over 3.5 was impossible to ignore. Hopefully the other people, like me, using 3.5 in their home games will be OK with the minimal on-the-fly conversion work necessary to make a Pathfinder module work in 3.5.)
I’ve run into a conceptual difficulty, however, surrounding the conflation of Listen, Spot, and Search into a single Perception skill. It’s a fairly minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but I wanted to get some outside opinions on it.
LOCATION KEYS
The way I structure location keys is fairly straight-forward:
- There’s boxed text which conveys the common information that anyone walking into the room would immediately perceive. (“You see a box in the corner with a weird symbol painted on it.”)
- After the boxed text, I immediately list any reactive skill checks which should be immediately made by anyone entering the room. These are typically perception-type checks, but they might also be knowledge-checks. (For example, make a See Hidden check to notice that there are small spiders crawling all over the box. Or a History check to recognize the symbol as the royal seal of Emperor Norton.)
- Then each significant element in the room is independently described with additional details that will become important if characters investigate or interact with it. (“Inside the chest is ruby which has been cracked in half. You can see that the inside of the ruby is filled with empty spider’s eggs.”)
The significant elements often include specifically delineated skill checks that become relevant during the investigation/interaction. In my work with 3.5, this delineated skill check was usually a Search check and, as a result, the format was self-evident in its utility: A Spot check for the room was almost always at the top of the key entry; specific Search checks for various elements within the room were located with those elements.
What’s happening in Pathfinder, however, is that I’ve just got Perception checks scattered throughout the room description. My concern is that it’s not necessarily self-evident which Perception checks are passive versus which Perception checks require active searching, which could lead to the key being more confusing to use at the table.
EXAMPLES
Here’s a really simple example of what a room element looked like in a 3.5 module:
Iron Door (Area 11): This locked door has been severely dented and scarred.
—Search (DC 12): It looks like the door was battered upon using handheld siege weaponry.
Here’s what a straight conversion to Pathfinder looks like:
Iron Door (Area 11): This locked door has been severely dented and scarred.
—Perception (DC 12): It looks like the door was battered upon using handheld siege weaponry.
In isolation, that doesn’t look particularly problematic. But if you’re a Pathfinder player, what I’m specifically interested in is what you think about this:
Iron Door (Area 11): This locked door has been severely dented and scarred.
—Perception (Active – DC 12): It looks like the door was battered upon using handheld siege weaponry.
Is it clear what I mean? Is there a better solution for what I’m trying to distinguish here?
Reactive Perception checks are part of Pathfinder, but the term “active Perception check” isn’t actually part of the core rules. It does seem to be fairly widespread among fans, either as a natural evolution of the “reactive” terminology or because it migrated over from 4E (where “active Perception check” is a term of art).
Thoughts?
Possibly “Perception (Search — DC12)”?
One of the uses of Perception is “search for stimulus”, which takes a move action, and seems to be exactly what you want.
I think if you look at the number of threads on the paizo forums about how to handle perception checks in PF, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that everyone tries to run them differently. I think it is a matter of group consensus whether or not something like that would count as a passive check that happens as the players enter the area (of course anyone upon seeing the door would notice that without having to take a full round action), and an active check (you need to be looking for any extra information on purpose).
What I would suggest is writing down all of the information that you think they could notice upon first encountering (such as the door being dented) with a flat DC value. If there are elements that have to be searched out, include that separately.
“You see a box in the corner with strange runes on it”
*DC15 Perception Check notices that small spiders are crawling on the box.
*DC15 Knowledge (royalty/history) check identifies the runes as the royal symbol of Emperor Norton.
For a GM that gives a passive perception check upon entering a new area, anyone would rolls a 15 will see the spiders automatically. For a GM that makes all the players roll perception checks, then the DC15 will still apply. If the group gets a passive perception check, but still wants to examine the box, then they can still use an active perception check to notice the spiders.
I would simply write it as:
Iron Door (Area 11): This locked door has been severely dented and scarred.
