Perception - different when playing for different judges....

[Jiggy]

Pirate Rob, I know you're trying to help, but do you really not see that everything you're saying is basically one big "blame the victim"? This probably comes across more harshly than I mean, but the more I read your posts the more I keep having flashbacks of people I've heard respond to a girl getting assaulted by asking how she was dressed. Your last post especially, when you say "now under the assumption we can't just make every GM perfect, what can player 1 do to help avoid being marginalized?" all I can hear is "now under the assumption we can't just make every man perfect, what can women do to help avoid being assaulted?"

(I know, that's a horrible thing to be comparing your posts to, and I'm sorry for making that particular comparison; my degree is in psychology so that's the topic that first pops to my mind because it's the posterchild of the "blame the victim" mentality.)

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

The question then becomes Jiggy, who is the victim?

I can understand why Nosig may feel its important to make his list. He is trying to protect himself against judges he feels are marginalizing his characters specialties. I get it. I've had it happen to me as well.

But there is a philosophy that I ascribe to in life. You get what you expect. If you expect a judge to marginalize you and show up with your protections, it is more likely the judge will marginalize you.

[Ximen Bao]

Andrew Christian wrote:

The question then becomes Jiggy, who is the victim?

I can understand why Nosig may feel its important to make his list. He is trying to protect himself against judges he feels are marginalizing his characters specialties. I get it. I've had it happen to me as well.

But there is a philosophy that I ascribe to in life. You get what you expect. If you expect a judge to marginalize you and show up with your protections, it is more likely the judge will marginalize you.

I think "don't marginalize people" would be a better philosophy, given that you are one of the judges in your formulation.

The judges are the ones who can solve the problem by not marginalizing people. Change that and expectation issues become irrelevant.

eta:first draft came off WAY more personalized than I meant it to. So if you saw that before the edit, forget you did.

[nosig]

Paz wrote:

nosig wrote:

for example, the PC I ran last weekend was my Crypt Braker Alchemist, and currently her brakedown for Perception is as follows:

What masterwork tool(s) does she use?

An iron ring with a handle, to concentrate my attention in a selected area, used much like a magnifing glass (thou it is just an iron ring - no glass in it). Only useful for vision based perception checks, occupies the hand when in use, and only works on active skill checks (when I am taking a move action to use it). I refer to it as a Perception Intensifier. I try always to mention when I am using it, normally by saying something like "I have a 25, 27 with my Perception tool". It is after all a circumtance bonus, and all circumstance bonuses must be approved by the judge.

[Grimmy]

I favorited Pirate Rob's post, the one that offended some people, because it actually gives what I suspect to be the most likely explanation for why the OP is experiencing what he is.

That's not to say I think GM's should cheat, I definitely don't.

Also Pirate Rob wasn't really commenting on what the OP's intentions were when he pumped the skill, he was commenting on how the GM's might be taking it. So it's not really a personal attack it's a helpful post about how the social and mechanical aspects are coming together to produce this outcome that is troubling the OP.

I actually thought it was very insightful.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Ximen Bao wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

The question then becomes Jiggy, who is the victim?

I can understand why Nosig may feel its important to make his list. He is trying to protect himself against judges he feels are marginalizing his characters specialties. I get it. I've had it happen to me as well.

But there is a philosophy that I ascribe to in life. You get what you expect. If you expect a judge to marginalize you and show up with your protections, it is more likely the judge will marginalize you.

I think "don't marginalize people" would be a better philosophy, given that you are one of the judges in your formulation.

The judges are the ones who can solve the problem by not marginalizing people. Change that and expectation issues become irrelevant.

eta:first draft came off WAY more personalized than I meant it to. So if you saw that before the edit, forget you did.

I do my best not to marginalize anyone.

And that really isn't a life philosophy

[Grimmy]

Pirate Rob wrote:

Jiggy: to help clarify,

I was trying to answer nosig's question on why he wasn't able to see the monsters, and I think it has to do with social factors more then mechanics. So I was trying to explain to nosig what I thought was happening, not tell others how much perception to put on their characters, sorry if I offended you.

I'm not suggesting using high perception is an abuse or shouldn't be done. I'm suggesting the GM may expect the game to play one way and the player may expect the game to play another and that's causing friction.

