"I search the room, I roll a 13."
Followed by 3 other people telling me what they rolled.
It totally breaks that versimili-whatever-word. And for other skills, looking up all the rules around them can be a real game killer. Sometimes finding something or knowing something shouldn't be left to chance.
I still have people spend their ranks, and take ranks spent into account when adjudicating things, but ultimately I try to avoid players making skill rolls now, and our games seem to flow a lot better and feel less clunky as a result. I just decide what they know or don't know. I determine if they find things based on where they look. If something is hidden under a pillow, they can find it by looking under the pillow, not by making a DC15 check or whatever. If they want to craft something, and they spent ranks on it, I'll just say yes or no. Some things like acrobatics still work well with dice rolls, but I much prefer DM fiat or a die roll made by me for things like spellcraft, appraise, etc.
Anyone else using this approach? If you hate looking up skills all the time and grinding your game to a halt playing by the book, give this a shot. It's worked well for our group.
I think its a good idea and a poor one at the same time. Dice are good in that they are wholly Neutral arbitrators of success or failure. Alot of players Like rolling dice.
As somone whos played the game since BECMI i actually find i at times Struggle even with Take then. IF i want to do something I instantly want to roll the Dice.
However for alot of what you are saying the Games Take 10/20 rules cover it and If the players think to look under the pillow Then success is automatic anyways.
But he skills are there often to cover for the fact that our characters can be smarter than We are. That said in the past (i havent Gmed ina while) i used to have playrs pre roll like 30x then just use those going down the list.
I like your idea though i just think it wouldnt work for everone.
We still keep the rolls in play, but start handing out lots more situational modifiers than we used to. We got tired of "we need to talk to someone, who has the most ranks in diplomacy?" being the norm. Sure, the paladin has a +24 to diplomacy, but he is completely out of his element in the wizard college (since he worships a god who doesn't really like arcane magic), so he's not going to be the guy to talk his way through stuff. The rogue or the wizard (both with Diplomacy modifiers closer to +10) are actually much better suited for it.
Opposed rolls we keep pretty much as is, but we send to apply heftier circumstance bonuses/penalties all around to reward character development and back stories over just straight build optimization. This keeps that little bit of random excitement in the game where the "sure thing" fails or that "one in a million" succeeds.
We also tend to use the "passive" skills from 4e, especially for Perception. Essentially, we assume that you "take 10" unless you have a good reason to not have done so.
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
"I search the room, I roll a 13."
Followed by 3 other people telling me what they rolled.
It totally breaks that versimili-whatever-word. And for other skills, looking up all the rules around them can be a real game killer. Sometimes finding something or knowing something shouldn't be left to chance.
I still have people spend their ranks, and take ranks spent into account when adjudicating things, but ultimately I try to avoid players making skill rolls now, and our games seem to flow a lot better and feel less clunky as a result. I just decide what they know or don't know. I determine if they find things based on where they look. If something is hidden under a pillow, they can find it by looking under the pillow, not by making a DC15 check or whatever. If they want to craft something, and they spent ranks on it, I'll just say yes or no. Some things like acrobatics still work well with dice rolls, but I much prefer DM fiat or a die roll made by me for things like spellcraft, appraise, etc.
Anyone else using this approach? If you hate looking up skills all the time and grinding your game to a halt playing by the book, give this a shot. It's worked well for our group.
The DM screen is great because it has a lot of stuff like that on the cover. That is the real reason I purchased one.
|
I have seen games that run like this, with quite high "realism", with stating where and how you are doing things. It can get quite tedious and frustrating. If my character has a very high search skill, he would think of better places than I would as a player, so the dice end up being a better tool. My character isn't me.
My girlfriend told me about a game she was in a long time back where when they wanted to pick a lock, the DM brought out this lock gizmo he made and you had to open it and he timed you. We got stats and skill ranks for a reason. we aren't LARPing. Our characters are figuring this stuff out.
If this works good for you, great! I just think it ends up putting a lot of pressure on the players own skills and not the character they generated.
