This is the same with diplomacy and intimidate. I know many people who are not diplomatic, but want to pretend to be in a game. I do not penalize them for not RP'ing out everything that their character would say, but accept that they give me the general idea of what their character wants to say, and let the roll dictate just how smoothly it gets delivered.Yeah, I get that point - you still ask them what they would say? No? Maybe?
Or do you hand wave it all and let the dice ask all the questions for the PC?
Just because certain elements are fantastic (fireball, etc) does that mean everything else in the game is reduced to 100% die rolls with zero PC input - not asking the right question or saying the right things?
There has to be some level of PC involevement here - well it is D20 gaming. I should consider the system and players involved.
Anyway, SKR has already spoken on the subject - enjoy.
I agree with you Aux, I try to allow characters the option to talk out the trap, or diplomacy, often granting bonuses on the rolls if they ask the right questions, games based on just d20 rolls SUCK! Especially "I ATTACK! [roll d20]"
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sorry, reward without risk is a poor design paradigm in a game which assigned rewards (xp) to risks taken. Even for perception checks.
Not saying that something can't be detected from a distance, but structuring the perception check that a trap should always be detectable from 5ft no matter what the circumstances is just silly.
Anyway, different styles of gaming and I am not going to fight to get my point across. People want the dice to manage everything for them - including detailed searching and investigation then go at it. Not my style.
What's the 'reward' in making the perception check? Knowing that there's a trap? It's the same 'reward' for making a perception check to spot the ambush, or to recognize the scent of a perfume. There's no 'risk' in failing or making the check.
|
This is the same with diplomacy and intimidate. I know many people who are not diplomatic, but want to pretend to be in a game. I do not penalize them for not RP'ing out everything that their character would say, but accept that they give me the general idea of what their character wants to say, and let the roll dictate just how smoothly it gets delivered.Yeah, I get that point - you still ask them what they would say? No? Maybe?
Or do you hand wave it all and let the dice ask all the questions for the PC?
Just because certain elements are fantastic (fireball, etc) does that mean everything else in the game is reduced to 100% die rolls with zero PC input - not asking the right question or saying the right things?
There has to be some level of PC involevement here - well it is D20 gaming. I should consider the system and players involved.
Anyway, SKR has already spoken on the subject - enjoy.
I went ahead and bolded the part of my statement that you did not read. I do want them to give me the ideas on what their character wants to say, but I do not assume that they are speaking the same words as their characters. The simple statement of, "I ask the chancellor about the kings mistress and what she does with her spare time." is perfectly acceptable and the diplomacy roll dictates how smoothly (or coursely) the character asked the chancellor.
The same can be for searches. Saying, "I search the chest for traps." followed by a die roll, means that they search as well as their character knows. No as well as the player knows. Taking a 20 on this means (at least for me) that the character is taking their time carefully examining the chest to see if there are any traps. They would look to the best of their ability.
Also, there is nothing stopping the fighter, barbarian, monk, etc.. from looking for traps also. They can even try to disarm them, but will not do as well (that trapfinding class bonus that rogues get is rather nice).
As for the OP, you can (By RAW) take 20 on a perception check to find traps, but I can see many times when the DM could say no. But these are exceptions.
|
|
I went ahead and bolded the part of my statement that you did not read. I do want them to give me the ideas on what their character wants to say, but I do not assume that they are speaking the same words as their characters. The simple statement of, "I ask the chancellor about the kings mistress and what she does with her spare time." is perfectly acceptable and the diplomacy roll dictates how smoothly (or coursely) the character asked the chancellor.
Sorry for not reading your entire post, I just assumed in the flurry of incoming nonsense that you were another true believer. So my apologies.
We are closer on points regarding how checks should be resolved then I initially thought.The same can be for searches. Saying, "I search the chest for traps." followed by a die roll, means that they search as well as their character knows. No as well as the player knows. Taking a 20 on this means (at least for me) that the character is taking their time carefully examining the chest to see if there are any traps. They would look to the best of their ability.
Not according to what SKR posted
Failing a Perception check to notice something in an adjacent square (5 Ft) doesn't have any penalty for failure; you can look at the square all you want, even if you fail by 5 or 20 or 100, because LOOKING at a trapped square doesn't set it off.
According to SKR and the perception skill rules your example wouldn't work - or the detail wouldn't be as involved. The player in question can search the chest for traps from 5 ft away without touching it.
Sounds fun, doesn't it?
stuff about how rolls matter less than what a player actually knows.
I have given you several ways to fluff up the die rolls. Some players just are not good at descriptions. If you want descriptions you provide them. The player only has to make a generic statement of what he/she wants to do and roll the dice. The player should not have to say I search under the rug to find the pressure plate. His character(the expert in traps) should be the one to know that. Once the player makes the DC for the perception check you can fluff it up if you want.