It's okay not to want to play the finding things game, it's not a game I particularly enjoy, leading to most of my characters either having a very high perception score or a very low perception score. With the high perception I tend to run into one of three situations:

** spoiler omitted **

Just like it's okay not to want to play the negotiating game or even the stabbing monsters with pointy sticks game.

Another subgame I hate playing is Shoppings & Savings. I absolutely hate in character shopping sessions, they drive me up the wall.

I thought that was what you meant. Also some of these GM's, aside from feeling that the high perception character is "ruining their fun", might also be simply panicking because the high perception check forces them to bring some fiddly crunch intensive mechanics to bear in order to adjudicate the result of the check, in a way that they didn't anticipate when prepping the adventure.

[nosig]

Pirate Rob wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

While I'm sure I would prefer Player 2 over Player 1, I think this is genuinely unfair to players and is an imposition of your values on the game. That having been said, if you tell Player 1 before hand, what you expect, giving him or her a freebie the first time, then I think that's workable.

But essentially you're dictating to the player how they should roleplay and I don't believe that is in the spirit of PFS or any RPG. We don't all think alike. I don't think players who think differently or value different aspects of the game should be penalized for it.

I totally agree, now under the assumption we can't just make every GM perfect, what can player 1 do to help avoid being marginalized? (Other than bringing up the issue in in a civilized way in the forums in an attempt to figure out what's going on in a non-confrontational way.)

** spoiler omitted **

somewhere we appear to have drifted into "the realm of strange here". There is not, and was not, an atmosphere of conflict between the judge and any of the players, esp. not with me. The examples you give are kind of ... well, are just not right.

Play example from Pirate Rob:

"This long chamber has four alcoves along the western wall. The outer two contain visible statues, and the center two are recessed. Corridors stand opposite the northern and southern statues."

Player 1: I do my SOP, take 10 perception is 32
GM: Just statues, nothing else of interest.
Play 1: Alright lets move in.
GM: Alright stop there, ambush time etc.

Player 2: I take a quick look around the room, take 10 perception gives me a 32, assuming I don't see anything immediately dangerous I will take a peek into the close alcoves.
GM: You don't see anything immediately dangerous but as you approach the alcove you do hear the tell tale sigh of heavy breathing from around the corner and see the top of a goblin spear just sticking out, roll initiative.

neither of those are what is happening.

redo of the scene above:

it's closer to this:
Player closest to the side of the table where the figures are moves them up to the entrance for the next chamber, but not in yet. Sometimes only one figure is moved (that would be the scout - my figure).
Random player says: "What do we see?"

Judge: "This long chamber has four alcoves along the western wall. The outer two contain visible statues, and the center two are recessed. Corridors stand opposite the northern and southern statues."

Players look at each other.
Player 1: "any traps?"
Judge: "none detected."
Random player: "Yeah, sure...."
Scout: "I Take 20 then. One minute."
GM: "Just statues, nothing else of interest."
Damage spunge: "I move past the scout to the center of the room, unless I get jumped before..."
Player closest to the side of the table where the figures are moves the figure for the Damage Spunge up and into the room on square at a time, watching the judge to see when to stop movement.
Judge: "roll Init."
Dice rattleing.

There is no need to go over the SOP, the judge knows it as well as me, and it would be kind of rude to keep harping on it.. My PC is checking for Traps/Danger, the Perception numbers are on my table tent and I always Take 10 (Unless we pause the action and take a longer look, in which case I state that I Take 20).

No need to brake the mood, or the flow of the game. Each player feels to be part of the action, with a good judge (and I had several this weekend) the players can see the flicker of the torch light and smell of the mold on the walls... and I am not singled out to roll dice while everyone else waits on me and the judge to finish our little time together. We play together.

Edit to correct spelling and goofy typeing skills.

[BigNorseWolf]

Chris Mortika wrote:

It's very understandable to want to have a good Perception score. Perception is one of the 2 or 3 most important skills in the game. But if someone has a +25 or +30 to Perception, it means that at some point, they had a +15 bonus and said, "clearly, this is inadequate." And kept adding to the bonuses. Skill Mastery. Masterwork tools.

Round about for me it was the 4th natural 3 i rolled when the DC was 20 that had me shopping for those Eyes of the Eagle.

And then there were the 500 invisible creatures with hide checks in the 40s.

and then the magical traps that I'd need to roll a 15 or better on

If something comes up every. single. adventure. people will start to plan on it.

