Deep in its DNA, Dungeons & Dragons has a fundamental mismatch between the expectations of its players and the design of the game that goes back to its very earliest days.

If you look all the way back to Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign, the original tabletop roleplaying game and the world from which D&D was born, the game was designed with a structure of zero-to-hero-to-king: The PCs went into the dungeon beneath Castle Blackmoor. Those who survived earned money and power with which they would raise armies and eventually fight vast wars for the fate of the empire before being retired as the next best thing to legendary demigods.

But those earliest players also talk about how Greg Svenson was really smart because he never allowed his character to level up high enough to get retired.

Fast forward a quarter century to D&D 3^rd Edition, and you’ll find the E6 variant — which capped leveling at 6^th level, but allowed PCs to continue gaining new abilities through feats — resonating with a goodly portion of the fanbase (and probably would have resonated with even more if they’d known about it).

Through D&D’s history, we see this same pattern again and again and again: The game holds out the promise of characters advancing into truly epic levels of power — founding kingdoms in AD&D, becoming literal gods in Basic D&D, the Epic Level Handbook in 3^rd Edition, the Paragon and Epic tiers of 4^th Edition — but a significant portion of the fanbase has mostly been interested in playing Aragorn and Conan (i.e., fairly gritty fantasy heroes rooted pretty firmly in reality). And when the mechanics of the game have tried to push them into those epic levels of play, they have mostly just kept playing Aragorn and Conan while getting cranky that the high-level mechanics are returning “nonsensical” results.

The one exception to this is combat: They still want to play Aragorn and Conan, but they want to be able to solo Smaug.

D&D 4^th Edition tried to square expectations with mechanics by having the world level up with the PCs: The numbers get bigger as you level up, but the stuff the PCs are doing doesn’t fundamentally shift except for the set dressing.

D&D 5^th Edition, on the other hand, went the other direction: Just don’t let the numbers increase. Lock the target numbers in with bounded accuracy and unlock Smaug-tier monsters by increasing the number of hit points monsters have and the amount of damage characters can do.

Between the two, the 5^th Edition approach is almost certainly preferable, but not entirely successful, because you can also think of this problem as, “The players don’t want to leave the dungeon.”

Which makes sense: Dungeons are fun. We enjoy playing them. So why would we want to stop playing them?

But as you gain the powers of a demigod, the scenario structure of the dungeon — exploring an unknown location one room at a time — begins to fall apart: Teleportation. Scrying. Divination. Planar travel. All of this shreds the dungeon structure. This shift in play was entirely intentional in how the game was designed, but despite trying to move away from that shift in play, 5^th Edition nevertheless inherits the spells and abilities that make it inevitable.

THE FIRST SOLUTION

The first solution would be to fully commit to what at least one part of 5^th Edition’s schizo identity is trying to do: Eliminate all of those high-level abilities that shred dungeons and low-level structures of play.

This is basically what the E6 variant does, but arguably even better, because you can still use damage and hit point escalation to let the PCs level up into soloing Smaug.

But, frankly, I hate it. Not only do I enjoy taking characters into truly epic spheres of play, but I find the 5^th Edition dynamic — where you can trivially dispatch celestial titans and fight your way to the throne of Asmodeus, but knocking down a wooden door? Man, that’s a tough ask! —to be kind of ridiculous. But I would really hate to see the game cripple itself by lopping off the epic modes of play for those of us who enjoy them.

It would be a failure of imagination.

So I think the first true solution to this problem would be for D&D to offer an E(X)-style option so that groups can lock in the style of play they enjoy — whether that’s what we currently think of as Tier 1 or Tier 3 or whatever — with or without the option of continuing to boost combat performance for the all-important soloing of Smaug.

THE SECOND SOLUTION

But I think it might also be worthwhile to take a slightly deeper look at this problem.

Why, exactly, have players been so reluctant to move into the various “endgames” that D&D has offered over the years?

I said they wanted to play Aragorn and Conan… but both of those characters ended up being kings. So why does realms-based play seem to so often lie fallow, even in editions of the game that have tried very hard to include it?

Ultimately, I think it comes back to scenario structures. I’ve talked in the past about the fact that the only two game structures most DMs really know are dungeon crawls and railroading (and the DMG doesn’t even teach you how to run dungeons any more). We’ve already discussed how high-level D&D abilities shred dungeons, but they also shred railroads: It becomes increasingly difficult for a DM to force their players to do stuff as the power level and options available to the PCs proliferate.