If this works good for you, great! I just think it ends up putting a lot of pressure on the players own skills and not the character they generated.
+1
In the specific case of Perception for Searching (not spotting ambushes, or people following you in a city...), simply take a count of the PCs that are helping, and add a bonus to the one PC that is actually searching. Then, you roll the die in secret.
For the assistants, rememeber the Aid Another rule:
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
If you want to speed things up, assume the assistants take '10' and add those bonuses. If that is too 'gimme' (and it feels that way to me!) give a bonus of +1 if they beat a 15 taking 10, or +2 if they beat 20 when taking 10. Then again, that may be just as bulky. (and I am just thinking 'out loud')
We had this come up the other night. The DM is pretty new and he was having us roll our sense motive/perception rolls. I had suggested he roll but I don't think he heard me ;) Later, my bard rolled a *2* on Perception, so without even really thinking about it, I (the player) started getting rather cautious about the situation... Had the DM rolled (in secret) my reaction would have been different...
In any event, if the players and you are having fun, you *are* doing it right! :D
GNOME
Without rolls, it can go the other way:
Player: "I search the room."
DM: "How do you search the room?"
Player: "Um, I look at the walls."
DM: "You see the walls. They are made of brick."
Player: "I look at the bricks."
DM: "You see the bricks. They are red."
Player: "I want to knock out a brick to see behind the wall."
DM: "How are you going to do that?"
Player: "With tools?"
DM: "Yes, but how are you using the tools?"
Player: "Uh... chisel and stuff?"
DM: "What angle are you starting from?"
Player: "..."
"I search the room, I roll a 13."
Followed by 3 other people telling me what they rolled.
It totally breaks that versimili-whatever-word. And for other skills, looking up all the rules around them can be a real game killer. Sometimes finding something or knowing something shouldn't be left to chance.
I still have people spend their ranks, and take ranks spent into account when adjudicating things, but ultimately I try to avoid players making skill rolls now, and our games seem to flow a lot better and feel less clunky as a result. I just decide what they know or don't know. I determine if they find things based on where they look. If something is hidden under a pillow, they can find it by looking under the pillow, not by making a DC15 check or whatever. If they want to craft something, and they spent ranks on it, I'll just say yes or no. Some things like acrobatics still work well with dice rolls, but I much prefer DM fiat or a die roll made by me for things like spellcraft, appraise, etc.
Anyone else using this approach? If you hate looking up skills all the time and grinding your game to a halt playing by the book, give this a shot. It's worked well for our group.
I think the problem with this is the same reason the rules abstract some skills. Take your example with the pillow. The problem is the character isnt actually in the room. All they know is what you tell them and they certainly dont have the advantage of actually looking at the bed to realize the pillow is even there. So the only way the player can possibly think to look under the pillow is if you tell them about it, they need some detail that might make them think about the pillow in the first place.
But then if you only metion the pillow they will latch on to that imediately. So you need to make sure you mention lots of specific details, but still leave something special in your description of the pillow. Otherwise its either too easy, or simply wont happen. Thats alot of extra work on the part of the dm, and that kind of description will likely slow things down more then a few dice rolls.
Next, players shouldnt be as good at things as thier characters. If I am a bad liar, or not very observant as a person that doesnt mean I shouldn't be able to play a quick witted sharp eyed investigator bard. Skills provide that mechanical link between what I am capable of a person and what my character is. I dont think it is reasonable to expect a character who's concept is the eagle eyed investigator to think to look under the pillow any more then it is reasonable to expect the player playing the barbarian to be able to swing a great axe, or the player playing the wizard to be able to conjure fire.
In any event, if the players and you are having fun, you *are* doing it right! :D
This +1000, and don't any of yous forgets it!
I struggle a little bit with this myself. I love the "0e" mindset that it is the PLAYERS not the characters who do things. I think it can make for a really engaging style of play in the hands of a good GM. As others mentioned, it can go wrong, but that doesn't concern me and my game, so shrug.
But at the same time, my players and I are huge nerds for the game math, and skills make mechanical sense to us. We all put time and effort into making PCs that are mechanically capable of executing their concepts (even if they aren't usually optimized for combat) and we want to use that math.
