|
Hello GMs!
I'm not a guy with a lot (read: any) GM stars in PFS, but I've run a few games before (and am likely to run more in the future), and I frequently play. One problem that I see happening a lot is GMs running out of time in a scenario, or coming close to it. There is a lot of good GMing advice available in th GM's Guide, and in the PFS guide, but not a lot on keeping a game constantly moving in spite of what the players might be doing.
I feel like PFS GMing is a very different experience from running a "normal" game. You've got 3-4 hours to clear the entire scenario, including 3-4 combat scenarios, with a group that has probably not had too much practice working together. Running PFS made me a better prep guy out of necessity, but that wasn't enough. You really have to be strict about start times, breaks, and time spent roleplaying. Rules arguments go from mildly annoying to completely unacceptable. But I digress.
What are some techniques that you use to keep the game moving at a good pace? How do you best push a party back on track when they go down a rabbit hole? What are your favorite ways to streamline initiative tracking (init cards, the magnet board, etc.) and combat in general? I've seen guys who like to have players fill out init cards with their basic combat stats and such, but I sometimes feel like the time spent waiting for everyone to fill them out while commiserating isn't time well spent. What do you all think?
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
I would say: Track initiative yourself. If you run a scenario that has a lot of extra mechanics, the breathing room might be nice. BUt combat eats up time, and if you know who is next, you can urge the next person on to think about their actions, or if they already know, roll their dice while the person before them is still thinking.
It also allows you to call out a delay if a player just takes way to long deciding what to do.
|
|
I generally track initiative myself, using a combat pad. When I was in college, I even picked up a small hourglass to keep players on time :)
I also tend to feel like keeping some of the character info "on the player" forces them to remain engaged with what's going on ("does a 17 hit your touch AC?") and reduces their ability to fall into distraction.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Some scenarios just tend to run long; keep an eye on GM commend threads and scenario reviews for advance warning.
What is taking a lot of time in your games? It could be one of many things, like;
- Combat dragging on because people are unprepared, have to look up a lot of stuff
- Rules arguments
- Getting sidetracked by discussions of other adventures people played
- Lots of RP with NPCs that aren't really that important
- Sketching maps
RP can often take quite a lot of time. It's fun, but it's also a risk factor.
Maps should really be sketched ahead of time. It helps to protect you from forgetting to add something in the midst of the game, but it also saves a lot] of time.
Get people to focus on the mission briefing. If they understand their mission well, that can also cut down on player confusion during the game.
|
|
I tend not to have too many problems myself these days; I just thought it'd be nice to have a thread for new GMs to get some tips.
- Table chatter is always an issue, and probably the thing I miss most when running PFS, since you basically just can't allow it. I've come to treasure long digressions about nerd stuff during my home games.
- Combat is always slower than it could be. Newer/less prepared players are one cause, but equally troublesome are the "helpful" experienced players who chime in to give advice. Their hearts are in the right place, but unless you keep control of the conversation, it's easy for the new player to get lost weighing 3-4 options given to them by their advisors.
- I pre-sketch maps for pretty much all of my games, or plan to run without if the map is unnecessary/unsuitable. For PFS, you pretty much always want a map. Running modules for PFS credit can be troublesome here, as modules often have larger, more complex maps than PFS scenarios.
|
I know you said you have a combat pad, but it's worth saying again since you're looking for advice for new GMs in general: Have a system to get initiative done quickly. I've seen a few GMs recently use methods that take too long to set up at the beginning of combat.
Actually, that might be an interesting topic for its own thread: How do you track init quickly as GM?
|
|
I know you said you have a combat pad, but it's worth saying again since you're looking for advice for new GMs in general: Have a system to get initiative done quickly. I've seen a few GMs recently use methods that take too long to set up at the beginning of combat.
Actually, that might be an interesting topic for its own thread: How do you track init quickly as GM?
One thing I do is ask one of the players to set up the initiative board for me while I'm grabbing minis and opening up my bestiary.
Once the board is set up, I place it in a spot where everyone can read it, and I run it myself.
|
|
I tend to run too fast if anything
1) assume that the players are semi competent quasi drained somewhat professional murderho..erm.. Explorers. They have eyes. They have ears. They know to look for stuff. They know to look in things. They know to check the doors for traps. If the players know you give perception checks they stop asking for them. Saves time. If time is of the essence i ask them if they want to move quickly or look for traps as they go, otherwise i either assume they're looking or prod them into stating it.
2) draw the maps out ahead of time
3) Remember that your descriptions may not be clear, much less what they heard over a crowd. If something is abad idea because of something the character can see but the player can't, poke them and remind them.