Quote:

And I've seen players who do this with all their characters. A superbly-perceptive rogue, a superbly-perceptive cleric of Abadar, a superbly-perceptive barbarian ...

Well, if you only get one skill point...

Quote:

That removes them from an element of the game.

Yes. That element of the game where you just stand there for 5 minutes loosing hit points or being incinerated charmed dominated, or chucked into an alternate dimension because you're not allowed to move. Its not a particularly fun element for the players but its beyond ubiquitous.

There are scenarios that make it sound like you're running into this no matter what.

There are DM's that will have a surprise round no matter what. You didn't declare you were looking for foes. They all have readied actions. the incoporeal thing pops out of the walls. You didn't say you were looking for an ambush even though you've been told you're going to be ambushed.

So my druid never leaving bat form, racking up a +25 perception and then auto making almost any perception check means that i MIGHT start half of all combats as something other than flat footed because half the time i don't even get a check and I want to be damned sure I'm not stuck twiddling my thumbs for the other half.

[TetsujinOni]

To provide a counterpoint to Rob and Andrew: I like it when the players will take the time to think about how their characters would interact with the world and come up with their procedures for entering rooms.

I'll discuss any particular points of interest, like the "if you're standing at doors for a minute peering around at rooms carefully, things may interrupt you - i'll give you a take 10 result and then start from 1 and go up from there processing your take 20, for purposes of abstracting things if something interrupts your take 20... If that doesn't work for you, how about we work out a different SOP"...

If someone is really good at seeing stuff coming.... Good. Let the PCs eke out a tactical advantage and drop the monsters off their script immediately.

[Grimmy]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

In your example, he could have failed on a 1.

As a player or GM, I have no issue with skills being high enough to succeed on a 1. So this comes down to you trying to impose your value system on others. You have a unilateral idea of what a player's experience should consist of.

Since you claim that you follow the rules as written and don't use GM fiat to prevent skills from working, I suggest you take it up with Paizo. Send them a detailed explanation of how the current system under the PFS' requirement to honor RAW, is not fun and maybe they'll change the rules so you can use GM fiat in this situation.

And/or he could talk to other people playing the game which he's doing here. What's wrong about that?

If something is bumming him out as a GM he has to be silent about it? We talk about what bums us out as players all the time on here.

[Chris Mortika]

Chris Mortika wrote:

But why do you think it's the GMs with a lot of table experience?

The Fox wrote:

I don't understand this question.

Matthew Morris wrote:

It's an appeal to authority, Fox. I don't understand why he'd try it either.

(shrug) The fox said he was sad that people with a lot of GMing experience were holding an opinion. I asked him why he thought that was the case.

In any case, "appeal to authority" is a fallacy, and I don't think it's a fallacious distinction. (If you want to ask people about making hamburgers, it's not an appeal to authority to ask hamburger cooks. It's an appeal to experience.)

So, the fox, that's what I'm asking. You've observed that some of us with 100+ tables under our belts, see a potential for a problem when players build characters with extreme builds, which circumnavigate some elements of the game, and we recommend against playing that way. Why do you think that is?

Further Comment:

I don't sit as a player at a lot of conventions, but when I do, I have seen GMs react the way nosig describes, and I've seen it often enough to have a feel for what's going on. I've run enough tables to have had my share of players who are "trying to win Pathfinder," sometimes at the detriment of the other players.

I'm imagining that nosig's characters, and his play-style, trigger that reaction in some of his GMs. I am not saying that nosig at fault here. I'm not saying the GMs that don't give him the benefit that he's earned by the rules of the game are right. I'm only saying that there are people who are indeed out to spoil the game, and their builds and their play-style resemble nosig's in some particulars.

The reason I advocated using magic for searching is because that breaks that similarity. Casting glitterdust isn't more effective, per se, than having a +35 Perception. But more GMs will let it work.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Thanks Grim my. But its OK. Apparently no matter how careful I try to be to make sure people understand I'm talking the extreme, they take offense because they assume I'm talking about them or I'm trying to tell them how to play.

For the record, I'll reiterate for the third time. I'm not saying anyone is having bad wrong fun or that they are playing wrongly. I'm expressing what bugs me and what I wish the extreme players would do.

