Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Don's Discourse on PFS Dice Etiquette


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 517 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

I just roll my PCs perception vs. traps and their stealth, informing them that I'll be doing so at the start of the game.

Then I say things like "you feel pretty stealthy" or "you could have been quieter" to let them know about how well they did.

Shadow Lodge ****

Don Walker wrote:

3a. No micro dice.

3e. No dice with a logo where the '1' (or any other number) belongs.
8. Dice may not be rolled into the middle of the battlemat taking out mini's in the process.

3a. What about cons? When I'm expecting to play at a con that isn't all gaming, I bring a tiny little set of dice that fits easily in my pocket. It seems entirely unreasonable to penalize practicality.

3e. Why? Since that's the standard practice, it's not a problematic substitution.

8. If someone is doing this on purpose, obviously that's bad, but stuff happens, y'know?

Myles Crocker wrote:
Oh one other thing i am beginning to try, is to have players roll in a dice cup, for stealth and perception rolls. then, without looking in the cup, i ask them to pass it to me. This way I know what their rolls are, and They don't. I find it encourages "roll playing" instead of meta gaming.

That is an awesome idea.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
I just roll my PCs perception vs. traps and their stealth, informing them that I'll be doing so at the start of the game.

Why? The entirety of the Pathfinder Core Rules is written with the knowledge that the players see their rolls. This is even more evident by the fact that a handful of specific circumstances specify that the GM rolls it in secret instead.

Also keep in mind that the PC searching for traps is allowed to take 10 or even take 20, in which case they'll always know their result. So what exactly are you after with this idea?

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think these rules are unnecessary.

I try to handle anything egregious at the table when it happens.

The roll dice 4" rule came about because of spin-down dice during the DnD Mini's hey day.

I prefer to start a session with trust. If someone breaks that trust, then I'll deal with it. But if I start with mistrust, then the players are probably not going to have as good a time.

The only dice that annoys the hell outta me, is the d20's that are red 0-9 and blue 0-9, and the player "knows" which color is the 11-20 and which is the 1-10. But generally, I don't worry too much about it.

I don't need to see rolls, I don't care to see them. I really don't.

If a player wants to cheat, then that's on them. If someone comes to me and says someone was cheating, then I'll deal with it by having a conversation with the cheater.

But I think having a list of 10 rules for how to roll a die is actually kinda jerky.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
I prefer to start a session with trust. If someone breaks that trust, then I'll deal with it. But if I start with mistrust, then the players are probably not going to have as good a time.

Perfectly said, Andy. This is also what comes to mind when, as above, people talk about rolling their players' skill checks for them. If I was the player, I'd feel like I was hearing, "I don't trust you, never have, and never will," or else wonder what I did to offend the GM and make him think he needed to make a display of power to make sure I knew who was in charge.

Not to mention it's not kosher rules-wise. But that's really secondary to the feeling of attack and mistrust I would get if a GM I didn't know said he was going to make my skill checks for me.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I know the folks suggesting GM rolls are nice guys. :) I'm just pointing out how it comes across to a player when the GM stops them and does it for them when all they wanted to do was make a skill check. Having something so basic taken out of the player's hands could really sour an unsuspecting player.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Jiggy wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
I just roll my PCs perception vs. traps and their stealth, informing them that I'll be doing so at the start of the game.

Why? The entirety of the Pathfinder Core Rules is written with the knowledge that the players see their rolls. This is even more evident by the fact that a handful of specific circumstances specify that the GM rolls it in secret instead.

Also keep in mind that the PC searching for traps is allowed to take 10 or even take 20, in which case they'll always know their result. So what exactly are you after with this idea?

Because if you take 10 or 20 next to proximity traps, you have a chance of setting them off? I mean, they can take 10 or 20 if they'd like, but such checks are the assumption that the PC is rolling the gambit of numbers, from 1-20, which is why you can't take 20 on things like UMD.

Also, I make the rolls for these two checks because, as a player, if I knew how well I did while searching for traps or stealthing, I would be tempted to use that knowledge to metagame the situation. "Oh, I got a 13 looking for traps. The door seems safe, but I'm still going to tie a rope to the handle and open it from around a corner."