Get all the non combat/story lkine faction journal stuff out of the way first.
|
|
It depends on the players you have at the table. When me and my close friends get at a table we can make short work of any fight, but we will sit and RP the enemy for a long time if the DM lets us.
As a DM i try to gauge what the players are lookign for and offer that for them. I always RP the NPCs adlibbing and adding additional little things to get the players involved. I can control the pace of an adventure very well. At cons with 4 hour slots and OP characters I slow the game down and roleplay a lot more and try to give the players a good time. AT the game store when we start late and players delay the game and we have a deadline I can speed the game up to make sure I cover all the important parts.
Reading and knowing the scenario front to back is how I control the games speed. Before I DM a scenario(unless ambushed) I have read it at least 3 times. I read through it once completely. Then go through a second time with a pen or highlighter making notes and learning the rules of the spells, effects and special abilities. Knowing these very well speeds up the game as I do nto have to stop the game and learn what thigns do. I have the complex ones bookmarked sitting on the chair next to me. It also allows me the ability to quickly react to something when the players surprise me.
Lastly remember youth and skill is always beaten by age and treachery. What I mean is experience in DM is more valuable than being smart and clever. So play with lots of different DM stealing what you like and practice those skills often. The golden rule applies to DMing, do unto player as you would want DMs to do unto your character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, that might be an interesting topic for its own thread: How do you track init quickly as GM?One thing I do is ask one of the players to set up the initiative board for me while I'm grabbing minis and opening up my bestiary.
Once the board is set up, I place it in a spot where everyone can read it, and I run it myself.
Write the initiative mod next to the name for each character. Allows ties to be resolved without asking.
I do four things that seem to help:
1) draw the maps in advance. You know where they party is going, after all...
2) I don't argue rules mid-game. If a player wants to find written text that supports their point, then fine, I'll adjust mid-game, but 'I just know' doesn't cut it.
Usually, I'll have this discussion after the game, and adjust for the next one if I was wrong.
3) I keep initiative moving fast, and 'hmm' is met with 'you're on delay'.
4) sign the bottom of the chronicle already. What, you're going to get mugged by a 40yr old with asthma?
|
Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Asheville
|
I do four things that seem to help:
1) draw the maps in advance. You know where they party is going, after all...
2) I don't argue rules mid-game. If a player wants to find written text that supports their point, then fine, I'll adjust mid-game, but 'I just know' doesn't cut it.
Usually, I'll have this discussion after the game, and adjust for the next one if I was wrong.
3) I keep initiative moving fast, and 'hmm' is met with 'you're on delay'.
4) sign the bottom of the chronicle already. What, you're going to get mugged by a 40yr old with asthma?
I really like number 1. I start getting flustered if I have to draw out maps midgame, as I'm prone to rush myself and have to keep adjusting what I've drawn. I'm also not terribly visually-oriented, so getting the chance to sketch out scenery details helps my mind's eye develop what's going on around the party.
Many of our local GM's love to use printed maps, and they're surprisingly affordable (at least in western North Carolina). However, I feel like drawing them out assists my preparation routine.
|
Venture-Captain, Isles—Online
|
some tips:-
1) print the scenarios single sided, and add copious notes (or even glue whole statblocks) to the blank pages.
2) Learn when to skip an (easy for the party) encounter.
3) use PFSPREP to get spell crib sheets for casters.
4) use an erasable marker on the magnetic tracker (it wont rub off mid combat).
5) Learn to call fights when the PC's have the upper hand, instead of spending tedious time beating down a big sack of HP's.
6) map prep - as above - i use 2" card disks to cover bits of the maps i dont want the players to see yet (like a fog of war effect).
7) prefill the chronicles as much as possible - i print them with the event details, date & pfs number filled in .
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
I find there to be two spots where the scenario (and any adventure for that matter) drags. The first is whenever the GM has to reference something in the scenario, and is effectively "turned off" from the game. The second is when combat is taking too long and the excitement of it wanes.
The first is easy enough to solve--simply be well prepared for the scenario. Read through it and be able to find your reference points quickly. The second part is where I see most GMs trip up. For me, this means having a paper copy of the scenario. I've run my share of adventures on my tablet, but whenever I have to scroll, zoom, and load another book, it slows down my table. I'd always rather have printed copy if possible and use my device for reference. It's also the reason why I have physical copies of the APs I run.
The second is harder, especially with players that might be meeting for the first time. Fortunately, as the GM you are the arbiter of many things in your game, combat being foremost among them. All of the little tricks for making combat smooth are good things to have--faster initiative, ensuring people pick actions ahead of time, saving rules debates until after the game--put them all together and you'll be in good shape. The rest of making your combat quick comes from experience with the game. Knowing just how your NPCs are going to move, how they are going to attack, and resolving those actions fluidly. Expedience helps keep players engaged, and if you couple that with a constant flow of descriptive text, both of NPC and PC actions, you'll have your players motivated to keep going.