–Perception (DC 12, if actively searched): It looks like the door was battered upon using handheld siege weaponry.
That should clue in the 3.5 users (like me) that you intend this to be handled as a Search check, and the Pathfinder users that it’s an active Perception check, while the Pathfinder users who treat all Perception checks as passive can simply ignore the “if actively searched” qualifier.
I like the idea of distinguishing the checks between passive and active. In my PF games I usually do this ad hoc. Details that a PC should notice simply by being in the room are resolved passively, details that require active skills are triggered when the player states they’re using the skill or otherwise meaningfully interacts with an object. Sometimes published adventures help by hinting that interaction is required: i.e. “Any PC who investigates the fountain will find . . . .”
I think if you put a brief comment at the beginning how the system works, distinguishing the two would be a very useful GM tool.
I’d personally leave it up to the DM. Provide the details in the DM in a section called ‘Search’ without a DC, or Easy, Difficult, Hard, and leave it at that. As John mentioned, the ways of handling things like this are quite varied, and I think most DMs are ok assigning DC checks on the fly, taylored to their group.
I tend to hand my players information for everything except for minute details, as prompted by what they tell me they’re searching. In your door example, I’d either just tell them outright, or tell them when they tell me they’re examining the door, because there’s usually no real downside to not telling them, and details like that are hard to miss. Their cost is not in failed skill rolls (because I want them to find things when they search), but in random encounter checks, a la 1e. Where I might start asking for rolls is if they want to identify the type of weapon that did the damage and what creatures might use said weapons.
I think by providing details without specific DC checks you’ll leave the module open to multiple systems, level ranges and styles. That said, I’ve never written a professional adventure, so maybe things like specific DCs are required.
@ZZTRaider: I actually thought about that because the actual phrase used in PF is “intentionally searching”. But there is a perception issue: Using the word “Search” in that capacity has the potential to make me look like a bumpkin who doesn’t know how to properly update his stat blocks from 3.5 to PF (which a certain segment of the PF fanbase is virulent about).
Although maybe I’m overthinking it: I could just include a sidebar at the beginning of the book talking about how the adventure is “3.5 Friendly”, including features like pointing out which Perception checks should be handled as Search checks by 3.5 DMs. I could even include Grapple modifiers in the sidebars for stat blocks so that they’d be semi-convenient for 3.5 DMs.
Thoughts from 3.5 DMs? Would you find that useful?
Thoughts from PF DMs? Would that annoy you?
@Justin: As a 3.5 DM, I’d find that very useful!
I think that it is a mistake to roll a passive perception check for everything that the characters might spot or miss. The goal should be to move as many clues into the DM’s description, so that the players can do the legwork and not the die rolls. Perception checks should only be made when a player is trying to spot something. Say, to see if s/he is being followed, or to look for a trip wire. If the character is actually on his hands and knees, checking for the tripwire with his dagger, there is no need for a perception check, if there is a trip wire, it will be found. The goal of good role play should be for the players to miss and discover secrets through good role play. This is one reason I don’t like WOTC version of the D&D.
One other thing to consider: In the real world, perception (of say an ambush) is a function rooted in intelligence and experience. It takes high INT to spot something amiss, but it takes experience (WIS) to recognize the situation enough to take an appropriate action.
I am not sure what the solution is. It is not an average of INT and WIS (that’s the worst game mechanic – averaging the two abilities), but I haven’t figured out the proper relationship yet to create accurate perception
I actually think the sidebars showing which perception checks are search checks would be useful. At worst it is extra information to make it clear how actively one should be searching in PF to be entitled to a roll.
@ Justin,
What percentage of the opinions were for System Neutral? I voted that way, and saw at least one other person that agreed early on. Maybe next poll of opinions that could be given as a specific option?
Since you’ve been such a proponent of 3.0, is there a reason you use 3.5? Also, why do you prefer 3.5, instead of Pathfinder? I have have limited familiarity with anything more than a general knowledge of these systems. Somethings like the DCs for details are good, on the whole. I’ve read through some areas of wikiD&D, and looked at some of the text work about these later editions of D&D, but that’s it. What recommends one system, or part of one system, over the others?