If the only scenario structure the rulebooks teach is railroading, the game will fall apart at the point where PCs become powerful enough that it’s difficult or impossible for the DM to constrain their choices.

In addition, dungeons kinda become irrelevant to kings and gods. In order to go on a dungeon crawl, a king and/or god would really need to take a break from being a king or god to go on the adventure. So if the only adventures you’re running are dungeon adventures, being a king or god ends up just being a decorative element in the campaign; a distraction from what the game is actually about.

This spills over into official support products: If you don’t have a scenario structure for running a realms-based campaign, then you can’t publish adventures that will slot into that structure. So DMs end up with a nigh-infinite supply of books filled with dungeons, but nothing for would-be kings or demigods fighting interplanar conflicts.

It also spills over into mechanical design! High-level D&D characters get plied with abilities and spells all aimed to support the robust combat scene structure at the heart of the game, but it’s been more than two decades since there was an official edition of D&D that hardcoded realms-based play or any other post-low-level alternative into character advancement.

To boil this down, what you ultimately have is a DM problem: Even if you had players who wanted to, for example, become dukes and rule a realm, DMs aren’t being given the tools they need to successfully create and run those adventures. If they nevertheless decide to take the plunge, they’re basically just tossed into the deep end. Some of them might spontaneously figure out how to swim, but most of them will just drown and end their campaigns.

So the other solution would be to fully support the shift in play. Not just with rules, but with the scene structures, scenario structures, and campaign structures that would support realms-based play or divinity or whatever other styles of play you want to unlock at Tier 3 or Tier 4.

The concept of a “passive Perception score,” although somewhat derived from the Take 10 mechanics of 3^rd Edition, was introduced in the 4^th Edition of D&D. The basic concept is that, instead of having the PCs make Perception checks to see whether or not they spotted something, you pre-calculate a static value (10 + their Perception modifier) and simply compare that score to the DC of the Perception task.

Frankly speaking, it’s a bad mechanic that got even worse in 5^th Edition.

First, there’s no variation in result: PC A will always have a higher score than PC B, so PC B will never spot something PC A doesn’t see. This not only eliminates novelty (which can be valuable in its own right), the lack of variety is also inherently stultifying, making it more difficult for different players to take the lead in reacting to different situations.

Second, it combines poorly with bounded accuracy. The basic concept of bounded accuracy is that you push all the DCs into a small range with the expectation that the d20 roll will be relevant and then remove the d20 roll. The Dungeon Master’s Guide, for example, says “if the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.” But any 1^st-level group, of course, will almost certainly have multiple PCs with a passive Perception score higher than 15.

Which brings us to the biggest problem, in my opinion, which is that in actual practice the whole thing is a charade. You, as the DM, will very quickly learn what the highest passive Perception score in your group is, which means that whenever you’re deciding what the Perception DC is, you’re really just deciding whether or not the DC is going to be higher or lower than the party’s score.

There’s nothing wrong with GM fiat, per se, but the passive Perception score ends up being this weird fake mechanic with a bunch of extra bookkeeping trying to mask what’s really happening. “No, no,” says the DM. “I didn’t arbitrarily decide you didn’t spot the trap! I decided that the DC to spot the trap was higher than your passive Perception score! Totally different!”

So, personally, I recommend that you don’t use D&D’s passive Perception scores. For a better way of handling perception-type checks — which can be used in a wide variety of RPGs, not just D&D — I recommend checking out Rulings in Practice: Perception-Type Tests.

With that being said, if you nevertheless want or for some reason need to use D&D’s passive Perception score, there are some best practices you can follow to do so to best effect.

MAKE A LIST

Ask your players for their passive Perception scores, write them down on a Post-It note, and attach that Post-It note to your GM screen.

This may seem obvious, but I’ve played in any number of games where the DM was constantly asking us what our passive Perception scores were, and there’s absolutely no reason for it. Collect them once, then use them instantly every time. Both the pace and the focus of play will be immensely improved.

Random Tip: While you’re doing this, go ahead and grab the PCs’ armor class, too.

Watch out for changing Perception scores. Some spells, abilities, and magic items may modify a character’s Perception score, grant them advantage on Perception checks, or the like. You’ll need to make sure to track this. (And, of course, you’ll also want to make sure you update your list when the PCs level up.)

In some groups, you may also discover that your players challenge surprise. When players see the mechanics being invoked, even if that’s just the DM asking for their passive Perception score, they’ll accept the outcome; but if it’s all being done invisibly behind your DM screen, some players will worry that they’re getting screwed over. “Did you remember that I have advantage on Perception checks in forests?”