Running normal PFS scenarios I've only gone to time twice. Both were at PaizoCon 2012--my first Convention--running a complicated final boss for high level players. In both cases the final boss fight took over an hour to resolve, because there was so much going on. Since then I've run a couple hundred more tables and now my games take an average of 3 hours to get through--optional encounters included. It just takes practice, but it is certainly doable, even with 6 players that have never met.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, two things take up most of the "wasted" time: players trying to decide what to do in combat, and GMs trying to decide what to do in combat. I try to pre-plan my creatures' first few rounds when I prep my stat blocks. It's often done in the Tactics section, but if not I'll decide what to open with follow with, and write out the spell or ability text on my sheets. Writing it makes me actually read it (again), and refreshes my terrible memory. This way, the players aren't waiting on me.
Players deciding what to do can take a while, and the issue can have a few causes, but often it is from not paying attention until it's their turn. I try to say, "Bill, you're up, Susan, you're on deck" to remind the next player when they are up. I will also ask a player to start planning his round well in advance if they are taking a long time, and finally if it continues I'll put them on delay.
I have also just called combats without clicking through every round, to save time. A recent scenario has the PCs able to ambush some lower-level NPCs with a lot of prep time. Clicking through rounds would have taken about 10 minutes, but I could just describe it verbally and basically say the PCs won without rolling every point of damage. Some combats are sure to end a certain way but will take a long time (opponents with DR and low damage output, for example) - just call it, estimate the number of CLW wand charges the party uses, and move on.
EDIT: Hey, Star #5 showed up! Cool!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
now my games take an average of 3 hours to get through
Lots of good advice. But don't take things TOO far. Use many of these techniques judiciously
I think some GMs overdo things and run TOO fast and miss some of the fun as a result. My goal as a GM is to finish the scenario within the time allotted but NOT to necessarily finish early. Especially not at the cost of roleplaying.
As long as I finish on time I'm quite content to be the last table.
|
some tips:-
1) print the scenarios single sided, and add copious notes (or even glue whole statblocks) to the blank pages.
2) Learn when to skip an (easy for the party) encounter.
3) use PFSPREP to get spell crib sheets for casters.
4) use an erasable marker on the magnetic tracker (it wont rub off mid combat).
5) Learn to call fights when the PC's have the upper hand, instead of spending tedious time beating down a big sack of HP's.
6) map prep - as above - i use 2" card disks to cover bits of the maps i dont want the players to see yet (like a fog of war effect).
7) prefill the chronicles as much as possible - i print them with the event details, date & pfs number filled in .
On #4:
I write the PC info, including init mod, in wet erase, and the actual init for a fight in dry erase.I tend to use generic NPC1, NPC2, etc. when I write up my critters in init.
When one of my players runs the board for me, the NPCs tend to wind up with more ... descriptive ... names, usually based on the mini or pawn I use for the NPC.
Do use the "X, your turn. Y, you are on deck." stuff, but make sure that Y understands that it is not yet his turn. We lost that once, due to the player running init for me having lost his voice mid-game.
On wet erase: If you don't have anything wet to erase it with, go over it with the dry erase, and it will, usually, come off when you wipe off the dry erase. On some of the flip-mats, the same holds true for permanent marker.
One thing I find that helps me, when I can do it, is to reserve extra time for the game. On game nights at the store, I start a looong time before the store is scheduled to close. Plenty of time to deal with my inability to sometimes keep the PCs & players on track.
And, if you are like me, try to avoid the scenarios with a strict time limit, like the Bonekeeps.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
now my games take an average of 3 hours to get throughLots of good advice. But don't take things TOO far. Use many of these techniques judiciously
I think some GMs overdo things and run TOO fast and miss some of the fun as a result. My goal as a GM is to finish the scenario within the time allotted but NOT to necessarily finish early. Especially not at the cost of roleplaying.
As long as I finish on time I'm quite content to be the last table.
Don't quite know how to reply to this. Suffice it to say that I don't shortchange my players any table experience. Simply put, the game ends because there is nothing left to do in it. No encounters are handwaived or skipped, and RPing is always encouraged at my tables. My point in mentioning the average time my tables take now is to point out that combat is where 99% of games get tripped up and by having a expedience combat games end a lot quicker.
Obviously, my tables will run longer if there's a group of people not restricted to a time slot that want to spend a couple of hours RPing. I've had several AP sessions with my players that were 1-2 encounters in an 8 hour timeslot and the rest of time we were just RPing. But when giving advice to keep a PFS table moving at a quick pace (the purpose of this thread), I was using my 3 hour average as an example of how shoring up your combats can directly effect your table time.