@ Brooser Bear,
Take the higher of the two: Int OR Wis?
Neal,
I think I did a formula, wherein you got bonuses from high INT, and penalties from low WIS. This way you can account for a magic user with no common sense, and illiterates, who can hitchhike safely across the country with no money in their pocket.
RE: System neutral products. Ultimately, you’re not going to see a system neutral product from me because I don’t think system neutral products make any sense. Any utility that you get from a system neutral adventure, for example, is identical to what you can get from an adventure statted up for a specific system that you don’t use. (Just ignore the stat blocks.) So it always makes more sense to include stats for something because by doing so you’ve always added utility and never removed it.
Re: 3.0 vs. 3.5. I don’t know that I’ve ever specifically been a proponent of 3.0 vs. 3.5. In general, the differences between the systems are essentially non-existent and with the exception of a couple skill names and damage reduction material can be used between them completely interchangeably.
Re: 3.5 vs. PF. The differences here are somewhat more significant, but the cross-compatibility is still pretty high. (Arguably higher than the cross-compatibility between BECMI and AD&D, and the cross-compatibility there was pretty high.) For example, I regularly use PF material in my 3.5 campaign and it requires literally zero conversion work.
The reason I haven’t converted to PF is largely because I don’t feel a need to do so. Also, my current 3.5 campaign has been running since 2007 and predates Pathfinder. I don’t feel that 3.5 is broken and I don’t think that the improvements in PF are large enough to justify converting an entire campaign over for what essentially amounts to minutia.
The next time I start a D&D/PF campaign? I might make the jump to PF. Maybe. Part of my reticence here is also that I’ve built up large libraries of personal resources for 3.5. (For example, I have an entire file filled with stat blocks.) If I make the switch to PF, I have to scrap those resources and start rebuilding them from scratch.
If the players actually say they are examining the door, then won’t they notice these details anyway? So the only way a check make sense is when they go into the room, you roll to see if they notice the door. That is, their search roll tells them “look at the door because it’s noteworthy,” when they look at it they get the rest of the info.
Maybe this is a bit old-school, giving them the clue automatically if they think to search the door; but the alternative is rolling for things that really shouldn’t be subject to an RNG. I would even go further and just give anybody with a Perception 12 or higher the clue without even rolling.
@Yahzi: Actually, you could easily argue that you should give anyone with Perception +2 the clue without rolling (since they can Take 10 on the roll and make the DC 12 check). But, yes, rolling the dice to see if someone with +12 on the die roll will make a DC 12 check is a waste of time.
Re: Details. As noted, anyone looking at the door will notice that it’s been battered and scarred. If someone does a closer investigation they may be able to determine what caused the damage. If they went three rooms over, picked up the discarded siege weaponry there, came back, and compared it to the damage on the door, then I’d give that to them for free.
In a more general sense, the methodology behind this particular design approach is that players are going to search doors for traps. It’s almost inevitable. This particular door is not trapped, but this structure embeds meaningful content into the interaction. It serves as a reward for proactive players; it mixes up the pace of the typical “search the door” action; and it provides key exposition regarding this particular location that foreshadows what the PCs will discover elsewhere in the compound.
It’s also overly simplistic to assume that a vanilla mechanical interaction is the only way to come to this information. It could just as easily look something like this:
GM: You enter a room. There’s an iron door on the other side.
Player: Iron, eh? That’s unusual for a temple. I take a closer look. Anything of note?
GM: It looks structurally sound, but it’s pretty badly beat up. Lots of dents and scars.
Player: I’m going to take a closer look. Can I tell what damaged it?
GM: Yeah. Looks like handheld siege weaponry.
Or:
GM: You enter a room. There’s an iron door on the other side.
Player: I head through the door.
GM: You rattle the handle, but it looks like the door is locked. You notice the surface of the door has been severely dented and scarred.