Experienced player: Describes in detail due to his 23 years of game experience how to search every inch of the room.Noob: I want to check the room, (rolls well above the perception DC). The DM informs him that he fails on a 19(die roll) because he did not say exactly how he is checking anything. Sounds fair and fun doesn't it to know that player knowledge is what really counts when the character should have found the trap.
If I don't put any ranks into it, but I describe how to disable the trap since I am a trap maker in real life would you let that go in one of your games?<----Serious question
PS: I am not really a trapmaker, but the point stands. If so at what point do you separate player personal experience(real life knowledge) from the character?
Are we still arguing what the rule is or has it been accepted that perception works as advertised in the book(can never set off a trap), but some of us just won't allow it to work that way?
The symbol of _____ traps glow. It is very possible to see the glow without looking at the symbol. The rules(the spell itself)also state that the trap can be found without setting it off. It does not say how. Once again the DM must provide the fluff. I would just say the rogue caught the glow out of the corner of his, suspected something was wrong, and disabled the trap without looking directly at it. Maybe you have to see the entire symbol for it to go off. There are any number of ways to fluff this.
Actually, a symbol only glows when it has been triggered, not when it is sitting there, just waiting to be be seen/touched/or whatever the triggering condition is.
And puzzles are dumb. Puzzles are really dumb. What kind of idiot wizard builds magical riddles into a dungeon designed to protect his most precious trinkets? "All who dare trespass in my Tower of Insanity are doomed...unless they can answer these riddles I found in the back of a jokebook, then they can take whatever they want." Add to the fact that 90% of the time puzzles end in either 1) one player who solves all of them while the other players just look at him expectingly, or 2) none of the players know the answer and wait for the DM to actually carry the adventure further.
Lastly, I'd much prefer rolling perception and being told "Hey there's a trap" then "Looks like you forgot to poke the second cobblestone from the left, heh, roll fortitude not to die."
Oh my god I can't tell you how much I hate puzzles in RPGs...
The symbol of _____ traps glow. It is very possible to see the glow without looking at the symbol. The rules(the spell itself)also state that the trap can be found without setting it off. It does not say how. Once again the DM must provide the fluff. I would just say the rogue caught the glow out of the corner of his, suspected something was wrong, and disabled the trap without looking directly at it. Maybe you have to see the entire symbol for it to go off. There are any number of ways to fluff this.Actually, a symbol only glows when it has been triggered, not when it is sitting there, just waiting to be be seen/touched/or whatever the triggering condition is.
Good catch, but my point stands that there are ways to describe how you found it without setting it off. Maybe you used a mirror or only saw part of the symbol, etc.
Oh my god I can't tell you how much I hate puzzles in RPGs...And puzzles are dumb. Puzzles are really dumb. What kind of idiot wizard builds magical riddles into a dungeon designed to protect his most precious trinkets? "All who dare trespass in my Tower of Insanity are doomed...unless they can answer these riddles I found in the back of a jokebook, then they can take whatever they want." Add to the fact that 90% of the time puzzles end in either 1) one player who solves all of them while the other players just look at him expectingly, or 2) none of the players know the answer and wait for the DM to actually carry the adventure further.
Lastly, I'd much prefer rolling perception and being told "Hey there's a trap" then "Looks like you forgot to poke the second cobblestone from the left, heh, roll fortitude not to die."
I agree, they are so frustrating, mostly because the clues are terrible.
I think some people here don't want a rogue class at all. I'm not saying that to be demeaning, I'm being honest - you don't want skills to take the place of searching for and disarming traps. And that's your gaming style, fine, that's great. But that's what the rogue does. When you take the most basic rogue function and turn it into an elaborate minigame all on its own that everyone can play, why is the rogue even there?
Anyone can poke at a chest with a twelve foot pole, be told the parameters of the room and guess at secrets within, or test every cobblestone they walk on because one of them is probably a monster, along with the cealing and the chest itself.
I understand that you don't want dice rolling to supercede things, but when exactly are you rolling the dice if all of that is covered via indoors LARPing?
It's bizarre and strange that we're perfectly fine with pretending to be a big muscly oily barbarian, but whenever someone wants to do something intelligent, they're expected to be able to back it up with real life skills. And if someone wants to do something social, they're mocked and teased for it.
...There's a joke about nerds in there, somewhere.
Good catch, but my point stands that there are ways to describe how you found it without setting it off. Maybe you used a mirror or only saw part of the symbol, etc.