EDIT: I also make perception checks for players when they are not actively using the skill, as I feel they have a "passive perception" to just generally notice things.

EDIT 2: Also, in the vein of metagaming. If I have creature waiting in ambush and the PCs walk in, and I ask them to make perception checks and none of them succeed, and I tell them "there's nothing here actually." They, as players, know that there is. Thus, making it harder to play their characters rather than play the OOC knowledge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to plug this guys particular dice, but I think every one who is interested in the fairness of dice rolls should take the time to view this video (and part 2). It's a little long winded but provides an impressive analysis on the true randomness of most polished dice.

Colonel Louis @ Gencon 2008

Yes I do use sharp edged dice, almost exclusively. I really wouldn't expect any one else to but I'm a firm believer that they offer the best truly random dice role.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
Because if you take 10 or 20 next to proximity traps, you have a chance of setting them off? I mean, they can take 10 or 20 if they'd like, but such checks are the assumption that the PC is rolling the gambit of numbers, from 1-20, which is why you can't take 20 on things like UMD.

That's pretty far beside the point. Yes, they might blow themselves up on a proximity trap. But most traps you can just sit there for two minutes checking the door with a T20, and you know exactly what result you got and know that you couldn't get any higher, and that's fine. So given that extremely significant checks can still be known quantities within the rules, trying to hide some of the check results just doesn't really seem to accomplish much, you know?

Quote:
Also, I make the rolls for these two checks because, as a player, if I knew how well I did while searching for traps or stealthing, I would be tempted to use that knowledge to metagame the situation. "Oh, I got a 13 looking for traps. The door seems safe, but I'm still going to tie a rope to the handle and open it from around a corner."

This is where the trust thing comes in. Just yesterday I had a BBEG bluffing innocence. One of my players rolled Sense Motive, got a high roll, and learned she was hiding something. So I had her say "well, okay..." and feed them another line. He rolled a much lower Sense Motive check, I told him she sounded legit, and he completely went along with it even though everyone knew she was going to stab them all in the back (which she later did, to the tune of 11d6 fire damage to the whole party).

I trusted him not to metagame, and he did not betray that trust. If a GM wants to make my rolls for me from the get-go, that sends a message that he's starting off not trusting me, even though I haven't done anything to suggest I shouldn't be trusted.

I don't know about you, but that's not the atmosphere I want to bring to my tables.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Clearly I've stumbled into a touchy issue. Let me try to carefully step out of the mire.

Quote:
So given that extremely significant checks can still be known quantities within the rules, trying to hide some of the check results just doesn't really seem to accomplish much, you know?

It depends what you think I'm trying to accomplish. Yes, it's easy to figure out enemy AC. It's easy to estimate DR, health, and attacks. You can figure out their CMD and reach, all that crap. I think that telling players that there's a trap, but that they don't see it and can't react as though they've seen it. And then arguing about what squares they would have walked through had they known is just a stupid waste of time. And I feel like removing that is accomplishing something worthy of accomplishment.

Quote:
If a GM wants to make my rolls for me from the get-go, that sends a message that he's starting off not trusting me, even though I haven't done anything to suggest I shouldn't be trusted.

The message that I see being sent is one of trust, regardless of rolls. I trust you used a 20 point buy. I trust you purchased gear correctly. I trust you know how your class abilities work. And I trust that you trust me to make the game better for you as a player.

That is what having me roll a couple of instances of skill checks in secret is doing. I am trying to keep ambushes and traps surprising and exciting. You may have the gaming mastery to keep OOC and IC separate and waltz into ambushes left and right. Some players don't, so I do what I do to keep the game fluid, fast-moving, and fair for all.

If you don't trust me to make those rolls, then aren't you tripping over your own words when you say:

Quote:
I don't know about you, but that's not the atmosphere I want to bring to my tables.

*** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

WalterGM wrote:
EDIT 2: Also, in the vein of metagaming. If I have creature waiting in ambush and the PCs walk in, and I ask them to make perception checks and none of them succeed, and I tell them "there's nothing here actually." They, as players, know that there is. Thus, making it harder to play their characters rather than play the OOC knowledge.

Just wanted to address this. I'm not above (below?) just asking for a perception check out of the blue, so when I ask for one that counts, the players aren't bracing for it.

I also keep random minis at the table to keep people guessing. These might be "Richard" type things, but it does help punish metagaming. If I pull out a giant spider and set it with other minis and the players start drinking anti-toxin I've a) tagged metagamers and b) made them waste their anti-toxins :-)

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

This is a pretty good example of the stuff I'd like to avoid.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:

If you don't trust me to make those rolls, then aren't you tripping over your own words when you say:

Quote:
I don't know about you, but that's not the atmosphere I want to bring to my tables.

There's a difference between entrusting the rolls to the person who was supposed to make them all along, and entrusting them to someone who took them away from the person who was supposed to make them all along.

That's like comparing me trusting my wife to carry her own purse/cash without overspending to her trusting me to carry it for her to prevent the temptation. Her not wanting me to carry her money for her does not equal her not trusting me.

The player is assumed to be making their own checks, and my wife is assumed to be carrying her own money. Trying to take that away from either of them communicates that I don't think they can handle a responsibility that is plainly theirs.

Not entrusting their responsibilities to me does not communicate that same lack of trust. Someone assuming that they can handle their own responsibilities and don't need them taken over by someone else is not mistrustful.

---------------------

It's a player's responsibility not to metagame. If your reason to change something is to prevent metagaming, you're announcing that you don't think the player can handle their own responsibilities (since your stated goal is, in fact, the player's responsibility).

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
This is a pretty good example of the stuff I'd like to avoid.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a GM to trust me to be more mature than whoever's playing Belkar until I give him a reason not to.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Quote:
It's a player's responsibility not to metagame. If your reason to change something is to prevent metagaming, you're announcing that you don't think the player can handle their own responsibilities (since your stated goal is, in fact, the player's responsibility).

You're right, I don't think every player can handle that responsibility. I did, many, many games ago. But the constant swapping of players in PFS has shown me that my previous assumptions were false. However, since you disagree (and I respect your opinions on these boards), I propose that I engage in a case study.

For the next five games, lets say, I will let my players make those checks (stealth and perception vs. traps). I will keep track of how many times they abuse the OOC knowledge gained, and how many times they ignore it. I'll make a thread with these findings, including what levels they were (a measure of experience), what game it was (were such situations actually present) and we can pick up the discussion there.

My thesis for this will be the following: Players as a group, while being super-funtastic-awesome in many regards, are prone to abusing OOC knowledge to their in game advantage. By removing some of the temptation, by having a GM make stealth checks and perception checks against traps for them, the game becomes simpler for the players and less prone to being derailed in argument.

Do we have a gentleman's agreement then?

Qadira ***

wow... I just had a Take 10 flash back again.

Do I have a problem with Walter making my Perception checks? nope. But, hay, that's me. I understand other people would be different. Oh! and I always Take 10... whenever I can (even with the character with the -2 perception).

When I'm the Judge, I pass out an "Inititive card" to each player. I ask for thier Init rolls (4 times) and their Perception bonus and Sense Motive Bonus (and only those two skill rolls - with a spot to mark if they normally Take 10 on those skills). And along the bottom, it has a number of blanks for d20 rolls - which I will use during the game for Passive Perception and Sense Motive rolls - (or to decide who the monster will shot at... or other random effects). I feel it smooths play for me to be able to say... "Crusher - you don't think this guy is telling you all the truth"....(and makes it faster too).

But heck, that's just me...

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Jiggy wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
This is a pretty good example of the stuff I'd like to avoid.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a GM to trust me to be more mature than whoever's playing Belkar until I give him a reason not to.

Nitpick: it was the rest of the PCs present as well.