To put it another way. I find that PFS games typically alot 30-45 minutes per encounter. If you make your encounters take 30 minutes or less, you will never go over time.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
While I'm here, something else I've noticed that bogs down games is when scenarios introduce mini-games. Be it investigation (Library of the Lion), chases (Midnight Mauler, among others), or a new combat system (Assault on the Wound)--when these are handled poorly by the GM the games almost always push time.
The solution to this is for GMs to be well prepared, and to educate themselves on these systems if they are present in scenarios they are to be running. In game, armed with this knowledge, present your "60 second explanation" of how the mini-game works. Allow your players a few minutes for Q&A, and then dive into it, offering advice as needed along the way.
Effectively, tread these mini-games like you would explaining PFS to new players. Give them the overview, then hand them a pregen and let them figure it out as they go. I had success with this on Monday when I ran Assault and had to explain mass combat to 4 players that had never used the system before (two of which were very new to Pathfinder in general). We had no problems getting through that section of the scenario in a fun and well-paced fashion.
|
Venture-Captain, Isles—Online
|
kinevon - i was introduced to these by one of our VL's
erasable marker
|
|
Here's the things I do to keep pace.
1. Lots of prep - read and re-read the scenario - print it and highlight the REALLY important parts so you don't have to scan the text - especially in combat.
2. I use the PF magnetic board:
I run initiative myself - I tend to track mob HP etc on there as well in an erasable marker
Running it myself allows me to control the pace. Nothing bothers me more than when I have to ask a player (who previously volunteered to run initiative) who is going next - it can destroy pace, especially if I need to keep doing it!!
names and Initiative mods go on the markers at the beginning of the game so I can usually break ties.
I call out for initiative rolls clockwise around the table so people know I'm going to be asking them next. I right the results on the markers and immediately pop them in order on the board
If time allows during play I will pre-roll the mobs initiative and right them on the markers when ready. Note, I try to avoid grouping mob initiative, but it depends on the complexity of the fight. I'm cautious about this, because it's easy for the GMing to think that having multiple mobs move up into flank and then attack simultaneously without delays etc...
3. I take a note of perception checks at the beginning. I can roll them quickly and in secret.
4. I use my GM screen to put clip cheat sheets to the inside (monster stats, any tables unique to the scenario, print out of relevant rules (eg, underwater combat)
5. I use little post-it tabs on my GM screen, if I need to mark a place I just grab and stick.
6. Maps are either printed out beforehand or draw-out before hand. If I'm using printed out maps I will put a acetate sheet over the top - I can then right on it! ;)
7. I use different sets of dice to roll different attacks simultaneously (attack and damage).
8. I select all my minis beforehand so I don't need to hunt for that minotaur..
9. I force pace by standing, point and saying '<character name>, you're up! What are you doing!?' (or words to that effect...
10. Chronicle sheet info is pre-printed and ready.
11. I track time and warn at the -1hour before deadline - especially if the PCs are behind on where they need to be...
12. I create spreadsheets to help me track effects unique to the scenario (eg final encounter of Fires of Karamoss)
13. I remind players to use the take-a-10 rule when not in combat. It helps.
I'm sure there are other things I do, but that mostly covers it. I don't really do this to ensure that I make the 4 hour slot - it's mostly because I think that pacy combat is interesting combat.
TBH the best solution is running the adventure a couple of times. I tend to know the pace and what is needed to be done when. I try not to under-run either. Finishing in 2 hours is almost as bad as going over (not quite - at least you get XP etc.) IMO since players rightly want to be entertained for the whole slot.
|
|
kinevon - i was introduced to these by one of our VL's
erasable marker
Nice, but not sure how my post brought this up.
I use wet erase for the stuff that won't be changing during the game, usually.
I use dry erase for the stuff relevant to the current encounter.
I find that dry erase tends to disappear on me, since, in my experience, it tends to rub off when my hand, arm, finger, or whatever, crosses over it.
Name & init mod are relevant for the whole game, so wet erase.
Current initiative is relevant mainly for the start of the current combat, to sort who goes when initially. Once the actual combat starts, the numbers quickly become irrelevant, due to delays and readies.
Of course, when running online in Roll20, it an be both easier and harder to manage initiatives and changes in the order, since it falls on the GM. And, sometimes, you have to stop the person who thinks it is their turn, as something invisible, which also renders their initiative information invisible, is actually up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I made my triumphant(?) return to PFS GMing last night. Our group had been going late quite often recently, so the players were definitely on-board with the concept of getting through things smoothly, if not necessarily the execution.