The best way to handle this is to (a) make sure you’re getting it right, (b) reassure them, and (c) if it continues, have a transparent discussion about why you’re handling the passive Perception checks this way and how you’re doing it. You might find it effective to make a point of confirming their passive Perception scores at the beginning of each session, and you can also ask them to notify you whenever their passive Perception scores shift during a session.

(The next technique can also help with this, since they’ll at least hear the mechanics being invoked.)

REMEMBER DISADVANTAGE

One of the most overlooked rules in D&D 5^th Edition is that characters who are “distracted” are supposed to be at disadvantage on their passive Perception checks, which means that they should suffer a -5 penalty on their passive Perception score.

I recommend applying this aggressively in any situation where the PCs are not explicitly keeping watch and/or paranoid. Creeping down a dungeon passageway in hostile territory? On watch at night? You specifically said you were going to keep a lookout on the door while Arathorn ransacks the room? Great, you get your normal passive Perception score.

Arathorn, though? Apply the penalty. Also apply the penalty if the PCs are just walking down the street in a friendly city without any expectation of trouble or hanging out at a tavern with their friends.

In practice, this blunts the problems with how bounded accuracy interacts with passive Perception scores. It also encourages the players to be more specific with how they interact with and observe the world, instead of just coasting through the game on auto-pilot. (This is particularly important in making traps work right, for example.)

ROLL THE DC

You can sidestep the system being a camouflage of busywork for DM fiat by assigning a modifier and then rolling the DC of the check instead of assigning a static DC.

Basically take the DC you would have assigned (10 = Easy, 15 = Moderate, 20 = Hard, etc.), subtract 10, and use the remainder as the modifier for a d20 roll. (You can do the same thing with prewritten adventures that list a static DC.)

This is what you already do with Stealth checks, of course, but it may feel weird doing it for something like noticing the rune faintly inscribed on the ceiling.

The point, of course, is to reintroduce variability to the check so that you can make non-fiat rulings. (For example, I can decide the run is moderately difficulty to notice with a +5 check; but I don’t know whether or not the rogue with a passive Perception score of 18 will spot the rune or not.) But you nevertheless retain most of the advantages of using passive Perception scores, because you’re not making a roll for every individual PC (which would be time-consuming and also have a drastic impact on the probability of the check.)

RANDOM SPOTTING PRIORITY

Once the Wisdom (Perception) DC is set, you’ll know which PCs, if any, successfully noticed whatever the target of the check was.

If there are multiple PCs who succeeded on the check, randomly determine which of them noticed the target first.

This is a simple way of systemically spreading the “spotting something” spotlight around, giving different players an opportunity to call attention to a cool tapestry, sneak a gem into their pocket, or determine what the group’s reaction to approaching goblins might be.

Is this “fair” to the PC with the highest passive Perception score? Frankly, yes. Note that they’ll still get spotting priority more often than anyone else in the group, because (a) they’ll participate in more spotting priority checks than other PCs and (b) there will be some checks where they’re the only PC to succeed.

Alternative: If it’s a combat situation — or a potential combat situation — you might use Initiative checks to determine first spotter.

VARIANT: LET PERCEPTION RIDE

An alternative method for passive Perception scores would be to have the group roll Perception checks at the beginning of a delve, raid, or session and then let the result ride as their passive score for the run.

This means that for some sequences the rogue will have the highest passive Perception score and in other sequences it will be the barbarian or the wizard. It will move around the table, creating variable outcomes over time.

VARIANT: TAKE 0

To lessen the importance of passive Perception without completely eliminating it, base passive Perception scores on Take 0 instead of Take 10. In other words, a character’s passive Perception score is simply equal to their Wisdom (Perception) modifier.

Particularly at Tier 1, this will mean that passive Perception may not even succeed at Easy tasks. That’s okay, because in surprise situations you’ll be calling for a rolled Wisdom (Perception) check in these cases. It will also encourage the players to make active Perception checks, engaging with the environment to find stuff instead of just relying on their passive scores to take care of it.

In practice, when using this variant, you’re really just keeping a list of the lowest possible Wisdom (Perception) check possible, so you know the threshold at which it becomes pointless to roll the dice and you should just tell the PCs what they see.

Remember, of course, that this also applies to the NPCs.

Alternative: Base passive Perception on Take 5, so the score is 5 + the character’s modifier. Combined with consistently applying disadvantage for distraction, this will often create a baseline similar to Take 0, but with passive Perception still having a bit more of a meaningful role in the system.