Qadira ***

I do disagree with the Stelth checks bit thou. Players should control those - they are active checks. Players should be awair of all active checks their PCs are required to check. The only exceptions would be passive rolls - rolls they are un-aware that need to make. The only ones that I know that regularly occure would be Perception, and Sense Motive.

*

Dragnmoon wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

3a. No micro dice.

3c. No dice with extra graphics that hide the numbers.
There is nothing that drives me crazier *Ok there is plenty that does ;)* then unreadable dice.

I agree, I hate unreadable dice. It seems people who use them, "roll better" than everyone else. Just an observation.

I find having dice that other players can read is perhaps the best deterrent from cheating.

JohnF wrote:

I'd go for a simpler set of rules:

1. All dice rolls are made in the open, in full view of the GM.
2. Dice should be clearly legible from across the table.
3. Dice are not to be picked up until the GM has acknowledged the roll.
4. The GM may require a re-roll for any reason.

I'd say that's about right.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WalterGM wrote:
Quote:
It's a player's responsibility not to metagame. If your reason to change something is to prevent metagaming, you're announcing that you don't think the player can handle their own responsibilities (since your stated goal is, in fact, the player's responsibility).

You're right, I don't think every player can handle that responsibility. I did, many, many games ago. But the constant swapping of players in PFS has shown me that my previous assumptions were false. However, since you disagree (and I respect your opinions on these boards), I propose that I engage in a case study.

For the next five games, lets say, I will let my players make those checks (stealth and perception vs. traps). I will keep track of how many times they abuse the OOC knowledge gained, and how many times they ignore it. I'll make a thread with these findings, including what levels they were (a measure of experience), what game it was (were such situations actually present) and we can pick up the discussion there.

My thesis for this will be the following: Players as a group, while being super-funtastic-awesome in many regards, are prone to abusing OOC knowledge to their in game advantage. By removing some of the temptation, by having a GM make stealth checks and perception checks against traps for them, the game becomes simpler for the players and less prone to being derailed in argument.

Do we have a gentleman's agreement then?

Although that seems like an amicable and fair-minded endeavor, there's something about me that throws a wrench into it: I personally think that even if most people abuse something, I still shouldn't assume that New Person X that I've just met will do so as well, particularly when I'm in a position of authority to deal with it if it does happen.

As a PFS GM, I think that no matter how many people metagame, I should still start my relationship with each player on the assumption that they won't. If someone does, I can deal with them, because hey, I'm the GM! I'd rather my trust be betrayed and force me to deal with them than to preemptively fail to trust an honest person.

Thus, no matter what the results of your "survey", I would still hold that trust should be the default starting point. Better to trust all my players and deal with those who betray that trust, than to trust none of my players and therefore by definition not trust the honest ones.

On top of all that is the fact that making someone's checks for them is against the rules (unless a skill/ability specifies otherwise, obviously) and is therefore a poor way to react to metagame abuses. If a player at my table is cheating, I'll deal with them as such, rather than invent mechanisms to make it more difficult - that still leaves me with a cheater at my table.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
This is a pretty good example of the stuff I'd like to avoid.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a GM to trust me to be more mature than whoever's playing Belkar until I give him a reason not to.
Nitpick: it was the rest of the PCs present as well.

Nitpick of my own: stop giving your players free perception checks against traps - if they don't have Trap Spotter, then they need to spend actions to search for them. :)

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have made stealth checks for players before. A character should try to be sneaky, but should they know exactly how well they hid? It isn't all that common for me, but I have had players plan to be stealthy, roll less than 5, and have their character "have a change of heart" and go with a different plan. Some players, I know will go with it regardless. However, rolling stealth checks for them has led to some hilarious moments: nat 1 on a stealth check to enter a hall. I asked the player if I could borrow the next few seconds of their character's life. They agreed, so the barbarian with no int kicks in the door and bellows "I AM BEING SNEAKY! YOU CANNOT SEE OR HEAR ME!". The table needed quite a few minutes to pull themselves back together.

Sczarni *** Venture-Lieutenant, Connecticut—Manchester aka Cpt_kirstov

Dragnmoon wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
How about dice towers Dragnmoon? :-)

I don't know what that is..

