
![]() ![]() ![]() |

It's not even that -- it's that it's not really a legal die. It's just a twenty sided surface with numbers on it, ranging from 1-20. There's no assumption that the surfaces are the same size, or anything like that. At least with "random" twenty sided dice (normal d20s) we can assume that they're designed for rolling and generating a random number. Spindowns are not.
If I show up with a rock and paint some numbers on the side I can't roll it and expect people not to give me flak. Even if my rock has 20 sides and 20 numbers.
Really, Walter? Just looking at a spindown shows that it's the same polyhedron. You'd have to get some pretty precise measurement tools to show any real difference between a spindown and a typical d20. And if you have to go looking for the difference, can you really say it matters?

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

It's not even that -- it's that it's not really a legal die. It's just a twenty sided surface with numbers on it, ranging from 1-20. There's no assumption that the surfaces are the same size, or anything like that. At least with "random" twenty sided dice (normal d20s) we can assume that they're designed for rolling and generating a random number. Spindowns are not.
If I show up with a rock and paint some numbers on the side I can't roll it and expect people not to give me flak. Even if my rock has 20 sides and 20 numbers.
http://www.amazon.com/Jumbo-Dice-Count-Down-55mm/dp/B001F2ZL24/ref=pd_sim_t _2
That's what I have...
Also, how do you know it's not weighted appropriately? I see nothing from the manufacturer on the subject...

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

WalterGM wrote:Really, Walter? Just looking at a spindown shows that it's the same polyhedron. You'd have to get some pretty precise measurement tools to show any real difference between a spindown and a typical d20. And if you have to go looking for the difference, can you really say it matters?It's not even that -- it's that it's not really a legal die. It's just a twenty sided surface with numbers on it, ranging from 1-20. There's no assumption that the surfaces are the same size, or anything like that. At least with "random" twenty sided dice (normal d20s) we can assume that they're designed for rolling and generating a random number. Spindowns are not.
If I show up with a rock and paint some numbers on the side I can't roll it and expect people not to give me flak. Even if my rock has 20 sides and 20 numbers.
Honestly I don't care one way or the other, I'm just presenting the case for the anti-spindown. Personally, I don't use my spindowns for rolls, nor do my players (even though we game during wednesday night magic at the FLGS).
If you want to use a spindown at my table, that's fine. I actually find they roll worse than normal dice.
http://www.amazon.com/Jumbo-Dice-Count-Down-55mm/dp/B001F2ZL24/ref=pd_sim_t _2That's what I have...
Also, how do you know it's not weighted appropriately? I see nothing from the manufacturer on the subject...
I don't know if it's weighted appropriately or not. I assume the dice made for d20 systems are weighted. I don't assume that the ones used for counting are. That was my argument.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I'm hoping that I am not the only one.... But, I can't imagine that I am.
I don't worry about what rolls best, or about all the other superstitious stuff, I just find a set that thematically and aesthetically matches the character. I it's a necromancer, I get a set that looks like gravestone. If it's a noble, I get some in a beautiful, swirly royal purple. If its a commoner, a plain, lackluster brown. If it's an elven Bladsinger, I find something that is artsy and beautiful, perhaps green, and maybe with fancy numbers on it. ...
And they each get a small bag of their own to carry to the game: commoner gets plain leather, noble gets black velvet, necromancer gets a linen burial shroud, the Bladsinger gets a nice soft suede that matches the colour of the dice.
... And the general purpose extra dice that I bring along get the classic Crown Royal bag! ;)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

How about this?
Dice are a randomizer, nothing more. If you have d20s that you think generate numbers significantly off from the expected 5% for each value, whether that's in your favor or not, then don't use them.
If you're not sure, see this handy on-line calculator: Chi Squared
(Note: you'll want to roll about 400 data for accurate analysis.)