Player: Crap. Well, I’m going to go back and get the rogue.
The reason you don’t just dump the entire room description into the initial flurry of boxed text, as Brooser Bear suggests, is that it discourages exploration of the world. In this case I’ve got information buried three layers deep: If you want to see everything the adventure has to offer you’re going to have to look deeper and then look deeper again. That’s the Matrioshka doll that creates an exploration-rich environment.
I see what you’re trying to say and I share your concerns.
All in all, I think the skill conflation is a good thing, but I do houserule my game a little to accomodate the active / passive distinction.
Passive skill use: In order to notice anything out of the ordinary when the PC’s are not specifically looking for it, I, as a DM, assume they are taking 10 on the Perception check. I then apply any circumstantial modifiers to the situation as appropriate. I.e. If they’re talking out loud while they could be hearing a noise, that’s a -2 modifier to the Perception check, taking ten.
In other words, passive Perception equals 10+ranks+modifiers.
Not originally my idea, by the way – SLA Industries used to handle active and passive skill use more or less the same way.
I like your classification of ‘reactive skill checks’ and a specific chunk of keys listed for it. My area key template is under constant revision and looking like:
NAME
* Read-aloud description
* DM’s notes
* Entrances/Exits (with basic trap info if required)
* “Major features” (automatically noticed, unless special cases “blind” etc)
* “Minor features (may require passive or active perception checks, sorted by DC)
* Monsters (primarily for first pass through room, ignored or replaced by random monster tables next time around)
* Traps not relating to entrances or exits
* Advanced location lore
In terms of the conflation, I think the “Active” flag does the job nicely. As a 3.5 player I would say use ‘Search’ there, but I understand your fears of terminology-based excommunication 😉
Good luck on the project!
@ R’rephistoch Orpherischt,
As far as varying the ways of area key templating your approach looks like it covers everything. How much space on a page does all that take to write down, typically? Do you usually include the visible entrances/exits in the initial read aloud description, or do the players have to ask in greater detail for that? I’m wondering, since it might affect quick response decisions if there is a need for flight should a surprise combat arise once the PCs enter the room.
Justin,
I wasn’t talking about read aloud boxes, much less dumping text into them. As a DM, I am more than capable of reading a comprehensive room description written in plain text, and DMing based on reading that text, and I hope that other adult DM’s are capable of the same also. Unless you are writing for literacy challenged seven to ten year olds, do you need a “read out-loud box”, a monster stats “box”, a layered sequence of “read out-loud” boxes, so as not to give the player too much information all at once? Don’t you have enough sense as a DM to modulate your narrative to the game flow and to the rapport with your audience?
A DM should be, first and foremost, a top notch story teller. Dave Stewart once said of Eurythmics’ Annie Lennox, that her talent shows in the she sing a list of names from a telephone directory and it will be worth listening to. By same token, a good DM worth his salt should be able to take any bunch of generic goblins, and describe each as a unique individual without repeating himself.
I believe, that breaking down your writing into programmed reading text imposes unnecessary rigidity and takes away from the power of your writing, if your writing has any power to start with.
Regarding “read out loud” boxes, I think they are very helpful and can be very important in making the DM feel immersed in the situation. Not every DM is particularly creative and spontaneous.
Moreover, I find that in reading and reviewing published adventures, well-written descriptive boxes can create a sense of immersion that matter-of-fact delivery of stats does not.
But, then, I like to read published adventures like most people read novels. I would like their authors to treat them like a form of literature that describes possibilities without being prescriptive and sets scenes without dictating events.
The stats are really secondary to me, but I agree that players should role-play looking before they are told to roll for a chance to discover something and should not have to roll at all if their actions in the real world would result in noticing something. I believe that passive checks should be granted for passing phenomenon (sounds, movements, an odd grimace on the face of a person possessed) and things that might be noticed in passing (less-well hidden secret doors, traps, dried blood on dirty floors).