As always, the group started late because of the time everyone showed up, so we started closer to 8pm than the 7/7:30 that was intended. Still, I had the game wrapped up by 11:15pm, and everyone was out the door with their chronicles by 11:30. I count that as a "win".
The main factor causing delays was overplanning. THey spent more time talking about how to deal with entering a warehouse full of pirates than they did actually fighting the pirates.
Player indecision/too many suggestions for new players was a minor issue, and one that's easier to deal with for me (I just go with whatever the new player said they were doing; they can try the other guy's advice next turn).
There were a few grumbles when they failed one of their objectives, but I figure that when you open fire on a woman holding a hostage, you can't be too upset when she makes good on her threat to kill that hostage.
I also had one potential rules kerfuffle regarding the use of the Grapple manuever to reposition an enemy, but it turned out to be largely irrelevant, and we didn't really lose much time to it.
As always, the group started late because of the time everyone showed up, so we started closer to 8pm than the 7/7:30 that was intended. Still, I had the game wrapped up by 11:15pm, and everyone was out the door with their chronicles by 11:30. I count that as a "win".
The main factor causing delays was overplanning.
Uh, just so you know, running a module in 3 hours and 15 minutes is an incredibly tightly run game. If you started right at 7, that wouldn't even be a "long" or late-running game -- it would just be appropriate and normal.
If a game of 3 hours has delays, they are of a caliber that is vastly different from what I experience. My games run 5 hours. Players linger over dialogue. I give them room to be indecisive. They explore everything. I run my combats by the book, but as hard as I can while following the tactics and stat blocks, so they can run long because players are like, "Whoa, we've got be careful and try hard here."
Running a game in 3 hours sounds positively light speed. Any "delays" would be mere speedbumps if they didn't slow the 3 hour game down.
|
|
If a game of 3 hours has delays, they are of a caliber that is vastly different from what I experience. My games run 5 hours. Players linger over dialogue. I give them room to be indecisive. They explore everything. I run my combats by the book, but as hard as I can while following the tactics and stat blocks, so they can run long because players are like, "Whoa, we've got be careful and try hard here."
Running a game in 3 hours sounds positively light speed. Any "delays" would be mere speedbumps if they didn't slow the 3 hour game down.
In our area we have constantly have a four hour slot. Games start at 6PM and end at 10. Ideally you run any scenario in 3 hours 45 minutes so that you can get paperwork and clean up done before 10. (Normally an extra couple of minutes is ok, but anything more is either an extra week to run or 0 XP sheets).
Some things I've found helpful. As the GM at the beginning get everyone's Initiative mod (to determine ties if necessary) and Perception mod. Certain scenarios you may want other info, but at least those.
Initiative. If you have experienced players try grouping initiatives for the players. I.e. (Players 2, 4, 5) (Goblin 1&2), (Players 1&6), Goblin 3, Player 3. 2, 4, 5 can all hold for each other without Goblins going anyway so let them go in the best order for them. (Generally ends up being a buff/evocation caster followed by 1 or 2 charges). If someone wants to hold/delay longer they move into the next group. - Instead of tracking a number, it let's you track who is above a 16 & 10. I find it much faster and easy enough to do in my head, but it takes decent/experienced players to do consistently.
Perception. I will tell players at the beginning that I assume they are always taking 10 on perception to glance/look around. (your modifier should be an indication of how perceptive you are and you don't turn your senses on and off). However, if you want to check something specific I will have you roll. That is to say, you can glance about the room all you want but if you want to check out the inside of the dresser it's not a passive action anymore. (Yes, if they asked to take 10 on this - assuming no mitigating factors I'd allow it, it just feels more immersive to me). This really helps with the players who want to move down hallways 10 ft. at a time making checks and greatly speeds up the game, IMO.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I like the general idea of assuming Take 10 for the whole party, but I think it needs some refinement.
Imagine you have an adventure which says "PCs in the room spot the X on a DC 20 Perception check", and all the PCs have a +9 Perception modifier.
If they rolled it would be extremely likely they'd spot the X, but if they all Take 10 nobody spots it.
I'm thinking it would make sense to use the highest Perception bonus in the party, and add some bonus to it based on the number and quality of the other PCs, to determine if anyone spots the X.
|
|
They can always choose to replace take 10 with a roll with the foreknowledge it may be worse than if they hadn't rolled, I give them that option as well, despite the length of my post I was in a rush.