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Yea, I'm not sure why there have to be 16 rules including subsections about how to roll dice. Is there really such a large problem with people doign shifty things with their roles that you need to become some sort of Dice Tyrant?
I've been playing RPG's for 30 years. In that time I've met and played with hundreds of other gamers from ages 8-65. In all that time I have found exactly 1 other person that didn't fudge die rolls as a player. Oddly enough he's the guy with the reputation as the worst die roller ever, until I joined the group.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I've seen it all. From all the contraptions to catch your dice, to the shakers, to all the different weird dice (looking at you Slanky and your blinking d20 that saved your life..). I've also GM'd for every type of dice cheater out there. Here's two things to remember:
1. We're all different. It's only 4-5 hours (or 2 at Thea's table). If you can't ignore someone's weird dice rolling habits for that long, you shouldn't be playing in an organized campaign.* I agree with a lot of the OP's feelings, but just ignore them as much as I can.
2. Cheaters will cheat. If you can't catch a cheater, it's likely because their cheating isn't really affecting the enjoyment of the table and really, that's what's important. If their cheating is causing a disruption at the table, I will do my best to let them know that I know what's going on w/o directly calling them out and embarrassing them in front of the table. If they aren't able to catch those not so subtle hints, they'll definitely catch it after they need a raise dead.
*Obviously if they're doing something that directly impacts your space or ability to play the way YOU want to play, then say something. Ask nicely. Most people are reasonable enough to slide their stuff out of the way or put away some dice.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Jiggy wrote:WalterGM wrote:I just roll my PCs perception vs. traps and their stealth, informing them that I'll be doing so at the start of the game.Why? The entirety of the Pathfinder Core Rules is written with the knowledge that the players see their rolls. This is even more evident by the fact that a handful of specific circumstances specify that the GM rolls it in secret instead.
Also keep in mind that the PC searching for traps is allowed to take 10 or even take 20, in which case they'll always know their result. So what exactly are you after with this idea?
Because if you take 10 or 20 next to proximity traps, you have a chance of setting them off? I mean, they can take 10 or 20 if they'd like, but such checks are the assumption that the PC is rolling the gambit of numbers, from 1-20, which is why you can't take 20 on things like UMD.
Also, I make the rolls for these two checks because, as a player, if I knew how well I did while searching for traps or stealthing, I would be tempted to use that knowledge to metagame the situation. "Oh, I got a 13 looking for traps. The door seems safe, but I'm still going to tie a rope to the handle and open it from around a corner."
EDIT: I also make perception checks for players when they are not actively using the skill, as I feel they have a "passive perception" to just generally notice things.
EDIT 2: Also, in the vein of metagaming. If I have creature waiting in ambush and the PCs walk in, and I ask them to make perception checks and none of them succeed, and I tell them "there's nothing here actually." They, as players, know that there is. Thus, making it harder to play their characters rather than play the OOC knowledge.
Try this: If it's a trap heavy or perception heavy scenario, have them roll TEN perception checks at the start of the scenario. Then when tell them when they get to an area that would require a perception check, you'll use one of their checks randomly. This way the player gets to be responsible for the rolls, but they don't get to control when it all happens.
I do this for will saves and sense motive checks depending on the table/scenario. Also, I collect their perception modifier and assume they're always taking a 10 if they're cautiously exploring an area...

![]() ![]() ![]() |

That all seems like so much work. Why not just let them walk into the trap if they don't search, ask for checks when they might notice something, and then only have to do anything else if someone tries to metagame? If they don't metagame, then you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. If they do metagame, then you get to address that directly instead of indirectly and you've still only had to do as much legwork as if you'd preempted it. I guess I just don't see the practical benefit of these creative anti-metagaming precautions.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

That all seems like so much work. Why not just let them walk into the trap if they don't search, ask for checks when they might notice something, and then only have to do anything else if someone tries to metagame? If they don't metagame, then you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. If they do metagame, then you get to address that directly instead of indirectly and you've still only had to do as much legwork as if you'd preempted it. I guess I just don't see the practical benefit of these creative anti-metagaming precautions.
It's not just about metagaming. Having those rolls prerolled saves time during interesting parts of the scenario. I use index cards to track initiative, so I ask players to include all those rolls right on their cards. (I find it funny how when I ask for 3 will saves, the first two are almost always better than the third..)
If a player asks if they can actively search an area or make a perception check, then often we roll as normal. This is simply a way to blend in GM secretive rolling w/o actually taking the rolling away from the players.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

I use index cards to track initiative, so I ask players to include all those rolls right on their cards. (I find it funny how when I ask for 3 will saves, the first two are almost always better than the third..)
GM: "Alright, now everyone write down 3 will saves."
*sounds of scribbling*
Player A: "Um, I'm using my shirt re-roll on this second one, okay?"