Indeed. I would be willing to even go as far as saying that in order to 'see' the symbol, you have to have seen the whole of it, and a secsessful search would be that you caught just the edge of the symbol, and recognized it as what it was (for the fluff). So one did not set it off.
NOW, when they try to disable it (say by rubbing a portion of it away, or what not, again that part is fluff) they might accedently see the whole thing, or what not.
Oh my god I can't tell you how much I hate puzzles in RPGs...
Agreed
A rogue knows what he is suppose to do to do what he does in trapfinding and disabling. How many of us actually know what to search for and what to do to disable a trap? I would say very few of us. While it would be great and add to the rp experience that someone describes what he is doing, sometimes, we simply do not know what or how, and simply it has to resolve to a "I make a roll" or "I take 20." THis does not make us a bad roleplayer, only someone who wants to have fun playing a character.
I can't think of a single example of XP being given for Perception checks.I wouldn't think you would - nor for intelligent insights instigated by the player who actually asked questions vs. relying on the dice to do his brainwork for him.
You know - insights independent of actual d20 rolls.Don't worry though, the die rolls will get you through.
I've been in sessions like that and THEY SUCK.Yeah the one die roll take 20 check is much more stimulating and descriptive.
Yeah lets reward the player for knowing more than his character would.
It's like letting the guy playing a Cha 7 Wis 7 Int 7 character get away without making a diplomacy check because the player was a fast/smooth talking person that had a great speech prepared.
The skills represent what the character is capable of because the character will often know more than the player does of the situation.
Therefore you are punishing the player by expecting him to know more about a subject than the character he is playing (or as much as the character).
Which is just poor GMing... after all that's metagaming from behind the screen.
Good catch, but my point stands that there are ways to describe how you found it without setting it off. Maybe you used a mirror or only saw part of the symbol, etc.Indeed. I would be willing to even go as far as saying that in order to 'see' the symbol, you have to have seen the whole of it, and a secsessful search would be that you caught just the edge of the symbol, and recognized it as what it was (for the fluff). So one did not set it off.
NOW, when they try to disable it (say by rubbing a portion of it away, or what not, again that part is fluff) they might accidentally see the whole thing, or what not.
This I can agree with.
Those who played the original ToEE, and ToH. Of course they gamed in snow, uphill, both ways, and *they* liked it!
I don't play with those types.
And I am sure they appreciate that. I know I do.
Psst. [whispers]You did not answer the player vs character knowledge issues.[/whispers] :)
|
|
Yeah lets reward the player for knowing more than his character would.
It's like letting the guy playing a Cha 7 Wis 7 Int 7 character get away without making a diplomacy check because the player was a fast/smooth talking person that had a great speech prepared.
The skills represent what the character is capable of because the character will often know more than the player does of the situation.
Therefore you are punishing the player by expecting him to know more about a subject than the character he is playing (or as much as the character).
Which is just poor GMing... after all that's metagaming from behind the screen.
No
The guy with the 7s could still make all the checks - just at negatives appropriate to his attributes. He shouldn't be limited in his ability to solve problems or act like a dullard due to low stats, those things already have a mechanical game effect. If he chooses to RP that way, good for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from blurting out suggestions to problems due to his scores.
Now that is BAD METAGAMING and restrictive.
I don't think that the player with the good ideas should be punished with a system that rewards other players who are incapable of making any kind of reasonable inquiry into the problem or suffer from a lack of imagination (or intelligence) and rely on die roles to resolve every interaction, exchange, and investigation. The player who plays intelligently should bypass any need for rolls if he figures out a situation based on -
a)data on hand
b)things his character would know in game - and not meta information
As it stands the rule is RAW and it works for 99% players here. Even SKR came down from the mountain to make his decree of detecting things through objects via perception check. I won't use it that way but my group RPs searches and disabling traps and they love it, so it works for me.
But you guys stick with the 5ft range of detecting traps through solid objects. More a commentary on the state of gaming, game devs and players.
Good gaming.
Psst. [whispers]You did not answer the player vs character knowledge issues.[/whispers]
Right above board warrior.
NoThe guy with the 7s could still make all the checks - just at negatives appropriate to his attributes. He shouldn't be limited in his ability to solve problems or act like a dullard due to low stats, those things already have a mechanical game effect. If he chooses to RP that way, good for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from blurting out suggestions to problems due to his scores.
Now that is BAD METAGAMING and restrictive.
So... you suggest that a low Charisma or Intelligence character should be (potentially) played no differently than an 18 Intelligence or Charisma character? After all, the difference is only a mere 6 points of bonus, right? No offense but if that's what you're actually suggesting, I believe it to be ridiculous. What you seem to be suggesting takes the RP completely out of the character.
