GM rolling skill checks.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Buri Reborn wrote:

Mind you, the entire book is prefaced with The Most Important Rule. Specifically:

Quote:
Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

It's not really about "trying" anything. I think people get their undies in a wad about similar topics when there's clear advice on them in the books. Sure, opinions, etc. but these kinds of things being heated topics is somewhat entertaining for me. On one hand you have very clear, prescriptive text saying "this is part of the game; this is in the very soul of Pathfinder" and on the other hand you have some people feeling like self-righteous cocks to each other.

Apart from this, there SO MANY options for the GM to tweak things that even in a RAW, so RAW Asmodeus would shed a tear, kind of game, the GM quite usually still has explicit license to do whatever the hell they want. I'm sort of surprised players get to do anything by how some people talk on the boards about how they run games and I'm even surprised the game presents so many options and wonder if it's out of anything more than tradition rather than trying to actually give any player - martial or caster - a genuinely good time. I digress. That's my critic talking.

Maybe I don't digress. That GMs in general get such near real world deific reverence at the game table I simply find that odd. Maybe that's my view because my group is all experienced players so the GM is nothing special beyond the dude whose house we go to for games. Because of the purported "most important r-u-l-e," the GM is just the person who enforces the strictures EVERYONE has agreed to. A ruling comes down you don't like? F$#! the GM, he better pay attention. A dialog should happen. This "respect the GM and take up the arse" type prostration is a bit much b**#%%!@ for me to swallow. That's -my- opinion. Really, wherever the books reference the GM, that should be replaced with "the group."

This feels suspiciously like we pretty much agree with each other. As a GM I've always viewed myself as pretty much a referee and a representation of "the world", that is mainly reacting to the PCs (and acting in accordance with the loose plot I've cooked up).

It's that second bit you said that I agree with the most abut the GM being able to do nearly anything within RAW that is also a big reason why I don't like fudging. I have so many resources to change enemy stats BEFORE a fight starts, if I need to do so within the combat it means I didn't plan ahead enough.

Community Manager

Removed posts and their responses. Please be civil to each other, thank you.


Not quite the same thing, but back in the day I used a floating base for certain skill checks (like find traps).

The player got to roll, but never knew how good any given roll was.


Snowlilly wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but back in the day I used a floating base for certain skill checks (like find traps).

The player got to roll, but never knew how good any given roll was.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but it would be conceivable to use a dice tower and let the player put the die in but have it directed so that only the GM can see the result.


Whatever you choose, be up front AND consistent! A past 'dm' would let us roll everything, then suddenly insist that he had to roll. Seeme we almost always failed those...

We had problems when I 'failed' to find a trap and reported that there was a trap, but I couldn't find it to the party. I got docked exp for that one.


GM rolling not only devalues reroll mechanics, but also devalues well rounded characters.

If Alice has the highest sense motive and the GM rolls low for her it doesn't matter if Bob with his slightly lower sense motive succeeds because his result will always be discarded on the grounds that Alice has a higher modifier. His skill ranks are a complete waste. Only the most minmaxed character for each skill that isn't personal only in effect matters. This is already a problem with active skills like diplomacy and disable device and leads to characters being unable to interact with many scenes even if they tried just because someone minmaxed that skill more, but by concealing roll results it is also made the case for reactive and passive skills. This is a bad thing.


I still fail to see how it devalues a reroll, since you can just say ahead of time; reroll if under 12.


Artalost wrote:
If Alice has the highest sense motive and the GM rolls low for her it doesn't matter if Bob with his slightly lower sense motive succeeds because his result will always be discarded on the grounds that Alice has a higher modifier. His skill ranks are a complete waste.

As described, this is a complete non sequitur. Mind giving more context in what you meant here?

On the passive checks, the GM is the only one who can provide these. It can actually alleviate a lot of stress about automatic abilities. Otherwise, it's a total crapshoot whether you should make a particular check or not.


I also fail to see how it devalues reroll mechanics since most don't allow you to know the outcome of the roll anyways, you can just tell them GM you want to use your reroll if the value is below some a set number like 12 or 15 or whatever you want it to be.