@Brooser Bear: Couple quick points.
First, anyone who believes that people who prefer written information to be logically and coherently presented with clear organization to be a “literacy challenged seven to ten year old” is suffering from painful, painful irony. While I’m sure your players “appreciate” watching the long pauses while you read through dense blocks of unorganized text, the literate among us will be far happier using properly organized material that allow us to quickly, effectively, and flexibly utilize the information being presented.
Second, not everyone will use boxed text verbatim. But properly executed boxed text is valuable nonetheless because it clearly delineates between “what the PCs will immediately know (and should know) about an encounter area” (the boxed text) and “what the PCs may discover about or do in an encounter area” (everything else).
So if you’re looking for dense blocks of poorly written and unorganized text which discourage exploration by moving all the interesting information about an area to the DM’s initial description of it… well, you’re probably going to be unhappy with the clearly written, well-organized, highly flexible adventure scenarios which encourage active exploration and investigation that I intend to write.
@ d47,
*”Moreover, I find that in reading and reviewing published adventures, well-written descriptive boxes can create a sense of immersion that matter-of-fact delivery of stats does not.
But, then, I like to read published adventures like most people read novels.”*
I agree. Well written text can be engrossing, and a very immersive read, when you aren’t playing the game as a group. I’ve heard of some people that apply the same kind of idea to collecting and reading rule-systems. Hundreds and thousands of them.
@ Brooser Bear,
Hey, you heard if from the Man, you painfully, painfully ironic, less-than-literate, lips-moving-while-boring-your-players-to-tears-GM!
Just kidding, man.
I’ve learned your sometimes hard-ass perspective, while intense, is an acquired taste. Plus, you’ve got some good insights on combat, certain aspects of game-realism, and history that I like. I posted a few comments on your blog, so go answer them, already. Some of them were Solzhenitsyn/Gygax related, too.
I’d agree with Justin, on this one. I find that having text to read out loud, or at least glance at quickly, then look your players in the eyes, and describing the quick summary you read to help increase immersion, as well as focusing attention on what needs to be related, and only those things. I think it was Daniel Bishop, of RavenCrowKing blog, who stated that you shouldn’t keep your face in the text continuously, but give it a scan, then relate it to the players with eye contact. Remember to keep your chin up most of the time.
Obviously, you go that approach and don’t rely on text. But it often helps as a reminder of the mood for that room/location (which can help at the table, even if you wrote the adventure, yourself).
Justin,
Why do you always assume the opposite extreme? Do you think that a text CAN NOT be coherent and properly laid out? Compare the reading level required to adequately comprehend Gygax’s Dungeon Master’s Guide to that of the Wizards of the Coast Editions. There is a drop! You are writing for a commercial market, in accordance with the guidelines developed to make the product easier to use by the younger DM’s. Read aloud text boxes were developed by TSR to make the modules more user friendly for the novice players.
And second, how about assimilating the written material so that you can run a D&D game from memory? You haven’t done that? eh…?
I would avoid the “active” vs. “passive” construction. Instead, let the norm be “passive”, but base your “detail spots” on specific actions. Instead of referring to their character sheets, the players are encouraged to specify their actions. “If someone touches the door, a DC 12 Perception check detects that the surface has been freshly repainted to match the damage taken by the other door.”
Instead of “I check the door,” followed by “Roll Perception”, this encourages more specific interactions with the environment. “I’m moving the cloaks hanging there,” (one DC 15 Perception later…) “You recognize that awful cologne that Bear had been wearing.”
@ James MacKenzie,
The idea that the norm is ‘passive’ and ‘detail spots’ for specific active actions, to encourage greater detail of interaction with the environment, is interesting.
Incidentally, if you physically interact with the environment more, you also may encounter potentially lethal nasties (encounter: rot grubs, fungus) hidden in piles of trash, broken furniture, or alternately cloaks in coat closets (encounter: Bear’s cologne) (guaranteed lethal).