Astonishingly dense arcane runes cover every side of incredibly complex origami structures. In some places, translucent onion-skin has been layered over the paper, creating sections in which the runes are overlaid with each other, forming inscrutable and ever-shifting patterns.

A proper understanding of the origami folds — and the multiple orientations in which they are designed to be read — allows one to begin unraveling a truly innovative method by which glyphs of warding can be interwoven.

INTERWOVEN GLYPHS

Interweaving glyphs of warding requires an Intelligence (Arcana) check (DC 10 + the total level of the interwoven glyphs). Interwoven glyphs of warding are:

• Simultaneously triggered.
• More difficult to find and disable, increasing the DC of the checks to do so by +2 per additional glyph.
• More difficult to identify, requiring an Intelligence (Arcana) check of DC 10 + the total level of the interwoven glyphs of warding.

Each glyph of warding must be cast in sequence and without interruption. If the sequence is interrupted or the Spellcraft check fails, the glyph of warding spells are all lost to no effect.

The total level of glyphs is based on the level of the casting of glyphs of warding for explosive runes, or the level of the stored spell for spell glyphs.

ADVANCED SYMBOLOGY

Among the origami notes describing the interweaving of glyphs of warding, there is also an incomplete treatise analyzing how symbol spells could also be interwoven (both with each other and with glyphs of warding).

If completed, this advanced methodology would also raise the saving throw DC of all interwoven glyphs or symbols to the highest DC among all of the interwoven glyphs and symbols.

However, because the research has never been completed, a PC interested in these techniques would need to finish perfecting them as a downtime research project. (See p. 338 of So You Want To Be a Game Master.)

This material is covered by the Open Game License.

Phandalin and the surrounding region of the Sword Coast have featured in three D&D adventures:

• Lost Mine of Phandelver
• Dragon of Icespire Peak
• The Shattered Obelisk

Each of these adventures have featured a slightly different versions of a region map drawn by Mike Schley. At the moment, I’m specifically interested in the various versions of the map designed to be given to the players as a handout. The best of these is probably the poster map found in the D&D Essentials Kits (to accompany Dragons of Icespire Peak), but all of them are fatally flawed as player maps because they spoil the adventures — not only showing locations that the PCs don’t know about yet (“Boy, I wonder if Icespire Peak — the only mountain labeled on this map — will be significant at some point…”), but frequently showing hidden sites that the PCs are supposed to go on adventures in order to locate.

NPC: But where could Cragmaw Castle be?! Nobody knows!!!!

Players: It’s right there.

NPC: If only someone could find it!

Players: It’s right there.

NPC: It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma, baked into a souffle!

So I wanted a version of the map I could actually give to the players. I also, for purely personal reasons, wanted a version of the map without the hex grid.

Fortunately, you can purchase a digital map pack from Mike Schley that includes multiple versions of the map, including one with no grid and no labels.

The only catch, though, is that I don’t want NO labels… I want some labels: The roads. The major cities. And so forth. And I suspect I’m not the only one.

So what I’ve done is to create label layers that will let you control exactly which labels you want on your version of the map:

• Roads & Cities
• Regions
• Mountains
• Thundertree & Helm’s Hold
• All Layers

To use these labels:

1. Download the files below.
2. Buy the map pack from Mike Schley (also linked below).
3. Load the no-label map from the map pack into any graphic program that allows you to easily add and edit layers. Then add the PNG layers you want.

The layer files should line up perfectly with the map and with each other.

Alternatively, I’ve included a PSD file that you can use with Photoshop. (You’ll still need to add the no-label map from Schley as the background layer.)

Download the Layer Pack

Download the PSD File

Buy Mike Schley’s Map Pack

ALTERNATIVE MAPS
Phandalin Hexmap
Reveilled’s Phandalin Player Map

I’ll be appearing on the Wandering DMs livestream today at 12pm CT to discuss Adapting Content for D&D and So You Want To Be a Game Master. If you don’t see this until later, that’s okay! The podcast is archived on Youtube and you can watch any time!

Dan & Paul host Justin Alexandrian, creator of the Alexandrian and the new book So You Want to be a Game Master, for an in-depth chat on the best ways to adapt content to and from D&D and other RPGs. What tricks work well? What things should you avoid? And what content is simply incompatible with other systems?

Watch Now!

You can find links to my previous appearance on Wandering DMs at the Alexandrian Auxiliary.