|
I am going to be DMing for the first time next week, and decided to roll the bad guy perception checks ahead of time so the players won't see me rolling and wonder what's up next. Is that rude?
No. I often make use of a set of prerolled rolls on a card. About 20 is usually more than sufficient. Then, when you want to use a skill the player shouldn't know about, like Stealth or Perception, it's covered and they'll never know.
You can also do the same for players. Get them to roll and record some numbers and then give them to you. When you want to have them roll for something secretly (such as a saving throw, perception check or the like) you can look down at the next number on the card and use that.
However, make sure you tell your players you'll be using this method, just in case they have a different grasp on the gamer social norms than me.
I am going to be DMing for the first time next week, and decided to roll the bad guy perception checks ahead of time so the players won't see me rolling and wonder what's up next. Is that rude?
Not only is it not it is a great idea, and you should find it a great time saver in play.
What Paul said. There's no such thing as being over-prepared. Better to have a tool on hand and not use it than to not have it at all.
As for your players - as Paul said, make sure they're aware that you're doing this, as some players demand to be active partipants in their skill rolls. (And they'd be wrong, but that's another topic.)
No, there is nothing wrong with that. I like to use unspecified rolls as a psychological tool. Sometimes when I roll it's for a reason the PCs shouldn't know about, at least at that moment, and sometimes there's nothing happening and I'm just rolling dice to heighten the tension and plant the seeds of fear and doubt in the players' minds. Pretend to consult notes, roll meaningless dice, pretend to consider notes thoughtfully
is also useful if you think you don't have enough to fill the session, or if you need to kill some time or buy some time because you are winging it, if you didn't have time to do much preparation for the session.
I am going to be DMing for the first time next week, and decided to roll the bad guy perception checks ahead of time so the players won't see me rolling and wonder what's up next. Is that rude?
I don't think so. But in time you'll learn that a raised brow and the sound of dice against the table can be a really useful dramatic tool. You'll use that in your favor. ;)
edit:NINJA'ED
I often roll stuff like this ahead of time. Not only does it not give away information the players shouldnt know yet, but it speeds up gameplay. If 20 guards need to roll perception checks as the player sneak by, it could take a while if i dont have it layed out ahead of time.
I am going to be DMing for the first time next week, and decided to roll the bad guy perception checks ahead of time so the players won't see me rolling and wonder what's up next. Is that rude?
It's perfectly acceptable. I sometimes roll initiative for monsters before the session, just to save time. In your case, you don't only save time - you also have a nice surprise in store for the players!
Sounds like good GM-ing to me.
Anything that speeds up gameplay is good.
edit note: Me no spell good, apparently.
so initially I thought this would be one of those threads that make my head hurt....
but after reading it... the answer is
as a player I think it is a problem ... players should not be allowed to
as a DM by all means ... you don't even need to make the roll if you want him to notice them...
I often roll stuff like this ahead of time. Not only does it not give away information the players shouldnt know yet, but it speeds up gameplay. If 20 guards need to roll perception checks as the player sneak by, it could take a while if i dont have it layed out ahead of time.
Um, when guards are actively guarding something, shouldn't they be taking 10? That saves a LOT of time I find.
I am going to be DMing for the first time next week, and decided to roll the bad guy perception checks ahead of time so the players won't see me rolling and wonder what's up next. Is that rude?
I do it to prevent metagaming. Another good example is if your NPC will be trying to bluff the PC's. If they roll a sense motive and they dont see you roll they dice they will just have to go by what you tell them.
Just make sure that you still make random rolls of the dice followed by "huh", "daaamn" or a mild expression of surprise.
Gotta keep the players paranoid, yeah?
This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?
When you are moving at your regular speed it is to easy to miss things. If they don't call for the check they don't get the check.
I will add that my checks cover the entire room/hallway, while some other DM's only allow the check to cover a 5 ft square.
Rolling for every square just waste too much game time for my taste.
|
This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?When you are moving at your regular speed it is to easy to miss things. If they don't call for the check they don't get the check.
I will add that my checks cover the entire room/hallway, while some other DM's only allow the check to cover a 5 ft square.
Rolling for every square just waste too much game time for my taste.
Are you saying that you don't give them *any* chance for Perception unless they call for it?
In that case, would you say that passive perception is holding their hand too much?
This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?When you are moving at your regular speed it is to easy to miss things. If they don't call for the check they don't get the check.
I will add that my checks cover the entire room/hallway, while some other DM's only allow the check to cover a 5 ft square.
Rolling for every square just waste too much game time for my taste.
Are you saying that you don't give them *any* chance for Perception unless they call for it?
In that case, would you say that passive perception is holding their hand too much?
Yep.
Well, I guess I should explain. If the enemy is hidden before they come into the room his stealth DC is already set, and if they don't look for him(actively) they won't find him.
Now if he tries to hide while they are in the room he may have stepped on something or not been able to hide well enough in a short amount of time.
Traps have to be searched for also, since they are normally well hidden.
These are just examples though. If something is out in the open like foot prints in a dusty room, or something similar that may or may not get noticed by someone passing through, but not really looking for anything I will ask them to roll.
|
|
This is slightly tangential, but what do you guys think about having a passive perception stat (10 + perception skill bonus) and using that for times when the players (or NPCs) aren't actively looking for things (read: almost all of the time)?When you are moving at your regular speed it is to easy to miss things. If they don't call for the check they don't get the check.