If one of my players is playing a feral Barbarian with a Charisma of 6 and proceeds to RP out eloquent and charismatic speeches that could sway kings, I'm sorry but I'm going to cry foul and suggest he start RPing more appropriate to his actual stats.
stuff about stuff
Player knowledge includes knowing things like ways to hide traps in games from previous experience as a player. With your method the odds are very much stacked against certain players.
NoThe guy with the 7s could still make all the checks - just at negatives appropriate to his attributes. He shouldn't be limited in his ability to solve problems or act like a dullard due to low stats, those things already have a mechanical game effect. If he chooses to RP that way, good for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from blurting out suggestions to problems due to his scores.
Now that is BAD METAGAMING and restrictive.So... you suggest that a low Charisma or Intelligence character should be (potentially) played no differently than an 18 Intelligence or Charisma character? After all, the difference is only a mere 6 points of bonus, right? No offense but if that's what you're actually suggesting, I believe it to be ridiculous. What you seem to be suggesting takes the RP completely out of the character.
If one of my players is playing a feral Barbarian with a Charisma of 6 and proceeds to RP out eloquent and charismatic speeches that could sway kings, I'm sorry but I'm going to cry foul and suggest he start RPing more appropriate to his actual stats.
I don't go so far on my players. I instead merely remind them that their epic speech fell on deaf ears due to their speech impediment (assuming their diplomacy check was indeed a bad one).
That's the thing, guys: I let my players RP however they like it; as long as it helps the game along, I'm for it. I support their actions with skill checks and attack rolls regardless of their at-the-table description.
|
|
GeraintElberion: You are reserving the right to interpret any setting so that there is a safe way to look for traps. That may not be the construction of the room. The dm has said this section is very dangerous. You want the player to reply that it 'can't be so dangerous as to require me to roll'.
Even if the DM's choice wouldn't be your own, you can't unwrite the room.
Taking 20 has nothing to do with how dangerous a trap is.
Not being able to Take 20 reflects time constraints and negatives for failure.
Failing your perception has no direct negative consequence. It may allow a negative consequence to follow, indirectly, but it has no negative consequence for failure: 'not seeing' is not the same as 'being stabbed by'.
The DM can always unwrite the room. But the DM should not need to. He/she just needs to apply their imagination.
Give me an example.
|
|
But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
You make a perception check against the DC of the trap. Which sense you use is fluff and up to the DM.
Presumably this trap has a very high Perception DC.
If I make the perception check (because I'm a level 20 character with maxed-out ranks in perception, ace stats and other boosters) then perhaps I noticed some quirk in the construction of the chest, or acid marks in the floor beside the chest, or something else interesting and imaginative which stops traps from being a way to auto-drain hit points from characters.
...smit his foe.The past tense of smite is smote.
For a proper smiting yes, but this wasn't that ;D point taken though thank you.
|
|
Tell us about this chest's trap and why someone would be five feet away when they are searching it.But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
Because as stated by one of the developers the Perception check involves a visual examination of the item/area with no risk to the the one examining when failing their check. Why be any closer?
Failing a Perception check to notice something in an adjacent square (5 Ft) doesn't have any penalty for failure; you can look at the square all you want, even if you fail by 5 or 20 or 100, because LOOKING at a trapped square doesn't set it off.The 5ft in brackets is mine.
So no risk to actually set it off, yet 100% abstraction that the trap can somehow always be detected due to - how did Spalding put it - "whatever".
Doesn't really matter what's inside the chest - 5kgs of C4 set to detonate if its opened (not tied to the locking mechanism). Something inside the chest which can only be detected unless you get close to the chest - closer than the 5'ft set by gamest world mechanics - AKA D20 system.
On a side track I think these one roll resolves/fails without any actual thought or player input is weak. At least in combat (which works on a very similar fail/succeed mechanic) you can make some decisions about how hard to hit, how to maneuver to hit and use abilities tied to movement and placement. Yet talking to a guy without substance, or making a check instead of challenging the player to ask questions about a chest and just rolling is weak. Of course I’m in the minority opinion on that one. side track off/
What you're really doing is being deliberately obtuse. That's fine but don't think it really helps your argument. I think we all understand what perception checks are whether using visual, olfactory or other senses. We understand that searching for a trap doesn't set off a trap. We understand the reasosn why that's the case. RAW backs up our reasoning. If you want to bring things to the absurd that's your deal (by the way, the C4 has to be set to something whether it's the lock or hinges, it just doesn't "go off" when the lid is opened).
If D20 is too gamist for you then there's plenty of others out there that might simulate things better for you. I'm just not one of those people that needs to have every little sqiddly little bit of the world covered by dice rolls that fit my view of it.
|
|
Auxmaulous:
You seem to be assuming that those who roll for perception skill checks don't RP as well.