In the system your mentioning (or most others out there) how would you DC for a specifically important document in a drawer full of documents, or a specifically important book on a shelf full of other books?
Sure, you see a pile of printed pages, or books, but they aren’t they effectively camouflaged among hundreds of others just like them. How does this work out that you identify the object you were looking for, or just recognize it as being worth keeping? I’m assuming that the page in the desk that stands out, doesn’t have important seals, gold leaf and imperial purple ink.
When I was a mere lad in 8th grade (back in 1978…), I met a GM who told us “don’t ask questions until you tell me what you’re doing.” He didn’t want to hear “What’s on the ceiling?” He wanted “I look up at the ceiling.” By getting players to specify their actions, he improved communication between the GM and the players.
The development of more sophisticated skill systems has produced a negative effect: Players who depend on die rolls to gloss over investigative aspects of their adventures. They roll Sense Motive or Perception without actually telling anyone what their character is supposed to be doing.
Of course, there are people who just want tactical exercises as their adventures, and it isn’t my goal to make them play through activities they don’t find interesting. My goal is to encourage the players to interact with the game environment in more detail. When the rogue makes the Perception roll needed to detect a trap, he isn’t told that he’s found a trap, he’s advised that he “notices a narrow channel running straight across the floor” or “a loose flagstone.” Finding the specific details becomes a puzzle: Is the channel the edge of a pit? Do blades plunge forth from it? The players choose how best to test their observations.
By tying the Perception check to specific actions, rather than a rule mechanism, I encourage more specific play. Instead of depending on their characters’ written skills, the players’ choices drive the narrative. This approach also gives the GM a basis for extrapolation whether some other action might trigger the check. A character with the Scent ability might passively detect Bear’s dire cologne while wandering through the room or someone hiding a sword in the back of the old closet might fall victim to the cloak’s revolting odor.
>>>>
In the system you’re mentioning (or most others out there), how would you DC for a specifically important document in a drawer full of documents, or a specifically important book on a shelf full of other books?
>>>>
Finding that important document would be a simple task (DC 12) for someone who specifically looks at the papers jammed in the drawer, with higher degrees of success reducing the time needed for the task. (Perhaps each +5 to the DC halves the time needed.) If the characters don’t open the drawer (or at least “check the desk” or “ransack the entire room”), they would have zero chance of finding the document.
Finding a vital tome might not actually call for a Perception check. That sounds like a good opportunity to suggest some other relevant skill (e.g.: Knowledge (nobility) or Appraise to immediately spot the volume that describes the Duke’s ancestry, or Perform (any musical) to identify the score of a lost dwarven opera). Perception is already a vital skill: It’s also good to consider other relevant skills.
@ James MacKenzie
“Don’t ask questions until you tell me what you’re doing.”
That’s great advice! Sure beats a player telling the GM, “I just got 27 on my spot check, what do I notice?”
Ah, I return late to the thread.
@Neal
I’ve not gone all out applying this template yet, since I’m giving myself some time to simmer over options and see the outcomes of discussions such as this before I start putting ink to leather-bound journal.
As is, the few prototype mini-dungeons I’ve tried, it does get quite lengthy for larger and more complex rooms. No one-page dungeons here unfortunately. At the moment I’m tending towards a more verbose, but clearly delineated bullet-point presentation for each area that starts with obvious information, and drills down to details that players should discover. I’m trying out going as far as duplicating entrance-way/door/portal descriptions on both it’s sides, so the same door and it’s lock/trap/DCs etc are listed in both areas that it links. This particularly helps when playing without a map or grid, so the DM has a list of items of importance he can go over as he describes the room. Like Justins work on map keys, I also think as much info should be keyed into the map itself, but I prefer a illustrated style rather than symbolic/alpha-numeric.
In terms of read-aloud text I don’t use it myself in-game, but like others here I enjoy it as a component of published adventures as a way to access the mood of the area, and place for the DM to exercise some literary skills. It should be short, and concern only the unchanging aspects of the area geography, not ephemeral things that might change from time to time.