Edit: Need to be clear on one thing... There are such thing as a small Dice tray, those I am fine with... The ones I don't like are the Large ones also used to roll their dice in.

I know someone who can make a dice tower roll whatever number he wants as long as he knows or sees the angle of the ramp inside.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Jiggy wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
This is a pretty good example of the stuff I'd like to avoid.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a GM to trust me to be more mature than whoever's playing Belkar until I give him a reason not to.
Nitpick: it was the rest of the PCs present as well.
Nitpick of my own: stop giving your players free perception checks against traps - if they don't have Trap Spotter, then they need to spend actions to search for them. :)

I don't give them free checks. Last nights game: zero rogues, each person "I am looking for traps" on every object.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
I have made stealth checks for players before. A character should try to be sneaky, but should they know exactly how well they hid?

Well, given that in most cases where you'd use stealth you could take 10 and therefore know the exact result before you even make the check... I'm gonna have to say yes, it's completely okay for them to know exactly how well they hid. The NPCs' perception checks, on the other hand...

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
I don't give them free checks. Last nights game: zero rogues, each person "I am looking for traps" on every object.

Ah, okay. Smart party then. :D


organized wrote:

I don't want to plug this guys particular dice, but I think every one who is interested in the fairness of dice rolls should take the time to view this video (and part 2). It's a little long winded but provides an impressive analysis on the true randomness of most polished dice.

Colonel Louis @ Gencon 2008

Yes I do use sharp edged dice, almost exclusively. I really wouldn't expect any one else to but I'm a firm believer that they offer the best truly random dice role.

When I said virtually all dice are not perfect earlier in this thread, I was referring to all the other dice. :)

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Quote:
Thus, no matter what the results of your "survey", I would still hold that trust should be the default starting point. Better to trust all my players and deal with those who betray that trust, than to trust none of my players and therefore by definition not trust the honest ones.

You make it seem as though I am painting my players in some dark light. I am not. As a player myself I appreciate when a GM takes some of the responsibility off my shoulders. It lets me more realistically react to situations without worrying if I'm RPing with OOC knowledge or not. Trust, in this sense, isn't even a factor. This is more of an issue of temptation.

You can leave your pie on the windowsill, and find that it will get eaten from time to time. I'll go ahead and close that window and keep my pie safe.

Quote:
On top of all that is the fact that making someone's checks for them is against the rules (unless a skill/ability specifies otherwise, obviously) and is therefore a poor way to react to metagame abuses. If a player at my table is cheating, I'll deal with them as such, rather than invent mechanisms to make it more difficult - that still leaves me with a cheater at my table.

I think that this falls under GM purview. If I have a player argue with me at the table, I'll listen and then explain my reasoning. If he refuses to play with those stipulations then we will do it RAW (the way he and you want), no harm no foul. I let all my players know up front what is going on and so far, have had no complaints.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
You make it seem as though I am painting my players in some dark light. I am not.

I know you're not; my point was more that a player will (or could) feel mistrusted when a GM takes over part of their responsibility to "remove temptation". And that sets an unfavorable tone (at least, if they don't already know each other, which is mostly what I'm talking about here).

Quote:
As a player myself I appreciate when a GM takes some of the responsibility off my shoulders.

Interesting. For me, it's the opposite: if anyone should be taking some of the burden off someone else's shoulders, it should be the player taking some of the burden off the GM's shoulders, not vice-versa. When I'm the player, I have a responsibility to be mature enough to wipe my own ass so the GM doesn't have to.

I guess I'm operating under the assumption that it takes a dishonest player to abuse metagame knowledge. Thus, to have a GM preemptively "remove temptation" just sounds like he thinks I might be exactly that type of player.

Now, if we already knew each other and I knew (and had told him) that I had trouble separating IC/OOC knowledge, that would be a different matter entirely. It's mostly just a matter of when an unfamiliar GM assumes things from the get-go.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

Regarding current conversation between Jiggy and Walter:

Expect table variation. That is all.