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Real world test update:
At last night's game I informed my players that I'd like them to make all of their rolls etc, for perception v traps, stealth, and everything was great. At the same time, not five feet from me, a player got into an argument with one of my GMs, railing something along the lines of "give me dice liberty or give me death." I calmed them, and the GM agreed to let the players make their rolls.
Problem solved.
Until about ten minutes later, when I noticed they were at it again, but this time it was the whole table of players up in arms. It seems that the rogue had rolled abysmally on their perception checks versus traps, and as a result, the entire party wanted to each make their own perception check on the door. Just to be safe, of course. Also, this was something that they had never done before. To be fair, the original complainer was fine with just opening the door, damning the consequences, because he could play IC.
The GM called shenanigans, and the argument Jiggy and I had been having in this thread occurred over the span of the next ten minutes. Wasting 10 minutes of your time slot in argument isn't a healthy way to enjoy a hobby.
Some players can handle the separation of OOC and IC knowledge (my table did), but some, clearly can't. Making the players roll at the start might fix this, but I can imagine players saying "wait! which number did you use? how did the others get used first? I wouldn't have rolled for that!!"
Is there a better solution?

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Is there a better solution?
Before identifying solutions, let's be clear on the problems:
#1 - There was an argument over whether Player X could roll his own dice.
#2 - There was an argument over metagaming-fueled perception checks.
---------------
For #1, it seems to be a simple issue of a disagreement that escalated when it shouldn't have. If it was a simple matter of whether a check was rolled by the GM or the player, then it should have been easy enough to resolve. Either the check is something that the rules specify the GM should roll in secret, or it's something the player gets to make if they want. If the GM tried to roll it and the player's first response was his tirade, then the solution is for that player to grow up or get booted. If the GM tried to roll and the player's initial response was "I want to roll that myself", and the GM insisted and then the tirade started, then the GM needs to resolve some control issues of his own if he wants to continue GMing.
So #1 is a matter of one or both parties just needing to grow up a little.
For #2, it's a little more dicey. See what I did there? Sounds like the players were indeed trying to metagame. After that, though, I suspect the ten-minute argument was primarily the result of a communication breakdown and/or poor conflict resolution skills (on the part of any or all of the players, and the GM). Here's why:
In my experience, someone will sometimes start to do something based on OOC knowledge, then either catch themselves or get nudged by someone else with a "does your character know that?" and then they say "Yeah, I guess I'd actually do X".
In this situation, everyone is probably already strained a bit from the first incident. The GM might be on-edge from feeling like that first player was trying to get away with something, or the whole table might be on guard from an impression that the GM was power-tripping or being a control freak. Or both of those might be happening. With those mindsets at the table, I have to wonder how exactly it went down:
It should/could have started with the rogue rolling poorly, then someone announces an intent to check, to which the GM simply asks "Why?". In my experience, this is often enough to remind the player to play in-character and not search. Or it might continue with the player responding "Because she probably failed" and the GM says "Does your character know that?". At that point, you're usually done. If the player continues to insist without a justification, you move on to a verbal warning against metagaming, and start down the road of disciplinary action.
But if everyone's already defensive, then you might instead have had something like:
Player: "I search too."
GM: "You can't do that!"
Player: "Why not?!?" <--- Immediately defensive, assuming from the intense response that the GM is trying to power trip again.
GM: "So-and-so already searched!" Fails to stay calm, fails to mention the metagaming concern, might come across as "I only allow one check per trap because I want to blast you all" to a threatened player. And it all goes downhill from here, with no one knowing the real reason the other person is so upset, each thinking the other is trying to cheat.
So for problem #2, we're probably mostly looking at a situation being handled poorly in regard to interpersonal skills as opposed to anything to do with the dice. They all think they're arguing about the dice, but really they're all arguing about being threatened by the other party. As some of my psychology professors and books would say, "The issue is never the issue."
So that's my theory on your experience, Walter. Sorry for the wall of text. :P