I do both, and so do my players.
An example (gotta love examples)...
Player: "Describe the chest again."
DM: "It's about the same size as this box (points at box) but is made of a dark wood bound with iron clasps. A series of gems is set evenly along the lid of the box and the central clasp is closed with a heavy, iron lock. The lid is flat and has three hinges at the back of the box."
Player: "I search the chest, examining it carefully, then listening to the top of the box, before carefully feeling across the surface. I am looking for traps."
DM: "Cool, make a perception check."
so...
Player: "I rolled a 7, so that's a 14."
DM: "The box is dense and cool, as you look it over and run your hands around it you feel nothing unusual."
or...
Player: "Hey, awesome, natural 20! That's 27."
DM: "As you examine the box it feels cold near the left hinge and you notice some strange metal sheeting just poking a little out of the lid in that corner. It looks like that box could be trapped."
Y'see. I like no-dice roleplaying too. But if I'm going to use dice for combat, ride-checks and saving throws against spells, then I'm also going to use dice for diplomacy and searching.
And at no point am I limiting or preventing roleplaying.
My current group has one really excellent descriptive role-player and three people who are new to the hobby. Those who are new like to fall back on the dice when they're not sure what to do or how to describe things. The more experienced player uses the dice as a guide to what she can do.
In the online game I am playing in I tend to describe what I do depending upon my dice-roll (i.e. I make a low initiative check, so I post my roll along with a comment of: "Hey, um, where'd everybody go?"
I have also met people who don't like to do much apart from kick down doors and roll dice, the DMs job for them is to make monsters seem scary and create imaginative and tense combats.
That's not my style of play but it is theirs, and I like that we can all share this cool hobby in different ways.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I want to start by thanking you Aux. I'm home sick and even toast is upsetting my stomach, so thanks for the much needed laugh.
Yeah, I get that point - you still ask them what they would say? No? Maybe?Or do you hand wave it all and let the dice ask all the questions for the PC?
Just because certain elements are fantastic (fireball, etc) does that mean everything else in the game is reduced to 100% die rolls with zero PC input - not asking the right question or saying the right things?
There has to be some level of PC involevement here - well it is D20 gaming. I should consider the system and players involved.
So Aux believes that role playing is king, and even decides to grace us with a slam against the RPG. Isn't he cute?
Except...
The guy with the 7s could still make all the checks - just at negatives appropriate to his attributes. He shouldn't be limited in his ability to solve problems or act like a dullard due to low stats, those things already have a mechanical game effect. If he chooses to RP that way, good for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from blurting out suggestions to problems due to his scores.
Now that is BAD METAGAMING and restrictive.
So remember folks, you shouldn't use game mechanics when role playing, but you should use game mechanics in role playing. If Stephen Hawking plays a character with low stats, it shouldn't penalize him for using superstring theory to search the room. Well then you should break out the dice and make him roll. But if Forrest Gump is playing a Int 18 rogue, he shouldn't rely on the dice to do the thinking for him.
Wow, can these to posts be any more contradictory? Try to use small words Aux, I'm a d20 player, so I might not get it.
Some people are not quick on their feet, witty, charming, or a genius, but they want to play that type of character. The rules give rolls for it so they can enjoy their escape from the real world. It all depends on each player. With a veteran group you need less rolling in certain situations, but a newer group or a mixed group you should be using rolls and giving modifiers for excellent RP. make it fair for all levels of players with an incentive to those who can really get into their roles.
As for puzzles, if no one can solve it after a certain amount of time (this time should be semi suspenseful or frustrating with the GM adding things like "you get the feeling the answer is right in front of you" to set the mood) if no one can get it use ability checks like intelligence or wisdom. Perhaps a strength check to break through or attack "whaterver" to break through. knowledge history could revel a story with a similar riddle or puzzle and disable device and find traps are all ways to get around a puzzle.
I've seen seen a puzzle/riddle guarding a wizards treasure that didn't have a "big n nasty" on the other side.
It's always nice to roll such diplomacy checks first and then tailor your words to the roll.
My 6 CHA Dwarven cleric trying to calm down an NPC wizard who's wailing that someone (his familiar though we don't know that and think it's a person/loved one) is trapped in his burning house. Diplomacy check time.. d20 roll.. natural 1. What I say "don't worry about them, I'm sure by now that they are already dead.... perhaps they didn't suffer too much".
It works the other way too. I listen to the way the player makes his diplomatic approach, the topics he brings up, and use that to modify the roll he makes. A particularly good approach or argument for the situation and I'll give him a +2 or +4. Good role play, maybe another +2. Bad approach idea (offering a bribe to the richest philanthropist in town) and I'll apply a -2 or so.