And no I see no reason to give them a bonus it IMO emulates how naturally perceptive they are. If you take highest and give a bonus it's like treating that one person as always rolling a 12 (or 10 + whatever bonus you determine). If anything you'd take average of the party and add 11, but 10 is just easier and supported by in game mechanics.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
The problem with your simplification is that it's to the disadvantage of players, so they'd be better off to turn you down. But that's annoying because it's time-consuming.
The "average best result" of five people rolling d20s is much higher than 10.5, so everyone taking 10 is just really bad.
In fact, under your approach, the best thing for the party to do would be too have everyone except the person with the highest Perception, always roll. Because only if they roll can they exceed the best guy.
|
|
The "average best result" of five people rolling d20s is much higher than 10.5
You are right. It is 17.15, and half the time the best result will be at least 18.
But it is much better for the game to just assume that the party is taking 10 on Perception as they walk along unless they specifically ask to search or listen for something.
If your spider senses are tingling, go ahead and take 20 to look for traps on that door. Doing so only takes 1 minute of in-game time (and only 10 seconds of table time).
And unless the party is rushed for time, they should be taking 20 to search rooms for treasure. Rolling a bunch of Perception checks over and over again eats up a lot of time.
|
|
That's all well and good, and yes realistically it does come down to one person's perception modifier. (Then again unless your numbers are all close the system already makes this fairly true) Unfortunately there is no system legal way to make your suggestions work. My simplification is actually legal, as the Take 10 is a mechanic that exists in the game. (And average best result would depend on modifiers, but no if everyone at the table had a +9 mod, the expected value for the table would be 19.5 - that's how bell curves/independent test works. Now the best result in any single test for any single subject varies but over the course of entire game where instead you are taking perceptions as often as you want it will actually average out.) Again it's a simplification based on actual rules available in the game.
Try it out for a game, so far most GMs I know that have used (and players for that matter) have adopted it. If you don't like it no skin off my back, feel free to use it or not, or change it to your hearts content. This is simply a suggestion based on something I have actually used and seen used at a table.
|
|
(And average best result would depend on modifiers, but no if everyone at the table had a +9 mod, the expected value for the table would be 19.5 - that's how bell curves/independent test works. Now the best result in any single test for any single subject varies but over the course of entire game where instead you are taking perceptions as often as you want it will actually average out.)
Joe, I agree with you about taking 10, but the mathematician in me feels compelled to call this part out.
If there are 5 players in the group and they all have a +9 modifier, then the average best result will be 26.15.
Try it. Get out 5 d20s. Roll them and record the highest number. Repeat it 10 times. I expect that 5 of them will have the highest result of 18, 19, or 20.
|
|
Here, let's do the experiment here. (Note: These are the raw d20 rolls, with no modifiers added.)
Trial Best
1. 19
2. 18
3. 19
4. 18
5. 15
6. 17
7. 19
8. 18
9. 15
10. 16
There were 6 of the 10 trials where the group rolled at least an 18. And in all of them, the best was at least 15.
Edit: I forgot to average them. The average best result from these 10 trials is 17.4.
|
|
Yes, over a single trial the variation will lead to higher rolls. Average per player over the entire scenario though should tend towards 10.5. I'm having trouble expressing myself, sleep has not been an option for a while and as soon as I got to sleep I got a phone call. I understand that any individual test will be skewed. (I personally can't ever seem to roll over a 10 on perception anyway - so I'd skew all the results.) (Also, note I went away from average best since it only really makes sense in single cases and went over to expected value instead - as expected value is much closer to approximating a larger data set like an entire scenario) Finally there is no system legal shortcut besides take 10 to approximate a better result (take 20 has a time component which is why I'm ignoring it). Average best also leaves a question of who do you give it that bonus to? At a table with everyone having the same mod it doesn't matter, but at a table with a +3 , +5, +6, +9, +13 it does matter (and could easily be more skewed than that). Taking 10 for everyone is short cutting the die roll, any other 'fair' method would have to include at least 1 roll, at which point you're back to rolling the perception check.
The average for the group of 5 (not highest) should also be closer to 10. Yes, 1-3 players will be above, and 1-3 players will be below. But honestly at most tables you run into 1 or 2 players with really high modifiers, a few middling mods, and 1 or two low mods. Adding 10 to everyone means the same people always see the highest DC things, but it actually smooths the system were the high mods roll low and the mid mods roll high to actually beat them. As the high number is already getting to the higher DC. The occasional cases where the highest player also gets the highest roll are not covered, but again players have the option to roll any time they like - they just may or may not do better than if they had taken 10. (Also, there are a number of cases where I've asked just the people who could make a roll to do so, in case they do hit that 5,10, or 15% chance of actually noticing something).
|
|
Yes, over a single trial the variation will lead to higher rolls. Average per player over the entire scenario though should tend towards 10.5. I'm having trouble expressing myself, sleep has not been an option for a while and as soon as I got to sleep I got a phone call.