Striking a balance involves 2 basic techniques: using skill math for arbitration, and dropping hints.
The first one, using skill math for arbitration, means I go to great lengths to take into account the PC's skills and then just go ahead and decide what they notice. In my own rules, this means that the PC's perception interacts with his general level of caution/speed (I have a table) and they notice everything without making rolls as long as the PC is perceptive and paying attention.
That's a lot of work to do to achieve the same result of simply deciding who sees what. But XP is the same way — math the GM does to make himself feel better. :)
Dropping hints is good. For social skills or search checks, allow players to roll but never tell them exactly what's up. For example, the item under the pillow example from upthread. If the player doesn't know where to look, he can search the GM description as suggested, or he can roll search — if he rolls well on search, he doesn't find the item, he finds evidence leading him to the bed. Maybe the sheets on the far sde of the bed are misaligned, as though disturbed and fixed by someone who doesn't make beds often. Whatever, you get the point...
Well, that's how I do it. I stand by hints as the ultimate happy medium, for those who want such a thing!
Anyone else using this approach? If you hate looking up skills all the time and grinding your game to a halt playing by the book, give this a shot. It's worked well for our group.
A more common variant on this is to roll all skill checks behind the GM screen. Then you can do exactly what you're talking about without even letting the players know you're doing it.
/shrug.
Guys in our game like to roll dice.
If something is hidden under a pillow, they can find it by looking under the pillow, not by making a DC15 check or whatever.
Why would they look under the pillow? Did you describe the room in EXACT detail? Still why would they look under the pillow?
That's what the skill check rolls are for to cover your average players not being professional investigators.
Every DM must read this. Three times.
Sure, if some one EXPLICITLY looks under the pillow instead of rolling, there is no way they won't find something sitting right there. But what about the dozens of other times they don't explicitly state they open to EXACTLY correct book from EXACTLY correct shelf and interact with it in an EXACT way such that they find the key hidden it? Congratulations, your "fixing" the game has derailed your plot. Use both skill rolls and "I look in this exact place and find this thing because I obviously looked there"
Interesting... I have only read it once... but I'll bookmark it for later. ;)
The point is that even if you throw out the book in favor of "I'm the best arbiter of how everything should work ever," you are still subject to one rule that cannot be changed - anything and everything you won't think of, the players will. A corollary is the players will rarely think of anything that you are thinking of.
Annoying NPC: "Speak 'friend' and enter.... How the hell are we ever going to get this door open?"
PC1: "I have a crowbar."
DM: "It has no visible hinges or pivot points."
PC2: "Use Knock."
DM: "It's impervious to knock."
PC1: "I hit it with the crowbar."
DM: "It resonates with the sound of metal on stone."
PC3: "Screw this, I'm going to go cross the mountains."
I sent the link to my co-GM to read... if he could have read it prior to him GMing the Skinsaw Murders he would have probably been a happier GM. :)
I would think that an ap should do a better job leading players along by the nose down the railroad without GM intervention.
Lots of good insight in this thread. I should also note a few things about my group. We've been playing together for a while, and have developed sort of a synergy which enables us to do some things like this where other groups may have difficulty. Trust isn't an issue, as they trust me to guide things along fairly, and I make it a point not to abuse that trust. And finally, when we made the adjustment from using mechanical dice rolls by the book for everything, it took a few sessions for everyone to get acclimated, and we experienced a few of the examples people have posted of things that can go wrong, but we've pretty much gotten it down to where things move along nicely and the game just feels less contrived.
I could definitely see this approach not working for PFS play, or with groups that don't know each other as well.
Lastly, I also want to make it clear that I am not trying to preach that my method is the "one true way" or anything like that. It is simply meant to share our experience with regard to ignoring the RAW and using something else with success, in the hopes of encouraging others who might be unsatisfied with certain parts of the rules to try something else.
Game on!
I would think that rolling vs the DM just telling people what their characters do and don't know or can and can't do are equally contrived.