And it doesn't devalue well rounded characters, what it's doing here is preventing metagaming.

If character A has a +18 sense motive and rolls a 2 on the die but character B has a +3 sense motive and rolls a 20 on the die they would get different results if they need to be a 21 bluff. The problem here is a metagame issue where players compare there static bonuses and always assume that player A should be right and player B is only right if he agrees with player A. If the players don't tell each other what their skill bonuses are exactly, then it's not really a problem.

The whole thing you're suggesting is metagaming, which is the exact thing trying to be discouraged here.


Claxon wrote:

I also fail to see how it devalues reroll mechanics since most don't allow you to know the outcome of the roll anyways, you can just tell them GM you want to use your reroll if the value is below some a set number like 12 or 15 or whatever you want it to be.

And it doesn't devalue well rounded characters, what it's doing here is preventing metagaming.

If character A has a +18 sense motive and rolls a 2 on the die but character B has a +3 sense motive and rolls a 20 on the die they would get different results if they need to be a 21 bluff. The problem here is a metagame issue where players compare there static bonuses and always assume that player A should be right and player B is only right if he agrees with player A. If the players don't tell each other what their skill bonuses are exactly, then it's not really a problem.

The whole thing you're suggesting is metagaming, which is the exact thing trying to be discouraged here.

Knowing that one person is generally better at reading people than another is not metagaming. It's not being an idiot. Such alleged "metagaming" is also only avoidable if no player is aware of even his or her own character sheet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That still doesn't devalue the check. Also, it *is* metagaming if you look at someone's sheet, see they have x number of ranks in something you do too, and just not roll "cuz they're better." The randomness of the roll itself should make it obvious that multiple characters attempting something either in concert (aid another) or independently should indeed be very useful and many times desired.


Claxon wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but back in the day I used a floating base for certain skill checks (like find traps).

The player got to roll, but never knew how good any given roll was.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but it would be conceivable to use a dice tower and let the player put the die in but have it directed so that only the GM can see the result.

Roll a die and use the result as the base, i.e. if I rolled a 12 on d20, a player roll of 12 = 1, 13 = 2, ... , 11 = 20.


Knowing one person is generally better is one thing, never trusting the other person's result because you have a +20 and they have a +10 is metagaming that you're relying on the math of the average rolls to know you should normally roll higher.

Whether or not you know the result of the die roll shouldn't change how you respond because that is literally the metagaming aspect.

If you ignore someone with the lower modifier except when you can see that they rolled higher than you that is metagaming.

This does nothing to encourage or discourage a player from investing skills, except that metagaming could encourage another player to roll when they have a lesser skill because the whole tables knows you rolled poorly and failed at your task.

Snowlilly wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but back in the day I used a floating base for certain skill checks (like find traps).

The player got to roll, but never knew how good any given roll was.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but it would be conceivable to use a dice tower and let the player put the die in but have it directed so that only the GM can see the result.
Roll a die and use the result as the base, i.e. if I rolled a 12 on d20, a player roll of 12 = 1, 13 = 2, ... , 11 = 20.

I guess that's one way, but it sounds like a lot of extra rolling when it would be easier to just allow the player to roll but not look at the result (if they're really that insistent on rolling themselves).

Dark Archive

There's always the "masked" option. As the GM write down the skill modifiers people have for certain things they'll have to roll throughout the adventure. Then when required, as them to make a masked roll. That is, roll a d20 with no modifiers. The GM then adds the applicable modifiers and informs the player of the result.

On a similar tactic, ask each player for a number of d20 rolls at the start of the game session, as well as what their saves/init/perception are. The player has no idea what those rolls are going to be used for. Maybe it's a perception check to spot a trap before triggering it. Maybe it's to notice a group of enemies before they notice the party. Maybe it's a search check. Or a save vs some spell trap or other effect (such as a haunt). Player doesn't know till it crops up.

And if the check was to see if they find a hidden bit of treasure while looting a room, well, the party may never know they missed something. Where as if they rolled the search check and KNEW they blew it, they might continue searching even though in-character they have no reason to believe they missed something.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:

GM rolling not only devalues reroll mechanics, but also devalues well rounded characters.