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

[
Before identifying solutions, let's be clear on the problems:#1 - There was an argument over whether Player X could roll his own dice.
Again, I wasn't privy to the beginning of the argument. And I am not about to throw one of my GMs under the forum-bus without hearing his side of things.
For #1, it seems to be a simple issue of a disagreement that escalated when it shouldn't have. If it was a simple matter of whether a check was rolled by the GM or the player, then it should have been easy enough to resolve. Either the check is something that the rules specify the GM should roll in secret, or it's something the player gets to make if they want. If the GM tried to roll it and the player's first response was his tirade, then the solution is for that player to grow up or get booted. If the GM tried to roll and the player's initial response was "I want to roll that myself", and the GM insisted and then the tirade started, then the GM needs to resolve some control issues of his own if he wants to continue GMing.
Given the people involved, I'd bet good money that it was a player started issue. The GM is a very reasonable dude and from what I saw was basically only defending himself from a verbal assault in the first argument.
#2 - There was an argument over metagaming-fueled perception checks.
Correct.
For #2, it's a little more dicey. See what I did there? Sounds like the players were indeed trying to metagame. After that, though, I suspect the ten-minute argument was primarily the result of a communication breakdown and/or poor conflict resolution skills (on the part of any or all of the players, and the GM). Here's why:In my experience, someone will sometimes start to do something based on OOC knowledge, then either catch themselves or get nudged by someone else with a "does your character know that?" and then they say "Yeah, I guess I'd actually do X".
In this situation, everyone is probably already strained a bit from the first incident. The GM might be on-edge from feeling like that first player was trying to get away with something, or the whole table might be on guard from an impression that the GM was power-tripping or being a control freak. Or both of those might be happening. With those mindsets at the table, I have to wonder how exactly it went down
From what I gathered, it went down as follows.
1. The rogue rolls like a 3 to detect traps.2. The rogue proceeds to open the door.
3. EVERY other player aside from the rogue and the initial arguer reacts to the low roll, attempting to make their own checks or moving away (like 100 feet away).
4. The initial arguer begins to argue with them, explaining about IC and OOC knowledge.
5. This continues for a bit before the GM finally breaks it up.
The players were "monitoring" each other but doing it with a bit of "forceful" dialogue. I'm not kidding when I say that my table had to stop playing because it was so loud.
-------------------
In addition to my question over "is there a better way?" I'd like to remind y'all of my defense of "why some rolls should be secret." Because it prevents arguments like #2 from occurring. It was, honestly, the most negatively animated I have ever seen a table of players in PFS.
That shouldn't happen.
Is the issue never the issue? I dunno. But argument #2 would have been hard pressed to occur at a table where they didn't know they rolled a 3 on a trap-checking check.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

In addition to my question over "is there a better way?" I'd like to remind y'all of my defense of "why some rolls should be secret." Because it prevents arguments like #2 from occurring. It was, honestly, the most negatively animated I have ever seen a table of players in PFS.
That shouldn't happen.
Is the issue never the issue? I dunno. But argument #2 would have been hard pressed to occur at a table where they didn't know they rolled a 3 on a trap-checking check.
I guess to me this feels like treating the symptom instead of the disease. Instead of teaching players not to metagame, you're taking away one of their opportunities. But the players remain unchanged, and sooner or later there will be a different symptom you'll have to address that wouldn't have come up if the metagaming had been corrected in the first place.
In my opinion, it's better to teach a kid not to run with sticks than to just try and remove all the sticks. But I suppose that is indeed just opinion, so if stick removal is your cup of tea, then have at it. :)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

