|
I’m interested in opinions. Here’s the situation.
You’re running a Pathfinder module for your group. To move the story along or unveil a vital clue that spurs on the next stage in the adventure, there’s a skill DC in the way. The player role-plays it really well, or has the tools to do it, and rolls a total of 30. You look down at the module and it says DC 32.
1) Do you just let them make it, or do you just announce failure?
2) If you do let them make it do you feel cheesy afterwards?
3) How far off the target DC would you be willing to bend to let them make it, as GM?
I’ll admit if it’s not vital and they blow it, even by 1 point, I’ll let them fail, maybe even giving them a hint that they are close or nowhere near the target. This also helps prevent the “wait in line, I’ll try it next” dice rolling circus. Additionally, if you DO play hard ball and let them fail, do you just let them linger around or help ‘steer’ them to a resolution?
In my opinion, running a game means just that. When you can’t bend a little to help the story move along then it’s stalling a game, not running it, am I right or bonkers? I would let them make it, as from either side of the screen, story apathy is pain. What’s your take?
If there was good roleplaying, i fudge it. Or maybe, depending on circumstances, i give them the basic facts but leave out some minor fact that would've been useful to know (the clue is that the innkeeper is a polymorphed silver dragon - if they miss by 2 I might omit the type of dragon and just reveal the innkeeper is a polymorphed dragon)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason for the GM screen, and that reason is to fudge the mechanics when it benefits the story or enjoyment of the players. I don't think having required skill checks to progress the story is ever a good idea, but if they're there, be prepared to fudge a little. Also note that many are not required really, but are simply the most obvious route.
You’re running a Pathfinder module for your group. To move the story along or unveil a vital clue that spurs on the next stage in the adventure, there’s a skill DC in the way. The player role-plays it really well, or has the tools to do it, and rolls a total of 30. You look down at the module and it says DC 32.
Did you give the character a +2 circumstance bonus for role-playing it well? Never forget such bonuses. If such was the case I would have 'fudged' this one with the +2 bonus and not worried about it.
However, if they utterly failed, I'd let them fail and figure out how else to get them that vital clue they need. In doing so there would be some 'cost' associated with it. Generally not a monetary cost but perhaps a time penalty where they arrive to stop the Evil Ritual(tm) a round later than normal or the BBEG now knows they are coming
I have to say that a module where failing a certain skill check de-rails the adventure is not well-written.
Many modules give the players more than one way to find certain information. I also look at the players. Are they resourceful enough to find the other methods to gain the information?
|
I am the sort who lets players pass DCs when they rolled really, really poorly if they roleplayed well enough (I assume we're talking NOT PFS, where it is indeed a bit more locked up).
Really, personally, I think Skill Checks are silly to begin with, but we must make due with the tools we have been given. As a GM, do what you feel is right.
And IF you feel cheesy after fudging a DC downward, then I suggest you don't do it! I think your gut feeling is a good indicator of what's fun and what's not.
As for myself, I know my own campaigns have a plethora of DC 1 Perception Checks written all over the place.
You can always grant a bonus from +1 to +5 based on a player's performance, roleplay or clever use of stuff...usualy the bonus is +2...
I do that particularly with social skills. If the player comes up with a believable lie, a good joke, says just the right thing, etc., I'll sometimes ignore the roll altogether.
The mechanics are just a tool for telling the story, and having fun with it.
There's a reason for the GM screen, and that reason is to fudge the mechanics when it benefits the story or enjoyment of the players. I don't think having required skill checks to progress the story is ever a good idea, but if they're there, be prepared to fudge a little. Also note that many are not required really, but are simply the most obvious route.
This, in its entirety.
Fudge if you need to to push a story along, but never forget that there is always more than one way to skin a cat. If a published module has a skill check with a high DC as the only way for the story to progress, it's a poorly written module.
You’re running a Pathfinder module for your group. To move the story along or unveil a vital clue that spurs on the next stage in the adventure, there’s a skill DC in the way. The player role-plays it really well, or has the tools to do it, and rolls a total of 30. You look down at the module and it says DC 32.
1) Do you just let them make it, or do you just announce failure?
2) If you do let them make it do you feel cheesy afterwards?
3) How far off the target DC would you be willing to bend to let them make it, as GM?
I don't think I've ever seen a module where a high skill check is absolutely required to move to the next encounter. That just sounds like poor design.
What would I do as a GM? Well, I certainly wouldn't throw my hands up and say "okay, I guess that's the end of the module, let's start a new one". So I guess that means I'd give the PCs a second chance of some kind.
But if the skill check is just helpful, not absolutely necessary, I don't have a problem letting them fail.