I don't see any need not to allow players to take 20. Of course there is the consequence that they WILL be taking a lot of extra time to make those checks in situations where time is an issue. (if for nothing else than to roll lots of encounter checks)There are no negative consequences for failing a perception roll to find a trap, so yes, you can take a 20.
EXACTLY, while they are taking so long to search, random encounter with the rogue being automatically surprised as he is concentrating on a 5' square to the exclusion of the rest of the area.
NoThe guy with the 7s could still make all the checks - just at negatives appropriate to his attributes. He shouldn't be limited in his ability to solve problems or act like a dullard due to low stats, those things already have a mechanical game effect. If he chooses to RP that way, good for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from blurting out suggestions to problems due to his scores.
Now that is BAD METAGAMING and restrictive.So... you suggest that a low Charisma or Intelligence character should be (potentially) played no differently than an 18 Intelligence or Charisma character? After all, the difference is only a mere 6 points of bonus, right? No offense but if that's what you're actually suggesting, I believe it to be ridiculous. What you seem to be suggesting takes the RP completely out of the character.
If one of my players is playing a feral Barbarian with a Charisma of 6 and proceeds to RP out eloquent and charismatic speeches that could sway kings, I'm sorry but I'm going to cry foul and suggest he start RPing more appropriate to his actual stats.
One eloquent speach about something very important to the barbarian could be possible, but not all the time. Lets not say never, lets say rarely. The barbarian should be roleplayed per his stats and the background the player made, he could have good insight but lack the charisma and intelligence to express himself as well as the bard or rogue.
One eloquent speach about something very important to the barbarian could be possible, but not all the time. Lets not say never, lets say rarely. The barbarian should be roleplayed per his stats and the background the player made, he could have good insight but lack the charisma and intelligence to express himself as well as the bard or rogue.
NoThe guy with the 7s could still make all the checks - just at negatives appropriate to his attributes. He shouldn't be limited in his ability to solve problems or act like a dullard due to low stats, those things already have a mechanical game effect. If he chooses to RP that way, good for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from blurting out suggestions to problems due to his scores.
Now that is BAD METAGAMING and restrictive.So... you suggest that a low Charisma or Intelligence character should be (potentially) played no differently than an 18 Intelligence or Charisma character? After all, the difference is only a mere 6 points of bonus, right? No offense but if that's what you're actually suggesting, I believe it to be ridiculous. What you seem to be suggesting takes the RP completely out of the character.
If one of my players is playing a feral Barbarian with a Charisma of 6 and proceeds to RP out eloquent and charismatic speeches that could sway kings, I'm sorry but I'm going to cry foul and suggest he start RPing more appropriate to his actual stats.
Well in the example I gave (which actually happened in a game I was in), my friend kept doing it over and over again. He was actually playing an Anthropomorphic Cat with the Feral Template and Barbarian levels (with a very low Cha) and was RPing it as if he were by far the most well reasoned, civilized and charismatic character in the group. Even he admitted he should have been RPing way differently when I pointed it out to him after game.
I removed a post. Please feel free to remake it without belittling other members of the community.
I'm not going to tell a STR 6 wizard player, "No you can't even try to lift it, don't bother - LOL"
While that may seem funny or cute for the DM to enforce "attribute roles" what happens if that same PC wizard is trying to lift a dying buddy away from a fight? No one is going to be laughing and no one is going to be telling him no, don't bother - even if the odds are heavily stacked against him. Your line of thinking is "No player, know your role!"
I don't subscribe to that kind of limited play.
The Encumbrance rules actually do state that the DM just might be able to tell the Str 6 Wizard he can't lift or drag his fallen comrade based on his Strength attribute... that's by the RAW. Ignore the limits of what a character's Strength is capable of achieving and you may as well not even have the attribute at all. The player put the low attribute into his "dump stat" so he better expect it to actually be a disadvantage. You seem to be espousing there to be no actual drawbacks for having a low attribute, and if that's genuinely your stance I'm sorry but I do not agree with you in the slightest.
|
|
Censored/Redacted version -
Try to use small words Aux, I'm a d20 player, so I might not get it
So remember folks, you shouldn't use game mechanics when role playing, but you should use game mechanics in role playing. If Stephen Hawking plays a character with low stats, it shouldn't penalize him for using superstring theory to search the room. Well then you should break out the dice and make him roll. But if Forrest Gump is playing a Int 18 rogue, he shouldn't rely on the dice to do the thinking for him.