If Alice has the highest sense motive and the GM rolls low for her it doesn't matter if Bob with his slightly lower sense motive succeeds because his result will always be discarded on the grounds that Alice has a higher modifier. His skill ranks are a complete waste. Only the most minmaxed character for each skill that isn't personal only in effect matters. This is already a problem with active skills like diplomacy and disable device and leads to characters being unable to interact with many scenes even if they tried just because someone minmaxed that skill more, but by concealing roll results it is also made the case for reactive and passive skills. This is a bad thing.

Or, if the GM is going to roll Sense Motive for the players, the GM can roll for all the players instead of just picking the one with the highest bonus.

It actually works well because GM can say, "players A, B, and C, you think the innkeeper is lieing, but C and D thinks he's being honest." Now they have to suss that out with rolls to make assumptions with.

-Skeld


Skeld wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

GM rolling not only devalues reroll mechanics, but also devalues well rounded characters.

If Alice has the highest sense motive and the GM rolls low for her it doesn't matter if Bob with his slightly lower sense motive succeeds because his result will always be discarded on the grounds that Alice has a higher modifier. His skill ranks are a complete waste. Only the most minmaxed character for each skill that isn't personal only in effect matters. This is already a problem with active skills like diplomacy and disable device and leads to characters being unable to interact with many scenes even if they tried just because someone minmaxed that skill more, but by concealing roll results it is also made the case for reactive and passive skills. This is a bad thing.

Or, if the GM is going to roll Sense Motive for the players, the GM can roll for all the players instead of just picking the one with the highest bonus.

It actually works well because GM can say, "players A, B, and C, you think the innkeeper is lieing, but C and D thinks he's being honest." Now they have to suss that out with rolls to make assumptions with.

-Skeld

That's how I do it. I think it makes for a more interesting encounter because everyone had a chance and no one knows what's really going on.


Bwang wrote:
Whatever you choose, be up front AND consistent! A past 'dm' would let us roll everything, then suddenly insist that he had to roll. Seeme we almost always failed those...

I'd agree that the GM is in the wrong here. You should be as consistent as possible as the GM (allowing for changes to rulings based on FAQs, new material, etc - which should all be made clear to the group when something changes).

Bwang wrote:
We had problems when I 'failed' to find a trap and reported that there was a trap, but I couldn't find it to the party. I got docked exp for that one.

On the other hand, I think the GM was in the right here - maybe not in the XP docking (if it was a first offence), but that you weren't playing out what happened. A roll was made to find something, and the dice told you nothing was there - why would you then announce that something was there, when your character has no basis for that?


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Skeld wrote:

Or, if the GM is going to roll Sense Motive for the players, the GM can roll for all the players instead of just picking the one with the highest bonus.

It actually works well because GM can say, "players A, B, and C, you think the innkeeper is lieing, but C and D thinks he's being honest." Now they have to suss that out with rolls to make assumptions with.

-Skeld

That's how I do it. I think it makes for a more interesting encounter because everyone had a chance and no one knows what's really going on.

One of my best encounters involved each of the players' characters beset by separate individual phantasms while inside of a larger illusion, yet behind all of that was an even stranger reality with some real creatures peppered throughout.

At first, they didn't even know they were rolling will saves, as I was doing that for them behind the screen. When they started figuring it out some of them were like, "I attempt to disbelieve!" but again, not knowing how high or low their save rolls were, they weren't sure what was real--the illusion or the even stranger reality beyond.


HyperMissingno wrote:
To be fair, any party that passes the knowledge checks for ghouls is going to cast diagnose disease or find a cleric as soon as they can after they get bit...unless they're idiots.

I don't think that is necessary true. I would probably generally have their paralyzing touch be the first 'bit of information' and ghoul fever only on a check +5 (so a 16 for a basic ghoul.)

Regardless of that, the basic concept of disease being a good candidate for a hidden roll remains.


Dave Justus wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
To be fair, any party that passes the knowledge checks for ghouls is going to cast diagnose disease or find a cleric as soon as they can after they get bit...unless they're idiots.

