One thing I've never been clear on. Should the GM roll for the players to notice or know about stuff? For example, the party enters a dungeon with unusual feature X that isn't immediately obvious. Should the GM roll a dungeoneering knowledge check secretly or should this only be rolled by the players who explicitly state "I want to use my dungeoneering skill to see what I know about X"? Or another example, players encounter some new kind of monster. Should I roll for them as GM to see what they may know about it already, or should I wait for them to inquire as to what they know and let them make the roll? In other words, should these kinds of checks generally be passive (secretly rolled by the GM) or active (only rolled when the players state they are using them)?
Of course, I know there are probably cases when one or the other is appropriate, but some general advice and guidelines would be greatly appreciated.
I am a fan or GM calling for rolls most of the time unless the GM needs the player not to know the end result. However the detail of Active vs Passive, The answer is that they can be both.
If a player has a suspicion about an area he may ask the GM if he can make a perception check for the area, If the GM thinks the players as a whole would have a chance to see something he can call for a Perception check.
If a GM is offering description of something & he player has a relevant knowledge skill, the player my ask the GM if he can make a Knowledge check, If the GM knows an Icon is a devil summoning icon & thinks the player should have a chance to notice it he can call for the players with the relevant knowledge skills to make a roll.
It is very much a matter of the players & the GM, some groups will play differently, but the skill can go either way.
Consider it like this:
If you roll for them, more work for you, less metagaming and more fun.
If they roll, less work for you, more metagaming and possibly less fun since players have hard time not to metagame.
It's not really fixed rule ,you rule whichever way you like.
Along the same lines, for Knowledge checks, particularly for monsters, if the players are responsible for asking to roll to id it, do they also have to guess which skill to use? If they haven't yet id'd the monster, how should they know which category it falls under?
@Malag good point. Especially considering that I'm GMing for a group of Russian kids for English practice that cheat with the dice like crazy. Best bet for me is to roll in secret as much as possible when they aren't watching.
flupwatson wrote:
Of course, I know there are probably cases when one or the other is appropriate, but some general advice and guidelines would be greatly appreciated.
A player should NOT have to constantly ask 'what do I see' in order to have their character open their eyes.
This is for a variety of reasons, but just picture the alternative for a minute and it should become clear.
The skills can have both active and passive uses. Consider perception as it is easier to view in this light (pun intended).
You have a passive roll to notice someone hiding, but need to make an active roll to search for traps. Certain things 'jump out' at you while others you need to carefully look for.. but keep in mind a person hiding falls into the former category and not the later when adjudicating which falls where.
As to matters of course, you can ask your players whether they prefer to roll at the time of the skill check, the DM to make such a roll secretly right then or the roll to be made ahead of time by either party.
If the rolls are done ahead of time you can give a more flowing description. Meanwhile having players roll dice makes them feel more involved, at least for some players. Meanwhile other players don't like the idea of making rolls that their character would not know that they were making as they don't want such distractions and temptations to meta-game.
See which your group prefers.
-James
thejeff wrote: Along the same lines, for Knowledge checks, particularly for monsters, if the players are responsible for asking to roll to id it, do they also have to guess which skill to use? If they haven't yet id'd the monster, how should they know which category it falls under? Well, Knowledge checks don't take any action by RAW, so players can ask for Knowledge checks before combat even starts and since they require no action they can literally spam and roll ALL of them, but this just stinks if you ask me.
Imagine the situation, a sudden troll attacks party. Troll didn't even get to take a first claw swipe and players are already yelling "its a troll! kill it with fire!" before their turn.
On topic, regarding rolls there is tons of ways to do this fast and clean, rolling dices before the game starts, make players roll their Perception/Sense Motive checks on random unimportant stuff to confuse them a bit for examples.
Malag wrote: thejeff wrote: Along the same lines, for Knowledge checks, particularly for monsters, if the players are responsible for asking to roll to id it, do they also have to guess which skill to use? If they haven't yet id'd the monster, how should they know which category it falls under? Well, Knowledge checks don't take any action by RAW, so players can ask for Knowledge checks before combat even starts and since they require no action they can literally spam and roll ALL of them, but this just stinks if you ask me.
Imagine the situation, a sudden troll attacks party. Troll didn't even get to take a first claw swipe and players are already yelling "its a troll! kill it with fire!" before their turn.
On topic, regarding rolls there is tons of ways to do this fast and clean. Well, if the troll gets surprise, they might be yelling, but still can't actually take any action before its attack.
If one knows it's a troll and how to hurt it, why shouldn't they be able to respond right away? Would it be okay if one of them had fought trolls before? Is it really any different if they've only studied them?
James is right. Asking for a perception roll when the character is passively perceiving is a quick way to start the meta-game mind to working.
As a GM you really have to gauge your players, and the situations on a case by case basis (this is true for both knowledge and perception checks). Some players are very good about separating what their character knows or sees, from what the player knows or sees. Others are not, and in those cases having their skill bonuses handy is important so you can make those rolls for them. In order to facilitate that, I've been using Kyle Olson's Combat Manager for a long time now. It has all the pertinent character and monster information in a very handy viewer, so it's easy to make those passive rolls without the players knowing what's happening. If you don't have a laptop at the table, there are other pen and paper tools that do much the same thing.
I like passive perception rolls as a take-10. Adventurers in a dungeon (etc) are going to be taking ordinary care, looking around as they explore.