Read
I don't think that the player with the good ideas should be punished with a system that rewards other players who are incapable of making any kind of reasonable inquiry into the problem or suffer from a lack of imagination (or intelligence) and rely on die roles to resolve every interaction, exchange, and investigation. The player who plays intelligently should bypass any need for rolls if he figures out a situation based on -
a)data on hand
b)things his character would know in game - and not meta information
See points a and b?
So the player doesn't get to use external data AKA "String theory" to solve the problem.Also people should be allowed to RP however they want, they should be allowed to say whatever they like - as long as it's appropriate to the characters knowledge set. The the low-grade moron (not going to use any examples here) with 6 IN can still come up with an idea. All the math in the system makes it hard for him to implement the idea - that's where the negs come in. Now if a player comes up with a good idea based on in-game knowledge - doesn't matter what his PCs IN score is, he should get a bonus/benefit. If they take the data they glean from playing in-game and then come up with an idea they want conveyed through their characters - a good idea or question to ask - then they should get something for it. Possibly in some cases - ignoring the need for a roll on a skill check (if there are no extenuating circumstances) if they hit the problem straight on.
This is with 100% player gained knowledge and not meta-information, you know the data you collect while playing an adventure?
On the flip-side the players should never be allowed a "well can I roll and see if I know" die roll if you are dealing with common real world knowledge and information they have gained over the course of an adventure. Those rolls should be allowed on cartography, magic, how this temple works, biology of Dragons, etc and not on how to solve a problem, they as players should be attempting to resolve it vs. their PCs.
If you present all the facts in a murder mystery as translated to player knowledge (not PC), then the players need to come up with the answer. Their PCs are the interface in the world, but after every skill check is made and all the in-game data is collected (and translated to the players, not their characters) then decision time comes -the dice shouldn't decide nor should they be consulted as a substitution for problem solving.
Their characters use their skills and attribute negs or bonuses to facilitate the function of their character, the amount of RP is up to the individual player.
Some will want to play their stats up to the hilt and not have a low Cha PC interact with NPCS on a regular basis. The ones that decide to shouldn't be punished beyond their die roll negs for their efforts and shouldn't use knowledge that their characters do not posses to aid them. Otherwise they can try to interact as much as they like with the odds stacked against them, as it should be with a Cha 6 PC.
I'm not going to tell a STR 6 wizard player, "No you can't even try to lift it, don't bother - LOL"
While that may seem funny or cute for the DM to enforce "attribute roles" what happens if that same PC wizard is trying to lift a dying buddy away from a fight? No one is going to be laughing and no one is going to be telling him no, don't bother - even if the odds are heavily stacked against him. Your line of thinking is "No player, know your role!"
I don't subscribe to that kind of limited play.
Please get all the facts straight before you join the rest of crowd attacking those that don't walk lockstep with the d20 system.
I've already conceded RAW and the fact that people here love the ability to fully examine items from 5ft away.
Those are the rules of the game.
There isn't an argument here besides play-style and philosophy at this point so attacks and insinuations are not going to get anyone to change their mind.
Some of us think that perception should work a different way, and that's how we'll run it in our game. I've defended my point on both perception and also the limitations of stats and RP ad nauseam.
Good examples of perception use
That is how I do it - pretty much the same. I would allow initial visual checks then go from there based on what they see (and can see) as they shift closer and possible get hands on - as you described. At one point I would limit it to a few checks, and if I wrote the trap up myself I would have the details as to disarm, and failure while searching, etc.
It would still come down to a few rolls. And if the player didn't feel comfortable in the detail, I would reduce it to a more vague set of examinations. In the chest example - visual, then physical, then maybe one more set of checks based on other sense/abstract skill use- if that. The latter two checks involving the risk if they are failed.Seems like people here will hate and resent you for running it that way though, requires too much out of game knowledge and description, both for the Dm and player. Too much work.
Also it's a waste of effort since PCs can do the same examination of the chest from 5ft away without touching it or interacting with it with one die roll + take 20.
That's what most of these posters are defending.
|
|
The player put the low attribute into his "dump stat" so he better expect it to actually be a disadvantage. You seem to be espousing there to be no actual drawbacks for having a low attribute, and if that's genuinely your stance I'm sorry but I do not agree with you in the slightest.
Incorrect
Please re-readAll the math in the system makes it hard for him to implement the idea - that's where the negs come in.
The ones that decide to, shouldn't be punished beyond their die roll negs for their efforts
No, he still should get a check even if the DC is set very high.