Regarding original topic.
1) That is WAY too many rules about dice.
2) My rules general rules are no spin-downs and no electronic rolling. Feel free to bring your tablet/laptop, but no die rolling on it. Oh, and I want to make sure it stops before you touch it.
3) I also would like to know who is stomping around while Im rolling my pointy d4s. Mot places of business (and I assume cons as well) require you to wear shoes to get in. Go barefoot at your own risk.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Jiggy wrote:


Interesting. For me, it's the opposite: if anyone should be taking some of the burden off someone else's shoulders, it should be the player taking some of the burden off the GM's shoulders, not vice-versa. When I'm the player, I have a responsibility to be mature enough to wipe my own ass so the GM doesn't have to.

You're entirely right. It should be the players, but, speaking from experience, it rarely is. To use your analogy, I wipe almost everyone's ass when I gm. I field questions about feat selection, class abilities, game mechanics, what size shoe to buy, the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow -- anything people can think of -- while I am running a table. I routinely have three or four people asking me questions at once. More often than not my reply is "look it up" but if I know the answer I try to reply.

Occasionally my hands smell like s~%$, but the players have a great time so we all win. Because that is my goal -- to provide the best environment for my players. That's the GMs job: players can make it easier (and should), but regardless, an outstanding GM is one that treks through the muck no matter what's going on.

Regarding the temptation thing. It's really hard to walk into that square, or move around realistically when you know you're going to get smacked in the face for it.

The hardest thing to learn when you are starting jujitsu is the back fall. You have to jump backwards and land on your back, feet off the ground. It goes against nature to put ourselves in harm's way. It is easier to do it with a character, but to some extent that character is an extension of the player, so it can still be difficult.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Seth Gipson wrote:

Regarding current conversation between Jiggy and Walter:

Expect table variation. That is all.

To be clear, I personally wouldn't quibble about it at the table. Just trying to point out potential relational repercussions of such a practice.

Quote:
3) I also would like to know who is stomping around while Im rolling my pointy d4s. Mot places of business (and I assume cons as well) require you to wear shoes to get in. Go barefoot at your own risk.

THANK YOU! I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought it was weird. Especially when you consider how little time my d4's should spend on the floor instead of on the table. Makes it sound like the moment I drop one, someone takes a flying leap across the table in an effort to stomp on it before I can grab it.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Seth Gipson wrote:
Oh, and I want to make sure it stops before you touch it.

+1 million. Quite irritating.

Qadira ***

Seth Gipson wrote:

Regarding current conversation between Jiggy and Walter:

Expect table variation. That is all.

Regarding original topic.
1) That is WAY too many rules about dice.
2) My rules general rules are no spin-downs and no electronic rolling. Feel free to bring your tablet/laptop, but no die rolling on it. Oh, and I want to make sure it stops before you touch it.
3) I also would like to know who is stomping around while Im rolling my pointy d4s. Mot places of business (and I assume cons as well) require you to wear shoes to get in. Go barefoot at your own risk.

during a long Con I have been known to pull my shoes off (yeah, at the table).

and sometimes I play in someones home.

But yeah...

anyone know a good place to order non-pointy D4s (on line)? does Piazo sell them?

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
nosig wrote:
during a long Con I have been known to pull my shoes off (yeah, at the table).

I had a player do this to me at a convention once... Damn he stunk!

I told him to please put his shoes on... When he at first said no, I told him his odor was not a good thing for the table and either he put the shoes on or leave the table... He put his shoes on but was upset for the rest of the game...


Uninvited Ghost wrote:


Colonel Louis @ Gencon 2008

When I said virtually all dice are not perfect earlier in this thread, I was referring to all the other dice. :)

So my question is how is using a dice that always rolls 20s because of it's egg shape any different from shaving your dice to roll high? Just because it was randomly tumbled so it favors high numbers? Sounds suspiciously like cheating to me.

It would seem that electronic dice rollers are by far the most accurate way to generate random numbers.