My general response to all perception checks to look for traps, all rolls for disable device....
I don't think the players can deduce failure or success from this response; and if they failed they'll know it when they get blasted with the trap effect.
You feel like you have found all the traps on this door
You feel like you have disabled all traps on this door

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

My general response to all perception checks to look for traps, all rolls for disable device....
I don't think the players can deduce failure or success from this response; and if they failed they'll know it when they get blasted with the trap effect.
You feel like you have found all the traps on this door
You feel like you have disabled all traps on this door
I do that too.
First, let me say that I am learning a great number of tips, tricks, and new ways of looking at things because of this thread, thank you.
Re: Dice rolls and the metagame. Can't the GM disallow an action based on metagaming, or is that seen as too confrontational?
Rogue player: I search for traps *rolls a 1*
GM: Well you don't see any traps.
Fighter player: Oh crap *reaches for pencil to mark down damage*
Cleric player: *checks to see if he has any potions of CLW left.*
Wizard player: I want to search!
GM: Ok, why do you want to search this one time, when you've not searched along with the rogue any other time?
Wizard player: Um..... Because I have a bad feeling about this?

![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:My general response to all perception checks to look for traps, all rolls for disable device....
I don't think the players can deduce failure or success from this response; and if they failed they'll know it when they get blasted with the trap effect.
You feel like you have found all the traps on this door
You feel like you have disabled all traps on this door
I do that too.
First, let me say that I am learning a great number of tips, tricks, and new ways of looking at things because of this thread, thank you.
Re: Dice rolls and the metagame. Can't the GM disallow an action based on metagaming, or is that seen as too confrontational?
Rogue player: I search for traps *rolls a 1*
GM: Well you don't see any traps.
Fighter player: Oh crap *reaches for pencil to mark down damage*
Cleric player: *checks to see if he has any potions of CLW left.*
Wizard player: I want to search!
GM: Ok, why do you want to search this one time, when you've not searched along with the rogue any other time?
Wizard player: Um..... Because I have a bad feeling about this?
I think it's completely appropriate for a GM to disallow an action that is clearly metagaming, though I think it should be handled in a way that encourages the player to come to that conclusion himself (such as with the dialogue you suggested). Remember that the Guide to PFSOP has some things to say about metagame knowledge.
I think usually a player metagames reflexively without really realizing it. A friendly, non-accusatory reminder is usually enough to get them to change their minds. If the player refuses to acknowlege that the action they want to take is metagaming, it's appropriate to disallow the action. If the player wants to start a fight at that point, then it's time for disciplinary procedures, starting with a verbal warning. But I can't imagine it coming to that very often.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

As long as we're going completely off topic...
I have a hard time getting too worked up over dice or dice cheating. Yeah, I too believe that 'cheaters gunna cheat', however, the truth is that the 'randomness' of the dice has a much smaller effect on the success/failure of a scenario than people think.
It may seem otherwise, of course...especially when the final outcome comes down to that 'one' die roll where everyone is watching and holding their breath (and how often is cheating going to happen when that's happening?)
You see, the big picture is that *all* of the following are equal to or MORE important deciders of the overall success/failure for the party:
- The Judge (his prep time, his knowledge of encounters/effects)
- Your judge's mood, temperament, and level of sleep
- The skill of your fellow players
- The composition of the Party
- The average level of the Party vs. tier
- Gear and magical item composition and preparation
- # players in Party
- Good/bad luck, aka the Dice Gods
- The author's skill in building balanced encounters
- ... (about a million other factors)
In the end, it's just not worth worrying about 'luck'. It's a small part of a huge complicated system. However, I know it's fun to pretend otherwise. But in reality, most scenarios succeed/fail based on other factors.
Player#1: "Oh, my total to hit is 19!"
GM: "Sorry that misses, you were so close." It's AC is 20.
Player#1: "Oh, if *only* I was more lucky. Stupid dice!"
GM: "Yeah, it's your 'dice'." Well, I've mentioned to you twice about the benefits of stepping into flank...*shrug*
Player#2: "OMG, we're dying to this swarm! Just like last mod."
GM: "Yep, lots of swarms in PFS scenarios."
Player#2: "I guess I should have found a solution before starting his mod."
GM: Duh.
-Pain