Maybe you like games where the DM tells the player "no, you can't", I like to give my players the benefit of the doubt if there is even a slight chance to pull it off then I let them roll. But if the books tell you no and you let RAW make all the decisions for you then great, good gaming if that's you're style.For me the rules are just guidelines - I apply their use on both sides of the isle (for NPCs) so it isn't a case of fiat or willy-nilly application. RAW and RAI help me run the game I want, they are not 100% infallible nor do they always facilitate fun gaming. Even the game devs come up with some absurd interpretations of rules - as seen earlier in this thread. So in keeping with the spirit of the game, if there is a remote chance as with our STR 6 Wizard example - I'll let the PC take it.
It's more in line with heroic gaming if the players are given a chance (assuming there is even a remote one) to accomplish a deed.
The player put the low attribute into his "dump stat" so he better expect it to actually be a disadvantage. You seem to be espousing there to be no actual drawbacks for having a low attribute, and if that's genuinely your stance I'm sorry but I do not agree with you in the slightest.Incorrect
Please re-readAll the math in the system makes it hard for him to implement the idea - that's where the negs come in.The ones that decide to, shouldn't be punished beyond their die roll negs for their effortsNo, he still should get a check even if the DC is set very high.
Maybe you like games where the DM tells the player "no, you can't", I like to give my players the benefit of the doubt if there is even a slight chance to pull it off then I let them roll. But if the books tell you no and you let RAW make all the decisions for you then great, good gaming if that's you're style.
For me the rules are just guidelines - I apply their use on both sides of the isle (for NPCs) so it isn't a case of fiat or willy-nilly application. RAW and RAI help me run the game I want, they are not 100% infallible nor do they always facilitate fun gaming. Even the game devs come up with some absurd interpretations of rules - as seen earlier in this thread. So in keeping with the spirit of the game, if there is a remote chance as with our STR 6 Wizard example - I'll let the PC take it.
It's more in line with heroic gaming if the players are given a chance (assuming there is even a remote one) to accomplish a deed.
Your Strength 6 example doesn't work because lifting things has nothing to do with a DC of any kind. It's based solely on your encumbrance loads... a Strength 6 character can only lift so much, no matter what he rolls, because lifting and dragging is static.
|
I can't believe I read through this entire thread. Honestly, before reading here, I was familiar with the case that has been referenced over and over that tells us that taking 20 on a perception check to find a trap, and that would've been my answer, end of story.
Now I understand it as this: as long as there is still no danger in failing the perception check, you may take 20 to find a trap. That doesn't necessarily mean that you may ALWAYS take 20 to find a trap, just that it's something that can be done. If a specific instance came up where the DM decided that there was significant risk involved in failure, he could inform the rogue that in this case it's not possible, and would be within his rights as the DM to do so (and supported by RAW).
I agree with those who have eloquently pointed out that just because something's given as an example of what can be done doesn't mean that it guarantees the right to do it in 100% of the potential circumstances in the infinite expanse of our imaginations where we play this game. There have been plenty of plausible examples of just such situations given in this thread. It seems that a good way for the rogue to proceed would be to simply ask the DM for permission to take 20. Most of the time I imagine the answer will be yes.
I'm also a fan of having some rolls where the player or character shouldn't know if they passed or failed be rolled by the DM behind a screen, and it's how I run PbP games (also because it speeds things up). That said, much of the fun of playing is being able to roll the dice yourself, so I don't always take that away from players in tabletop games. It can, however, be a good way to eliminate the issue entirely.
|
|
Now I understand it as this: as long as there is still no danger in failing the perception check, you may take 20 to find a trap.But there is no penalty for failing a perception check.
The 'issues' brought up in this thread have confused using the skill disable device to bypass a trap with using perception to find that there is a trap present. These are two different things.
A failed check on the former CAN have negative effects (setting off the trap if the disable device check is 5 or more below the DC) while a failed perception check does not run this risk.
A PC does not risk setting off a trap by looking for it and failing to perceive it. Thus one may take 20 on perception checks searching for traps as long as one has the time to spend so doing.
-James
Exactly. Normally there is no penalty for failing a perception check. However, I believe that those "issues" brought up in the thread are perfectly reasonable examples of how perception might require an action that could, if fumbled, set off a trap (we may just have to disagree on that one), especially when we consider that perception is the culmination of all senses, not just spot. I don't find it unreasonable to imagine that a DM could interpret it the same way, and am not closed minded enough to imagine that there couldn't possibly be any risk ever in such an action.
There will be some cases where you can't take 20 to look for traps - but those are exceptions, not the rule. Like, for example, your party has made its way through the evil sorcerer's estate and into the room where he keeps an artifact of great power. However the entry did not go unnoticed and an iron golem is beating on the door, which is not holding nearly as well as the party would like. The rogue in this case couldn't take 20 to find traps in the room - they simply won't have the undisturbed time.