I agree with the sentiment that if a house-rule makes your game more fun for you, that's great.
I also agree with everyone's "but..." sentiment.
I distinctly remember as a player being in a situation where my high-Int wizard encountered a riddle. Probably one of those "I am X, I am Y that has nothing to do with X, and I am Z which is the opposite of X and Y, what am I?" puzzles. I gave it a shot. Two or three minutes of thinking about it, I had zero traction. "I give up. Can I make an Int check?"
Think about it. Int 10 is supposed to be around IQ 100. I may or may not be slightly above (or even below) that personally. I'm definitely not at about 200 which an Int of 20 is roughly meant to represent. So. How's my wizard with Int 22 doing with this circumstance? I as a player am doing poorly. But I shouldn't have to be a super-genius wizard in real life any more than the barbarian's player needs to be on steroids.
The rules of this game exist to enable us as players and as DMs. They're not to restrict or shackle us. So do what works for you, but recognize that the skills rules exist for a reason and most people don't ignore them or house-rule them because we're happy.
Anyone else using this approach? If you hate looking up skills all the time and grinding your game to a halt playing by the book, give this a shot. It's worked well for our group.
No. Borderline, "hell no".
Generally speaking, GM Fiat sucks (& I'm the GM). It's often viewed as arbitrary when it's not, and in the past I found it too often slows the game as the players have to guess on the right description that equates to the "Yes, you succeed scenario".
I still encourage description, however, and will grant situation bonus or let common sense prevail. If a PC fails a Perception roll but says I look under the pillow, of course they find the item under the pillow.
As for slowing play & looking up rules, knowing the rules comes with the GM role. I'm not saying you need to know every detail cold, but you know which skills are most likely to come into play and you should be familiar with those. Yeah, it's a dry read at times but hardly any different from reading the Combat chapter or any other mechanics-heavy section. There's also nothing wrong with enlisting player assistance in learning/understanding rules or helping to look things up in-game.
To maintain the flow I have my players roll an array of D20, usually about 20 and record the results. They give that to me and I keep a list of their skills.
I also have listed their Take 10 and Take 20 results. So if take 10 or 20 applies I use it. If there is degree of chance I use the first result on the list of D20 rolls I got from my players and scratch that result off as used.
I did this because stopping to roll perception to notice the hidden creature alerts my players to something coming up. Yeah it's metagaming but if you start casting buffs and my players don't do that but it loses that sense of surprise.
No skill rolls... I'm having flashbacks... it's like the last quarter of a century hasn't happened...
;)
I use take 10 as the default for perception to allow players to get clues or other hints, or what is obvious to the character without having to describe every detail of a room or area. But also when they roll a dice to determine a skill check, they must describe what they are doing with that check. Some players get lazy and just rely on the dice roll, versus the roleplay. So you have to encourage them to act out their character when using skills. I also allow for skill substitutions (or multiple skills) to get to the same result. This takes a little more planning, but it allows more players to participate. It also makes them think about how to apply all their skills to a problem.
I distinctly remember as a player being in a situation where my high-Int wizard encountered a riddle. Probably one of those "I am X, I am Y that has nothing to do with X, and I am Z which is the opposite of X and Y, what am I?" puzzles. I gave it a shot. Two or three minutes of thinking about it, I had zero traction. "I give up. Can I make an Int check?"
To which I would say: yes, roll it up! You get one hint per 5 points over DC 20!
But that's just what I would do.
If something is hidden under a pillow, they can find it by looking under the pillow, not by making a DC15 check or whatever.Why would they look under the pillow? Did you describe the room in EXACT detail? Still why would they look under the pillow?
That's what the skill check rolls are for to cover your average players not being professional investigators.
Every DM must read this. Three times.
Sure, if some one EXPLICITLY looks under the pillow instead of rolling, there is no way they won't find something sitting right there. But what about the dozens of other times they don't explicitly state they open to EXACTLY correct book from EXACTLY correct shelf and interact with it in an EXACT way such that they find the key hidden it? Congratulations, your "fixing" the game has derailed your plot. Use both skill rolls and "I look in this exact place and find this thing because I obviously looked there"
That article is perfect! I'm a new GM and the Three Clue Rule would have salvaged some VERY frustrating sessions for me many, many times. I hate when I have to be told something so logical as that, but I'd rather be told than not know.