Some kind of strict dice enforcement code seems silly, unless Pathfinder Society is going to enforce the use of 'Casino Grade Dice' only.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
Regarding the temptation thing. It's really hard to walk into that square, or move around realistically when you know you're going to get smacked in the face for it.

I wonder if perhaps this is the key difference between our perspectives. By and large, I don't find it too terribly difficult to base my decisions on IC knowledge. I have to be conscious/deliberate about it, sure; but it's not on my "Top 5 hardest things in PFS" list. Similarly, I've seen lots of "blunders" from other players where they acted IC against OOC knowledge, so I guess I sort of assumed it was the same for them.

Thus, I think of someone who makes OOC decisions as that guy* and therefore the implication that someone needs help kind of feels like an assumption that he's that guy.

But the more I listen to you, the more it sounds like you find it normal for most people to have a lot of trouble with it and really want the extra help.

Which of course completely changes everything. Does that jive with your impression of our dialogue so far?

*In cases where someone does innocently have trouble with IC/OOC separations, they've been the first to mention it.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

Jiggy wrote:
THANK YOU! I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought it was weird. Especially when you consider how little time my d4's should spend on the floor instead of on the table. Makes it sound like the moment I drop one, someone takes a flying leap across the table in an effort to stomp on it before I can grab it.

Yea, D4's definitely seem to have the least amount of 'sloppy dice' moments, when you arent talking about the barrel type dice anyway.

I too take my shoes off occasionally at home or during the game, but I definitely wouldnt think about making it a rule that you cant roll a non-barell d4 on the off chance of me finding someone's missing d4 with my foot.

Silver Crusade **

I'm with WalterGM on this one. I prefer secret perception/sense motive checks, just so players don't have to worry about what they know vs what their characters know. This way, the GM has the chance to surprise both the player and the character. :lol: :p

Similarly, in one scenario, I also made a series of secret fortitude saves, because I didn't want players to know that their characters were secretly being poisoned until they got sick later and didn't know how they picked up the disease.

Silver Crusade **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

I'm with WalterGM on this one. I prefer secret perception/sense motive checks, just so players don't have to worry about what they know vs what their characters know. This way, the GM has the chance to surprise both the player and the character. :lol: :p

Similarly, in one scenario, I also made a series of secret fortitude saves, because I didn't want players to know that their characters were secretly being poisoned until they got sick later and didn't know how they picked up the disease.

I've made players roll a save for no reason. My favorite I've done was a will save, later to be revealed as a "Will Save vs Paranoia".

Cheliax *** Venture-Lieutenant, England—Sheffield aka Ninjaiguana.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My personal stance as a GM is very in tune with Jiggy's. I don't really have 'dice rules' - there's the obvious, generally unspoken rules, like 'if a die goes off the table, it's discounted; roll again' and 'please don't cheat', but I don't need to read my players dice, and I trust them to read their dice, add up their numbers, and give me an accurate total figure.

I don't make any of my player's rolls for them, though I do vary on whether I'm rolling in the open myself. Bluff checks and the like for NPCs I roll in secret. Attacks and similar tend to be in the open.

If one person is consistently obtaining rolls that seem wildly over-optimistic, I may try and get an idea of how these rolls are coming about. Very occasionally, it's due to cheating on the dice. More often it's due to misunderstanding some class feature or making maths errors.

If a player seems to be having trouble with their numbers or some facet of their character, I generally try and angle another player at the table to offer them some help. I tend to find there's always at least one person at the table with decent rules knowledge and a helpful attitude, and I think it feels better to a player to have a fellow party member assisting them rather than the GM.

The way I see PFS, people are there to have fun. If I'm GMing, my job is to a) run the scenario correctly, as well as I can, and within the time limit, and b) to try and ensure my players have fun. Spotting cheating comes in as a very distant c) - it's simply not my focus when I'm at the table.

*** RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Jiggy wrote:
Nitpick of my own: stop giving your players free perception checks against traps - if they don't have Trap Spotter, then they need to spend actions to search for them. :)

Aside: This is why I'm strongly going to suggest that my Niece take Trapspotter for Amnesia's rogue talent at 2nd level.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ninjaiguana wrote:
Bluff checks and the like for NPCs I roll in secret.