I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. I'm happy to wait until you've experienced sleep.
For a typical Perception check, all that matters is that someone succeeds. So we need to take the max of all the checks. Five players roll, and we take the best result.
Our dungeon is populated with 10 traps. Our characters have modifiers of +3, +5, +6, +9, and +13, as in your example. If they take 10 on all of those traps, then they will always get a 23. If the traps all have a DC of 25 they will fail all of them.
Let's see what happens if they roll for the traps instead.
Trap Max Result?
1. 22 fail
2. 22 fail
3. 29 pass
4. 30 pass
5. 21 fail
6. 25 pass
7. 28 pass
8. 18 fail
9. 20 fail
10. 26 pass
So now they have succeeded at finding 5 of the traps.
I'm not disagreeing with you that taking 10 is better for the game. I wholeheartedly agree with that. It moves the game along.
But Ascalaphus is correct that the group is mathematically better off rolling their perception checks than they are to accept a take 10.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really doesn't matter what the average roll for a group of players is - if you're doing a perception check, the only important number is the highest roll. If it's high enough to spot the trap/treasure/monster/whatever, then the party as a whole can usually take appropriate actions to avoid the problem.
Even if you've got a group of characters with no bonus to perception, the highest expected roll is going to be significantly more than 10.5
(in fact there's only a 3% chance that nobody in a group of five players will roll an 11 or better).
A group of only four characters will still have one unmodified roll of 17 or higher about 60% of the time.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our dungeon is populated with 10 traps. Our characters have modifiers of +3, +5, +6, +9, and +13, as in your example. If they take 10 on all of those traps, then they will always get a 23. If the traps all have a DC of 25 they will fail all of them.
To carry this example a little further;
our characters have respectively a 0%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 45% chance of making a DC25 check. That means the probability that all five of them will fail is 1.00*0.95*0.90*0.75*0.55, or around 35%. That means they should spot about two thirds of the traps in the dungeon.
|
|
Yes, mathematically (assuming a true die, which is a questionable assumption but an argument for a different thread), they would be better off rolling in any individual event. I'm not disagreeing on this count.
But over the course of many events like an entire scenario it (mostly) averages out. To come towards an average of 10.5 + mod.
Since the majority of rolls are pointless anyway (at least in my experience, but especially if you are playing with paranoid players), it just helps speed up the game by taking the best approximation allowed to us within the rule set. Yes, it will fail the players at times, but it will also succeed at times. I make no bones about this when I introduce the concept. Also, I allow players to roll whenever they want taking the result from the die roll whether or not it is better than taking 10, and force them to roll if they want a specific action (which would include checking the door for traps), also I make people roll if there is any sort of distraction that doesn't allow a player to take 10. If any players have a problem with the system we don't use it. (though with less experienced players I actually find they forget to roll and would have been given things by defaulting to take 10)
Finally, in practice it works surprisingly well (I worked through a lot of the math before considering bringing it into games). Generally, I find that there's at least 1 player at every table that by taking 10 is going to get every result.
The actual failure of the shortcut IMO is not that occasional rolls would be superior to take 10 - that's obvious and I think everyone understands that they could do better, in fact they should do better the majority of the time. The failure is in the fact that the same people always notice things and the same people always fail. However, while that can be somewhat problematic, I also think it provides a good view of what the investment in Perception actually should do. That is make you more naturally perceptive of your surroundings.
|
|
Yes, mathematically (assuming a true die, which is a questionable assumption but an argument for a different thread), they would be better off rolling in any individual event. I'm not disagreeing on this count.
But over the course of many events like an entire scenario it (mostly) averages out. To come towards an average of 10.5 + mod.
No. This is untrue!
A single event is roll 5d20 and drop the lowest 4.
The average of that event is not 10.5.
The average of that event is 17.15.
Edit: Joe, get some sleep and then come back to this problem. It isn't as important as healthy sleep. :)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
But over the course of many events like an entire scenario it (mostly) averages out. To come towards an average of 10.5 + mod.
Here you are wrong. It averages to 10.5 when only a single roll contributes to the success of failure of the check. If, as in the case of party perception, the overall success/failure is derived from multiple independent rolls, the average will be higher (and, significantly, higher than the best any single character can expect).
Edit: Deleted a question which was answered in an earlier post.
|
|
What word would you like me to use to signify, multiple separate rolls. i.e. hallway 1, 10 ft later, 10 ft later, hall way 2. These are the events I'm referring to not 5 people rolling on 1 check.
5 people rolling on one - the average best will be 17.15 sure no problem.