"I search the room, I roll a 13."
Followed by 3 other people telling me what they rolled.
It totally breaks that versimili-whatever-word. And for other skills, looking up all the rules around them can be a real game killer. Sometimes finding something or knowing something shouldn't be left to chance.
As mentioned above the taking 10 and 20 rules speed up skill checks.
As a GM you should encourage or assume the use of both take 10 and take 20.The perception description is very vague. This is one of the few times where a vague description helps you as GM. As a guide is does say:
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment.
You could tell your players that the pillow seems to bulge out more then usual. But they would have to have some concept of what usual is. If its a tiny object I would set the DC high.
Perception doesn't give you X-ray vision. Although theres no reason not to let players find something under a pillow if they spend enough time.
"I search the room, I roll a 13."
Followed by 3 other people telling me what they rolled.
It totally breaks that versimili-whatever-word. And for other skills, looking up all the rules around them can be a real game killer. Sometimes finding something or knowing something shouldn't be left to chance.
As mentioned above the taking 10 and 20 rules speed up skill checks.
As a GM you should encourage or assume the use of both take 10 and take 20.The perception description is very vague. This is one of the few times where a vague description helps you as GM. As a guide is does say:
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment.You could tell your players that the pillow seems to bulge out more then usual. But they would have to have some concept of what usual is. If its a tiny object I would set the DC high.
Perception doesn't give you X-ray vision. Although theres no reason not to let players find something under a pillow if they spend enough time.
If some one takes a 20, we can presume the least he could possibly do is turn over pillows.
Seems like by a certain level, this stuff is automatic. You have magic to help you find traps and magic and secret doors, and someone in the party should have enough of a bonus by mid-levels, they will find almost everything anyway.
If some one takes a 20, we can presume the least he could possibly do is turn over pillows.
your right.
Although theres no reason not to let players find something under a pillow if they spend enough time.
Seems like by a certain level, this stuff is automatic. You have magic to help you find traps and magic and secret doors, and someone in the party should have enough of a bonus by mid-levels, they will find almost everything anyway.
That's a common misconception.
I've never seen this happen. Spell slots are too precious a resource to waste on getting to point A to point B, at least in most modules or intense encounter sites. This is a situation where it looks like the game would behave one way, but in practice unless you have a lot of time and money for custom wands, you almost never see the caster replacing the rogue without making important sacrifices to their spell list.
Another approach is to be fluid with where you are going instead of how you get there.
Consider that your "mystery plot" (or any scenario really) is a problem (which it obviously is) -- you are the "manager" of the gaming group you play with as a GM -- you don't solve the problem: You give it to your "employees" (the player characters) to solve, then step back and let them solve it. All you have to do is make sure they don't break any rules on the way to the solution.
Instead of forcing the plot just put the world up, know your NPCs and let it run where it may.
If some one takes a 20, we can presume the least he could possibly do is turn over pillows.
Congratulations! So far you have the highest post count to useful contribution ratio in this thread!
If something is hidden under a pillow, they can find it by looking under the pillow, not by making a DC15 check or whatever.Why would they look under the pillow? Did you describe the room in EXACT detail? Still why would they look under the pillow?
That's what the skill check rolls are for to cover your average players not being professional investigators.
Every DM must read this. Three times.
Sure, if some one EXPLICITLY looks under the pillow instead of rolling, there is no way they won't find something sitting right there. But what about the dozens of other times they don't explicitly state they open to EXACTLY correct book from EXACTLY correct shelf and interact with it in an EXACT way such that they find the key hidden it? Congratulations, your "fixing" the game has derailed your plot. Use both skill rolls and "I look in this exact place and find this thing because I obviously looked there"
I ussually ignore most things you post but this is really good thanks
I ussually ignore most things you post but this is really good thanks
+1