Great White Games/Pinnacle Entertainment Group

[luisto]

I'm just returning from my weekly D&D4E game (I GM in Savage Worlds, but when I'm a player I get to play in whatever the group decides ), and I was thinking about how convenient this concept of Passive Perception is.

Basically when a player has the Perception Skill (kinda like SW's Notice Skill) he not only gets a bonus to his "active" perception rolls, but he also gets a "Passive Perception" score automatically calculated (kinda like SW's Toughness and Parry, which depend on Vigor and Fighting, respectively). This way the DM does not have to ask players every so often to "roll perception" and (1) slow down the game; (2) hint that there might be something to be perceptive about. Instead, the DM periodically checks the Passive Perception score against the appropriate Difficulty Modifier, and informs a player that passes that test that he/she "sees something." If a player wants to roll a perception check, he still can.

Could this be done in SW? Would it have any benefit similar to the one it has in D&D4E? I was thinking that having one-half Notice +2 be the "Passive Notice" (like Parry) would give this result, and speed up the game; but we'd be missing on the added probability of Aces.

Any comments?

Luis

[Lord Skudley]

I've been playing around with this concept for some time. I've come to the conclusion that the best option for Passive Notice is 1/2 the die type, that way it doesn't give an overwhelming advantage to those who don't roll {this also only offers a success to those who have a d8 or better in the skill}. In any situation where the PC's don't feel life threatened I use their Passive Notice. If at anytime they go on "Alert" then they roll for it, taking the best result.

I just recently stole an Idea from Lord Lance:

[Lord Lance]

Well, SW gives to us in the main rules this "passive perception", in stealth rules... Simply use a flat 4 as difficulty for the enemies stealth rolls VS the group if it's in a unthreatened situation. FFF!
However, if you simply want a character notice some details without the player keep asking for a perception roll, simply take the best "scout" character, elect him "privilegiated class", and when you want he notice something, simply tell "You noticed something!!!"
Of course he will pass the "passive perception", because you, the Master, set a "fake" difficulty that, obviously, is lower than any "passive perception" value that the character could have...
So, I see no points to have a P.P. value.

[jamused]

Making those kind of rolls is what a GM screen is for.

I guess I'm not really seeing the value in an added mechanic. If you wanted to have certain things that would automatically be noticed, but only if somebody in the party has sufficient skill, why not just note "Will be noticed by anybody with a d6 (d8, whatever) or more in Notice." If nobody does, then you roll.

The problem I see with Passive Notice is that to make it work, you have to redefine Notice as only applying when the players announce they're actively looking for something. Otherwise the players with lower Notice rolls will likely complain, with justification, that if it was automatic for Mr d8, they should have had some chance of Noticing whatever it was, even if it required an Ace. That's likely to slow down the game, since now the players are going to be announcing attempts to Notice all the time to get back to the level of being able to be aware of their surroundings that the Core rules gave them.

[sulfurdown]

I always took from systems that had notice-type skills that the GM would just keep track of the character's skill level and make discrete checks without having the player notice it. Why not just check the skill instead of turning it around to be a number checked against? Both still require the GM to actively track the character skills, one just doesn't add more mechanics. If the check passes, let the player roll for detail.

[Red Mercy]

I've also wondered about the same thing for certain strength checks. For example, when a player is trying to, say, push a rock or something. There's really no degree of randomness involved here. He (or she) is going to push at that rock with all of his effort. So why not just say "a character with d6 (for example) in strength can move it."?

[Clint]

[jalinde]

Some GMs also have everyone at the table roll a Notice check (or few) at the top of the session and record the results. First "passive perception" test is taken against these numbers, with success or failure noted as normal. If you have them roll extras, scratch them off and move down the list.

Of course, if you need a detail to come to your players, you tell them, right? If failure is uninteresting or success is status quo, why are they rolling?
_________________
...A special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theatre. -Shepherd Book

[Yuri]

[Red Mercy]

[Lord Lance]

[Clint]

[Red Mercy]

I watched the first one. Very funny. But you know, there were times when they hit the nail on the head just a little *too* closely.