I don't think that is necessary true. I would probably generally have their paralyzing touch be the first 'bit of information' and ghoul fever only on a check +5 (so a 16 for a basic ghoul.)

Regardless of that, the basic concept of disease being a good candidate for a hidden roll remains.

How so? In practice all it does is slow the game down. Now every time the PCs encounter a potential disease source they make a bunch of heal checks instead of the ones actually needed for the failed saves. This is exactly like rolling perception every ten feet to check for traps.


One thing that I think was not mentioned here is the the size of your group and how many GM's you have can make a big difference. ie 1 GM and 8 players rolling for for just a few checks can really bog down the GM vs 1 GM and 3 players it is a lot easier to do.

But that 8 player game is an statistical outlier, maybe but the do occur and a game I used to play in regularly is ongoing right now with 8 players.
BTW, the largest group I have played in was 17 at a Con in Oakland, Ca back in the 80's in which there were 3-5 GM's to handle the table during the 24 hour, 3 day free pick up game where the players would come and go. IIRC the largest they said they had was in the low 20's at one point.

MDC


The roll was made by the GM in order to deny me the same result of a Fighter rolling to hit a foe. The dice told me nothing, the GM did. Why would I announce that something was there? Because he had not taken the die roll from anyone else ever. Maxed out skills with great stats, I was quite capable of making the DCs presented. I saw it as denying me an earned success. Playing out was never a factor, the GM was not playing a level field.

I admit I metagamed, but a GM suddenly taking 'my' action and rolling in secret is bound to raise eyebrows. The next step is moving my miniature for me. After that, I guess I don't even have to show up.

Yes, I'm still peeved about it.

Grand Lodge

I have had my players start the night rolling a D20 twenty times and then writing down the results of their roll on an index card. I then roll a D20 to randomly determine which of their numbers to begin with. When a check happens I ask them what their modifier is and add it to their roll and give my GM responses accordingly. I only use the numbers for individual checks. If the entire group needs to roll, I just ignore the cards and have them all roll.

Example: Michael playing his bard rolls his D20's getting a result of:

12
6
20
17
4
8
16
16
11
19
7
17
5
9
15
8
16
19
10
9

Once he hands me his card I roll a D20 and get a 13. Therefore I start his card at his 13 die roll (which was a 5). After playing for 15 minutes he makes a diplomacy check and I ask for his modifier (which is a +8). So I simply add 5+8=13 and since the DC was 15 he failed to make it and I role-play it as such. A few minutes later he tries a sense motive on another NPC (his modifier is +7) so I simply add his +7 to his pre-roll of 9 to get a total of 16. Once again the DC was 15 so I tell my player that he feels the NPC is hiding something from the group. Rinse and repeat.

I usually just cross off their pre-rolls as they are "activated". When they run out I hand them their card and have them do another 20 rolls when they have a free minute and continue running the game.

So far it has worked beautifully.


Assuming the GM is doing the rolls behind the screen, what is your guys suggestions for way to help fill the void that is left by the players lack of dice rolling?

Without that player interaction, i have seen many sessions were my player need not ever touch their character sheet or dice. While some may enjoy this, I know many would HATE it, or at the least not want it to occur back to back sessions.


As a player, I like to make my own rolls most of the time, but I think some situations call for the DM making the roll instead to preserve suspense (with the skills already mentioned). DM rolling should be exceptional, not because of control (which is an illusion), but to keep players engaged. I trust our DM to neither screw us over nor going easy on us (we had a few close calls and I love that), and while I try not to metagame, I'm not sure I could keep OOC knowledge from creeping in IC (though I avoid most issues on that score by having a character with no ranks in Sense Motive or any Knowledge).


Cerwin wrote:
I know that disguise checks are supposed to be rolled in secret by the GM, what other skill checks would be reasonable for a GM to roll behind the screen to prevent metagaming?

perception, sense motive, knowledge checks, spellcraft to create magical item in case it is cursed.

With that aside there are many times a player can have conditional modifiers so unless the players have a problem metagaming, and you really have no other solution I would not tack on the extra work.

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / GM rolling skill checks. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.