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WalterGM wrote:Jiggy wrote:Because they're spindown counters and not weighted or marked for randomness.Dawn Reed-Burton wrote:I have had to add; you can not use the count down die from Magic the Gathering game for your d20.How come?In other words, with all of the high numbers on one side of the die, a spindown die, in theory, makes it easier for a devoted die-cheat to achieve higher results more often.
(I only say "in theory" because I've read this many times, but never seen it attempted in practice.)
If you're at GenCon, my wife will be working HQ many slots; I'll make sure she has a spindown with her so that she can do the demo of just how easy it is to call the rolls. She or you can call high/low and get the desired quartile (1-5 or 16-20) at a statistically significant rate...
Bottom line, no spindowns on my tables because they are too far from a reasonable definition of a fair die.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

If you're at GenCon, my wife will be working HQ many slots; I'll make sure she has a spindown with her so that she can do the demo of just how easy it is to call the rolls. She or you can call high/low and get the desired quartile (1-5 or 16-20) at a statistically significant rate...
I won't be at GenCon (that kind of travel is waaaaay out of my budget), but I'll respond anyway:
I find it a little funny how people keep saying you can call it, but no one ever responds to the "d4's are even easier" statement. Do you do demonstrations on those, too? Do you think cheaters only bother with d20's? Do you think the d20 somehow entices someone to cheat more than the d4 does? What exactly is the difference such that people go around crusading against spindown d20's to the point of doing demonstrations, yet no one bats an eye at how easy it would be to do the same thing with a d4?
Bottom line, no spindowns on my tables because they are too far from a reasonable definition of a fair die.
Fortunately, I always bring about 5 different d20's, only 2 of which are spindowns, so I'm ready to switch if a GM who isn't The Internet wants me to. I see no problems with my spindowns, but I see no problems with other d20's either and am happy to accommodate my GM's preferences in that regard. :)

![]() |

Im definitely opposed to GMs rolling my checks for me. I understand why they want to. But then again, I can differentiate IC and OOC knowledge.
Jiggy brought up a good point about the shirt rerolls. The rerolls are there for a reason, and thinking well this 8 I just rolled might be a failure I should probably reroll that . . . unless that is my perception roll on traps and I know with an 8 I still have a 20, which is fine.
If a GM wants to use cards in a manner similar to Walters, he better tell me that I failed and allow me the option of using my reroll in that particular situation.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

What exactly is the difference such that people go around crusading against spindown d20's to the point of doing demonstrations, yet no one bats an eye at how easy it would be to do the same thing with a d4?
Because maxing the roll on a D4 isn't a critical threat. The payback for increasing the chance of 20s (not to mention 19s, 18s, ...) is a lot more than just another point or two of damage.

![]() |

Jiggy wrote:What exactly is the difference such that people go around crusading against spindown d20's to the point of doing demonstrations, yet no one bats an eye at how easy it would be to do the same thing with a d4?Because maxing the roll on a D4 isn't a critical threat. The payback for increasing the chance of 20s (not to mention 19s, 18s, ...) is a lot more than just another point or two of damage.
Exactly...virtually every player uses a d20, frequently, during a game (for attacks, for saves, for skill checks), and the results of those d20 rolls usually determine the absolute success or failure of the action. OTOH, many PCs don't ever require using a d4 -- and, even if you do, the difference between a "1" and a "4" may not be as important.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

JohnF wrote:Exactly...virtually every player uses a d20, frequently, during a game (for attacks, for saves, for skill checks), and the results of those d20 rolls usually determine the absolute success or failure of the action. OTOH, many PCs don't ever require using a d4 -- and, even if you do, the difference between a "1" and a "4" may not be as important.Jiggy wrote:What exactly is the difference such that people go around crusading against spindown d20's to the point of doing demonstrations, yet no one bats an eye at how easy it would be to do the same thing with a d4?Because maxing the roll on a D4 isn't a critical threat. The payback for increasing the chance of 20s (not to mention 19s, 18s, ...) is a lot more than just another point or two of damage.
*heads off to build a falchion fighter*

