Part of my last post was in responce to a question about passive perception, made here.
But I’ve noticed the thread respondents give great examples of world distortion in an attempt to somehow get at the player with high perception.
My favorite line, for how explicit it is as an example is “Send increasingly sneaky bastards at them.”
Like, would you have done that if the PC did not have high passive perception?
I think the answer is clear – no, the person suggesting that would not.
So the person would (or is at least advocating to) distort their game world – have things come into existence that they would not have done if the PC had a lower passive perception.
It’s GM metagaming (it also ends up in a power struggle with players and a struggle no one actually enjoys because it’s about real power. But never mind that for now)
I think it ties in with my previous post on Rest Rooms & Dragons in much the same way. With the passive perception example, the poster would bring in ‘sneaky bastards’ if the PC has high PP and not do so if the PC doesn’t. With a ruleset that makes fights risky every time, the DM would not bring in anything extra due to a long rest being had – but if players can make a cake walk out of a fight after they rest, the DM starts bringing in extra things to try and compensate for that. Obfuscating between things they might have done in a ‘every fight is risky’ system and things they’d bring in to a ‘it takes five fights before there’s risk’ system, treating them both as if they would have always done it. The sneaky bastards would ‘always have been there’. When really they wouldn’t be.
I don’t think gamers can see themselves doing this, generally. As they say, system matters.