I don't object at all to a DM saying "The door creaks inward, revealing a vaulted hall. You appear to be centered at the foot of the hall, which appears to be about 50' wide and 100' long. Smoke-stained oak beams support a ceiling that reaches about 50' in the center. Fizziwithinigrath and Derobas, you notice there are a lot of bats roosting on these beams" [i.e. the named PCs have enough perception on take-10 to see the bats, the others do not.]
It's on the PC's to point out the bats, that can normally be handled by one of them saying IC "Guys, I see several bats on the rafters" OOC "GM, how many?"
If taking 10 doesn't see the bats, then the party doesn't know about the bats until someone says they scan the ceiling, likely after the DM continues the description including the guano on the floor if not before.
Passive = Spot
Active = Search
thejeff wrote:
Well, if the troll gets surprise, they might be yelling, but still can't actually take any action before its attack.
If one knows it's a troll and how to hurt it, why shouldn't they be able to respond right away? Would it be okay if one of them had fought trolls before? Is it really any different if they've only studied them?
Which I agree totally but it just stinks when in heap of moment they tend to roll knowledge checks and yell about it before their turn which they can. If anything is more fun, then it's GM monster which PCs don't have a clue about!
Chobemaster wrote: I like passive perception rolls as a take-10. Adventurers in a dungeon (etc) are going to be taking ordinary care, looking around as they explore.
I don't object at all to a DM saying "The door creaks inward, revealing a vaulted hall. You appear to be centered at the foot of the hall, which appears to be about 50' wide and 100' long. Smoke-stained oak beams support a ceiling that reaches about 50' in the center. Fizziwithinigrath and Derobas, you notice there are a lot of bats roosting on these beams" [i.e. the named PCs have enough perception on take-10 to see the bats, the others do not.]
It's on the PC's to point out the bats, that can normally be handled by one of them saying IC "Guys, I see several bats on the rafters" OOC "GM, how many?"
If taking 10 doesn't see the bats, then the party doesn't know about the bats until someone says they scan the ceiling, likely after the DM continues the description including the guano on the floor if not before.
I also like take 10 rule regarding passive Perception checks. It really simplifies things.
Malag wrote: thejeff wrote:
Well, if the troll gets surprise, they might be yelling, but still can't actually take any action before its attack.
If one knows it's a troll and how to hurt it, why shouldn't they be able to respond right away? Would it be okay if one of them had fought trolls before? Is it really any different if they've only studied them?
Which I agree totally but it just stinks when in heap of moment they tend to roll knowledge checks and yell about it before their turn which they can. If anything is more fun, then it's GM monster which PCs don't have a clue about! The problem is, it's not a monster the PCs don't have a clue about. The PCs recognize it. They invested in skills specifically to know about it.
Zootcat wrote: Passive = Spot
Active = Search
That's 3.5
thejeff wrote: Malag wrote: thejeff wrote:
Well, if the troll gets surprise, they might be yelling, but still can't actually take any action before its attack.
If one knows it's a troll and how to hurt it, why shouldn't they be able to respond right away? Would it be okay if one of them had fought trolls before? Is it really any different if they've only studied them?
Which I agree totally but it just stinks when in heap of moment they tend to roll knowledge checks and yell about it before their turn which they can. If anything is more fun, then it's GM monster which PCs don't have a clue about! The problem is, it's not a monster the PCs don't have a clue about. The PCs recognize it. They invested in skills specifically to know about it.
Exactly. Either the PC or PCs have, or have not, heard of a Troll.
If the DM wants an unusual monster, use one. Put negative modifiers on their checks..."oh, this is a Barn Troll, you can tell the difference by its straw-like hair, that's much less common, good thing you've got Daeron the Magnificent, Bard extraordinare, here to help you, my fine fellows."
Or rule that it's completely unique, it's never existed before, and therefore, the DC is infinite. That should be a very limited situation in a "standard" campaign. "Good fellows, I've never heard tell of a Troll comprised of what appears to be tapioca pudding before."
thejeff wrote: Malag wrote: thejeff wrote:
Well, if the troll gets surprise, they might be yelling, but still can't actually take any action before its attack.
If one knows it's a troll and how to hurt it, why shouldn't they be able to respond right away? Would it be okay if one of them had fought trolls before? Is it really any different if they've only studied them?
Which I agree totally but it just stinks when in heap of moment they tend to roll knowledge checks and yell about it before their turn which they can. If anything is more fun, then it's GM monster which PCs don't have a clue about! The problem is, it's not a monster the PCs don't have a clue about. The PCs recognize it. They invested in skills specifically to know about it.
Yeah I know. I just wanna keep those knowledge checks at bay in surprise rounds.
Malag wrote:
The problem is, it's not a monster the PCs don't have a clue about. The PCs recognize it. They invested in skills specifically to know about it.
Yeah I know. I just wanna keep those knowledge checks at bay in surprise rounds. Why? Whether or not they know to use fire, if they are surprised, they don't GET to use fire.
I would call it fair that in a true "ambush" situation, where the 1st hint of the presence of the troll is someone eating a claw/claw/bite/rend, that the knowledge check itself shouldn't be rolled, yet. The PC's haven't seen what it is.
If it's important to you that they have not adequately observed or processed what they have observed during a surprise round, don't allow the check (or more accurately, don't tell them the outcome of the check) until the end of the surprise round.
I would NOT get hung up on making them wait until it is "their turn" to throw the knowledge check. They aren't consulting the adventurer's guide to monsters flipping pages(presumably). Once they see what it is, they know (or still don't know) what it is. PC's don't have their eyes actually CLOSED until they are un-flat-footed.
@Chobemaster
Good point man. You just gave me some fantastic ideas. Thanks a bunch!
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