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Seriously though, I'm glad someone finally answered that question.
Even so, calling the spindown roll still requires active cheating. Banning spindowns fails to address that, leaving the cheaters undetected and unaddressed while players like me who don't cheat also don't get to use their favorite dice.
Once again, I'd prefer to teach kids not to run with sticks rather than try to remove all the sticks from the yard.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Mike Mistele wrote:*heads off to build a falchion fighter*JohnF wrote:Exactly...virtually every player uses a d20, frequently, during a game (for attacks, for saves, for skill checks), and the results of those d20 rolls usually determine the absolute success or failure of the action. OTOH, many PCs don't ever require using a d4 -- and, even if you do, the difference between a "1" and a "4" may not be as important.Jiggy wrote:What exactly is the difference such that people go around crusading against spindown d20's to the point of doing demonstrations, yet no one bats an eye at how easy it would be to do the same thing with a d4?Because maxing the roll on a D4 isn't a critical threat. The payback for increasing the chance of 20s (not to mention 19s, 18s, ...) is a lot more than just another point or two of damage.
You and I both know the 2d4 doesn't matter, it's the +327 that counts :P
(see thog here)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Seriously though, I'm glad someone finally answered that question.
Even so, calling the spindown roll still requires active cheating. Banning spindowns fails to address that, leaving the cheaters undetected and unaddressed while players like me who don't cheat also don't get to use their favorite dice.
Once again, I'd prefer to teach kids not to run with sticks rather than try to remove all the sticks from the yard.
And while we're teaching them about safety how many will get their eyes poked out?
It's a split school of thought, one that's got support for both sides. The core of the issue has been stated through and through - table variation. You understand OOC v IC, others don't. Do we remove the risk to streamline the process, or do we hold their hands and show them the way? In a perfect world, where games never went over and people only needed to be reminded of things once, we could do it "the right way" with everyone being amazing players, immersing themselves in character and never asking "what was our mission again?" Realistically, unfortunately, that isn't ever going to happen. So we're going to have to make some sacrifices. Is this one people are willing to make? It appears the answer is no (which is fine) and lets leave it at that.
Where's Bob? YMMV? :P

![]() ![]() ![]() |

And while we're teaching them about safety how many will get their eyes poked out?
That sounds like an awesome T-shirt to wear to an interview to a daycare job. :D
So we're going to have to make some sacrifices. Is this one people are willing to make?
True, but that doesn't mean I can't bring up my view each time someone else brings up the opposite view. ;) Also, you never know when someone might hold an acceptable stance for an unacceptable reason, so I like to poke people's pillars to see if they wobble. Positions worth keeping will withstand a poke or two.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Jiggy wrote:Before identifying solutions, let's be clear on the problems:
#1 - There was an argument over whether Player X could roll his own dice.Again, I wasn't privy to the beginning of the argument. And I am not about to throw one of my GMs under the forum-bus without hearing his side of things.
Quote:For #1, it seems to be a simple issue of a disagreement that escalated when it shouldn't have. If it was a simple matter of whether a check was rolled by the GM or the player, then it should have been easy enough to resolve. Either the check is something that the rules specify the GM should roll in secret, or it's something the player gets to make if they want. If the GM tried to roll it and the player's first response was his tirade, then the solution is for that player to grow up or get booted. If the GM tried to roll and the player's initial response was "I want to roll that myself", and the GM insisted and then the tirade started, then the GM needs to resolve some control issues of his own if he wants to continue GMing.Given the people involved, I'd bet good money that it was a player started issue. The GM is a very reasonable dude and from what I saw was basically only defending himself from a verbal assault in the first argument.
Quote:Correct.
#2 - There was an argument over metagaming-fueled perception checks.
I am the GM in question above.
Six players at the table. A person declares they would like to check for traps on the door. No one says they are joining in and began setting up actions, refreshing spells, and completing faction missions. The person rolled a three, w/ modifiers was a twelve. I declare that they do not see any traps and that they believe the door is safe. Four other players immediately say they would like to make a Perception check on the door after I tell the person the result. I deny them the opportunity.
In my mind that is a pretty clear cut case of meta gaming. As Walter has said I am a pretty relaxed guy and I always try to listen to people as long as they present a logical argument.
A person at the table, who was the original guy that did not want others to roll his checks, presented the logic that as a rogue/ninja they would be more likely to know when something is trapped then the other people and that the party would rely on the rogue/ninja to make those types of checks. Clearly he separated his OOC from IC knowledge quite well. It escalated from that point into bickering against me and the guy presenting the argument of OOCvsIC until Walter stepped in.
I am not innocent of meta gaming I don't think anyone who has ever played pathfinder can reliably say they haven't used OOC once or twice before; but I hope I make a good effort to avoid it.
Point is I guess that if I had rolled in secret their trap finding, stealth, sense motive checks we likely wouldn't have wasted ten minutes and disrupted another table.