For those I usually just have the NPC take 10 (if possible). It makes the most sense in-character, and saves me work and time at the table.

Cheliax *** Venture-Lieutenant, England—Sheffield aka Ninjaiguana.

Jiggy wrote:

Thus, I think of someone who makes OOC decisions as that guy* and therefore the implication that someone needs help kind of feels like an assumption that he's that guy.

*In cases where someone does innocently have trouble with IC/OOC separations, they've been the first to mention it.

My personal nemesis for this sort of thing is modules containing puzzles or riddles. I have a really good puzzle memory, and once I've seen the answer to a puzzle, I can't forget the solution. If I end up running and then playing a mod containing riddles or the like, I just have to clam up when I hit that point in the mod as a player.

Cheliax *** Venture-Lieutenant, England—Sheffield aka Ninjaiguana.

Jiggy wrote:
Ninjaiguana wrote:
Bluff checks and the like for NPCs I roll in secret.
For those I usually just have the NPC take 10 (if possible). It makes the most sense in-character, and saves me work and time at the table.

For me, I tend to have NPCs take 10 on rolls they were expecting to make, if that makes sense. A guard on watch is taking 10 on Perception. A serial killer is taking 10 on his Bluff checks to deny his guilt. And so on. If an NPC is taken off guard ("So Mr Killer...is it true that you...worship Rovagug?!"), I have them roll their check to give a more varied result. Just a quirk, really.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

People don't have a lot of problems with it - at least since I've started doing it this way. Beforehand, I saw several things where a pc moves up (holding his miniature), triggers something, i pause him, call for a check, and then he moves the mini back a few squares. Now I have to say "no, you walked there.". This used to happen regularly with several players (experienced and non alike).

Since I started making their stealth checks and per v traps these instances have gone down. No more "couldn't I roll to see that?". No more "I want to move my dancing lights into the rafters, even though I didn't in the other ten rooms prior.". It just makes it simpler.

I'm not saying everyone has problems with the IC / OOC thing, but why even leave the option? It's like owning a keyboard that has a button labeled "electrocute me". You'll never want to do it, but the option is still there.

And some people want the option when it comes to rolling.

Again, personally, I don't care who rolls my stealth. And given that, anything to make the game more streamlined without offending people I am all for. So, again, if a player spoke up and said "I wanna roll my s+*%!" That would be fine. If not, I'll simply do it for him.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like a GM taking the randomness out of my hands. I want to randomly die or live by my own roll. Not someone elses.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't like a GM taking the randomness out of my hands. I want to randomly die or live by my own roll. Not someone elses.

To poke a bear: should players roll attacks for the NPCs that target their PCs in combat?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't like a GM taking the randomness out of my hands. I want to randomly die or live by my own roll. Not someone elses.

Fun story you reminded me of:

Pallid Plague:
Everyone caught the plague. All but one recovered in the village. They started heading back to the nearest large city (where remove disease would be available), and had everyone else (including the NPC healer/herbalist, thanks to some good diplomacy) tending him to boost his Fort save along the way.

I forget how many days it took, but eventually he got to the city, about 3 points of CON damage away from death. After the second failed remove disease, another player asked if he could roll the next one instead of me. He then comments that his ebony dice haven't served him very well, so he pulls out the ivory set.

Rolls it... and his buddy is cured.

Good times. :)

Qadira ***

WalterGM wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't like a GM taking the randomness out of my hands. I want to randomly die or live by my own roll. Not someone elses.
To poke a bear: should players roll attacks for the NPCs that target their PCs in combat?

ah... Can I take 10 on that? (sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

nosig wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't like a GM taking the randomness out of my hands. I want to randomly die or live by my own roll. Not someone elses.
To poke a bear: should players roll attacks for the NPCs that target their PCs in combat?
ah... Can I take 10 on that? (sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Not in combat, nosig!

51 to 100 of 517 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Don's Discourse on PFS Dice Etiquette All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.