I will add that my checks cover the entire room/hallway, while some other DM's only allow the check to cover a 5 ft square.
Rolling for every square just waste too much game time for my taste.
Are you saying that you don't give them *any* chance for Perception unless they call for it?
In that case, would you say that passive perception is holding their hand too much?Yep.
Well, I guess I should explain. If the enemy is hidden before they come into the room his stealth DC is already set, and if they don't look for him(actively) they won't find him.
Now if he tries to hide while they are in the room he may have stepped on something or not been able to hide well enough in a short amount of time.
Traps have to be searched for also, since they are normally well hidden.These are just examples though. If something is out in the open like foot prints in a dusty room, or something similar that may or may not get noticed by someone passing through, but not really looking for anything I will ask them to roll.
It just seems to me that some skill checks, notably Sense Motive and Perception, should NEVER be requested by the GM, and from that point of view, having a passive trait for that stat seems like a good idea.
Don't get me wrong—I love that you don't give them any check for hidden enemies or traps, and I'm going to start running my game that way.
Things that "may or may not get noticed," though—that seems like a bad place to call for a check because then my players KNOW that there is something to notice, and if their rolls don't allow them to notice it, they get frustrated.
It just seems to me that some skill checks, notably Sense Motive and Perception, should NEVER be requested by the GM, and from that point of view, having a passive trait for that stat seems like a good idea.
Don't get me wrong—I love that you don't give them any check for hidden enemies or traps, and I'm going to start running my game that way.
Things that "may or may not get noticed," though—that seems like a bad place to call for a check because then my players KNOW...
My players are pretty good, but not perfect, at separating player and character knowledge. Now if your players still can't do a full separation I would have them roll a random number of perception checks before the game begins. That way you can apply the number for them. I would also not write them down in the order given. If they happen to roll a lot of high numbers up front they will expect to find anything that is hidden. If the numbers are placed randomly they can't metagame and say they should have found ______.
If the party wagon is moving through tall grass or something, I'm going to tell the GM that I am taking 10 on Perception checks to keep from getting ambushed by big cats or similar dangerous threats that might be hiding.
If the GM doesn't honor such a perfectly reasonable request, there may well be a problem.
My group is very strange.
We have a policy of complete transparency (I am the GM) and I will often roll enemy perception checks in front of the players, even when they are unaware of the enemy presence.
You would think this might cause problems metagaming, but it is simply not tolerated by any of us. I'm very fortunate that there's no adversarial attitude whatsoever, both my players and I are watching things unfold — I'm merely an impartial agent of the story.
That said, I'm certain that my players would understand if I rolled the checks in advance — but to me that's not much different from deciding the outcome arbitrarily, since I don't know when nor how many times I will need to make those checks.
My group is very strange.
We have a policy of complete transparency (I am the GM) and I will often roll enemy perception checks in front of the players, even when they are unaware of the enemy presence.
You would think this might cause problems metagaming, but it is simply not tolerated by any of us. I'm very fortunate that there's no adversarial attitude whatsoever, both my players and I are watching things unfold — I'm merely an impartial agent of the story.
That said, I'm certain that my players would understand if I rolled the checks in advance — but to me that's not much different from deciding the outcome arbitrarily, since I don't know when nor how many times I will need to make those checks.
I only roll the ones I know will take place in advance. Initiative checks come to mind. It is more to save time, than because I don't trust my players. They do stay in character for the most part.
Every once in a while the checks go to waste or I have to make unexpected rolls due to them circumventing my plans for that session.
I think we are both lucky to have players that can separate themselves from the characer.
DM always has rolled these kind of "interactive" checks in the games I've played.
Players get to roll attacks, saves, concentration, knowledge and such as these have inmediate consequences.
Perception, stealth, bluff, sense motive and things like these add suspense to the game, if the player knows he has rolled high or low then part of this tension is gone.
To do this requires the players to trust that the DM will not forget a crucial check, though. But avoids the classical situation where a player rolls low and another tries the same action to get a better result.
If players do not want to take chances then they can always roleplay a take 10/20 situation:
"...I take my time to pick that lock, I will not stop until it's open..."
DM always has rolled these kind of "interactive" checks in the games I've played.
Players get to roll attacks, saves, concentration, knowledge and such as these have inmediate consequences.Perception, stealth, bluff, sense motive and things like these add suspense to the game, if the player knows he has rolled high or low then part of this tension is gone.
To do this requires the players to trust that the DM will not forget a crucial check, though. But avoids the classical situation where a player rolls low and another tries the same action to get a better result.
If players do not want to take chances then they can always roleplay a take 10/20 situation:
"...I take my time to pick that lock, I will not stop until it's open..."
I know a DM that does that, but I want the player's dice to control their destiny*, and you are correct it takes trust between the DM and the players.
*I would feel bad if they got jumped because I rolled a nat 1.
I know a DM that does that, but I want the player's dice to control their destiny*, and you are correct it takes trust between the DM and the players.*I would feel bad if they got jumped because I rolled a nat 1.
I wouldn't, if the rogue fails his perception check, the cleric can still pull it off, sort of changes the spotlight.
If they all fail... well, s&!$ happens... and makes for interesting stories. ;)
Personally taste:
They get a passive check of 10 + their mods if there's nothing that would stop that from happening.
If they want to actively check then fair enough.
At the same time, the bad guys laying ambush would certainly have taken their time, getting a rather large modifier - so unless the party has some active scouts then odds are on they will walk into a well laid attack.