Each individual though rolling over the course of an entire scenario though should approximate 10.5.
Nevermind, you're right not worth it.
|
|
What word would you like me to use to signify, multiple separate rolls. i.e. hallway 1, 10 ft later, 10 ft later, hall way 2. These are the events I'm referring to not 5 people rolling on 1 check.
5 people rolling on one - the average best will be 17.15 sure no problem.
Each individual though rolling over the course of an entire scenario though should approximate 10.5.
Agreed.
The point we are trying to make is that most Perception checks are made cooperatively.
If there is a trap, only one person needs to find it, not all 5.
That means that their rolls are not independent. Only the highest result matters.
For that reason, the group is better off rolling than taking 10.
Contrast this with Climb checks. In climbing, the players are working independently. All of them need to succeed. In that case, taking 10 is probably the better way to go.
All of that aside, I'm still behind you in saying that it is better for the game too take 10 for Perception checks. It moves the game along. When I am a player, my Perception characters usually take 10 looking for traps down hallways and take 20 on doors—unless we have active buffs going or are otherwise rushed, in which case I will continue to take 10.
|
|
What word would you like me to use to signify, multiple separate rolls. i.e. hallway 1, 10 ft later, 10 ft later, hall way 2. These are the events I'm referring to not 5 people rolling on 1 check.
5 people rolling on one - the average best will be 17.15 sure no problem.
Each individual though rolling over the course of an entire scenario though should approximate 10.5.
Agreed.
The point we are trying to make is that most Perception checks are made cooperatively.
If there is a trap, only one person needs to find it, not all 5.
That means that their rolls are not independent. Only the highest result matters.
For that reason, the group is better off rolling than taking 10.
Contrast this with Climb checks. In climbing, the players are working independently. All of them need to succeed. In that case, taking 10 is probably the better way to go.
All of that aside, I'm still behind you in saying that it is better for the game too take 10 for Perception checks. It moves the game along. When I am a player, my Perception characters usually take 10 looking for traps down hallways and take 20 on doors—unless we have active buffs going or are otherwise rushed, in which case I will continue to take 10.
More or less what I was trying to express, albeit poorly. (Also, that there is no quicker mechanic to express getting better than 10, unless you want buffs to run out all over the place)
Tangentially related, I recently ran a scenario where there was a cooperative mini-game which allowed the whole table to attempt various skill checks, and the highest roll was assisted by the lower rolls. This resulted in an extremely easy challenge because this effect was not taken into account.
There are a few scenarios that would fit as well as the new way chases are done.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I'm all for speeding the game along with a Take 10 approach to casual perception. However, that needs to be fair as well. If a group has a high probability of finding Dingus X if they all roll, but zero chance if they all take 10 (as demonstrated in above examples by The Fox), then taking 10 all the time is bad.
It would be shiny if you could determine a bonus to the best Perception modifier in the group based on the quality of the whole group, so that that single Take 10 + MOD would be equal to the expected value of the whole group trying the check. And then just for icing on the cake a mechanic that semi-randomly awards the "find" to a PC with a probability based on that PC's relative contribution to the party's total Perception skill.
That's probably a bit too ambitious for PFS though, especially if not all PCs have the same Perception bonus.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit too complex for a human to do at the table, but it would be reasonably straightforward to calculate.
Let's take the example that The Fox provided earlier - five PCs with Perception modifiers of +3, +5, +6, +9, and +13.
The chance of this party succeeding at a DC25 check was shown, in this post, to be around 65%
DC25: 1.00 - 1.00*0.95*0.90*0.75*0.55 = 64.73%
We can do similar calculations for different DCs
DC26: 1.00 - 1.00*1.00*0.95*0.80*0.60 = 54.4%
DC27: 1.00 - 1.00*1.00*1.00*0.85*0.65 = 44.75%
So this party can expect to succeed at a DC26 check a little over half the time, but fail at a DC27 check more than half the time. That suggests that a good "take 10" modifier for the group as a whole would be +16.
|
|
It's not even that it's all that hard to calculate, there is no in game mechanic for doing so. It really is intended to speed up the game by getting rid of all the times that no check is needed. Have people roll when it actually matters or they would likely make it, but won't on a 10. Despite the math it doesn't come up very often.
|
|
@Joe: There is, indeed, a rules legal way to give someone a bonus on their Perception roll.
Assuming a party of 4, all with a +9 minimum in Perception, three of them can automatically succeed at the DC 10 Aid Another action, giving the primary a +6 bonus to their Perception roll, so, assuming all at +9, including the lead, you get a T10 of 10+9+6=25.
XX
AB
CD
With 10' wide corridors, none of the PCs take a distance penalty for either square labeled X, by the way.