![]() ![]() |
Random thoughts with a heaping dose of sarcasm:
1) I have done the "roll 6 d20s of the same color and used the order of distance from me to determine attack order" thing many times. No one seemed to mind. If someone should take issue with it and tell me one die was closer than another, I would likely roll my eyes at them and say "Whatever, I don't care. You pick."
2) Over time I have seen several threads on what to allow/not allow players to do at tables. I hope they are just joking around. Giving rules for dice rolling? Really? you can't leave them in the middle of the table after rolling but they have to sit there at least 3 seconds? Whose turn is it with the stopwatch?
Is it a regulation stopwatch? Is it clearly legible from across the table? Can I use the stopwatch on my laptop? Or, crap -- does the stopwatch now count as a device that would distract someone from playing the game?
Heck with it. Everyone now has to use Koplow 55mm opaques rolled in this regulation Paizo Plexiglas 20 gallon fish tank I am now taking to all cons and game days. No exceptions.
I think you're going to find that the GMs who have all these little rules are the ones no one wants to play with. This thread kinda makes me want to go find my micro black on smoke crystal dice and use them exclusively. Or buy some of those triumphantly ugly "Elven script" ones.
Side note to #2: I used to play ICE Rolemaster at Gen Con each year c.early 90s. They hired some "professional" GMs to run their events. One guy would not even let you roll your own dice. He insisted that you set them in front of you, not touch them, and tell him when to roll your dice for you. This was one of many such idiotic things he required, which resulted in my leaving his table eventually. OK not so much eventually as during the first combat.
Funny story - he was so worried about cheating he wanted to keep my dice for investigation after he had rolled a consecutive 96, 99 and 100 with them against his first BBEG in the event. I laughed, and left.
3) Truth : I once went an entire Gen Con - 11 consecutive game slots -- without rolling a single successful attack roll or skill check. Not one. Anyone gonna tell me I can't throw my dice into the upper level of the Arena during this streak? Better do so from behind me and out of the line of fire. Speaking of fire, I lit some of them on fire. Maybe that should be in the rules.
4) What the !@$% are spindowns?
5) Computer die rollers may not be random, but neither are my Dwarven Stone hematites, but dangit they cost over $100 for the number of sets I got and I'm gonna use them occasionally, too. Is it really that much of a problem?
Then again, none of your dice are truly random either if you really wanna be nitpicky about it.
I really hope that no one honestly gets bent out of shape over the perceived randomness of a die roller or set of dice. Stress is a nasty way to kill yourself via eventual aneurysm.
And if you really think they are hacking the die roller, don't play with that player. There will be more issues than just that.
6) It is really easy to know if someone is cheating regularly on their die rolls. Or maybe I read people better than others. If that is their way of having fun and no one is going to call them on it, I'm not starting the fight during the slot.