And to Jiggy, not condescending. But I think when you roll up a 25th level character with custom items so you can systematically kill the gods out of deities and demigods, we are talking a serious extreme. One that in my experience tends to be a teenager thing. So yeah, it was a phase. But it isn't bad wrong fun, as we had fun with it at the time. I no longer have fun with that sort of thing.

[BigNorseWolf]

I think the overlap with "experienced dms" is "those doing it since 3.5" which overlaps heavily with "folks that haven't noticed you don't need to search squares in pathfinder"

[nosig]

Actually, traps are sort of a relief to me. Most judges now will either tell me that I see them, or say "boom!" when I set one off. That's why I was surprised by the nice lady still running with the 3.5 Spot rules. And why the Paladin who had moved past my PC gave me "the look" when he hit the trap just 10 feet ahead of where my PC had disarmed one. I had plainly "missed one".

Normally in a party, my scout goes first - but in this group the paladin had explained that "no one moves ahead of me", so I was not in the front - he even stood beside my PC while the trap was disarmed. Because my scout is normally first - I push my perception up. Traps HURT. The best defense verses traps is detecting them, then disarming them, so my scouts have high perceptions and Disable Device. To do otherwise puts my team at risk (and also my PC, as he is normally "the first one at the scene of the explosion").

I take 10 on trap detection (and disarm), partly because I find it hard not to Metagame if I roll a 1, and partly because I often roll low. (5% of my rolls are 1s). I don't want to risk someone elses PC on one of my dice rolls, unless I have to. If I have to, I intend to give them the best chance I know how to. Another big reason to Take 10 would be for ease of play. It's faster and brakes the mood of the game less. The judge can spend more time telling us what we see, spinning the tale, telling the story, if he knows beforehand what we will and what we wont see...

[nosig]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

But why do you think it's the GMs with a lot of table experience?

The Fox wrote:

I don't understand this question.

Matthew Morris wrote:

It's an appeal to authority, Fox. I don't understand why he'd try it either.

(shrug) The fox said he was sad that people with a lot of GMing experience were holding an opinion. I asked him why he thought that was the case.

In any case, "appeal to authority" is a fallacy, and I don't think it's a fallacious distinction. (If you want to ask people about making hamburgers, it's not an appeal to authority to ask hamburger cooks. It's an appeal to experience.)

So, the fox, that's what I'm asking. You've observed that some of us with 100+ tables under our belts, see a potential for a problem when players build characters with extreme builds, which circumnavigate some elements of the game, and we recommend against playing that way. Why do you think that is?

** spoiler omitted **

Chris, you actually have sat at a table with me before (both of us as players in Amoung the Dead). I remember that game very well. Surely you do too?

"'trying to win Pathfinder,' sometimes at the detriment of the other players..." I do not picture my characters, or my play-style, triggering that reaction in any of my judges. Perhaps on the board... but not in person.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

But for some reason, you keep having these experiences where GMs have some issue or another.

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I think the overlap with "experienced dms" is "those doing it since 3.5" which overlaps heavily with "folks that haven't noticed you don't need to search squares in pathfinder"

actually BigNorseWolf - almost no judges I have encountered in the last year still do this. Year and a half ago, yes, but now? Only one in the last 10 or so judges, and she was very nice! We did it her way (she is after all the judge) and afterword I asked her to kindly check on the procedure and see if the skill works different than she was currently playing it.

[Grimmy]

Jiggy wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".

If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?

Because the guy with the +15 won't beat it 100% of the time!

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Grimmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".

If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?

Because the guy with the +15 won't beat it 100% of the time!

This. And it really is a cumulative thing. Not an isolated incident.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".

If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?

Because the guy with the +15 won't beat it 100% of the time!

This. And it really is a cumulative thing. Not an isolated incident.

Hmm, you know, just speculating, but maybe the reason nosig sees this reaction more than people who roll is that he needs +9 less of a bonus on the skill than the rolling people before he gets a 100% success rate and thus he is more likely to upset the judges who get upset with a 100% success.

Disclaimer: Again, not that I am one of those judges!

Example: Rob the Roller has a character with +20 to perception, and so does nosig. LEt's say all the DCs in the entire adventure are either 25 or 30. nosig's character automatically succeeds all the time, and Rob the Roller has either a 55% or 80% chance depending on whether it was 25 or 30. Same build, but only the Take 10 leads to the 100% success rate. For Rob to have the same success rate, he'd need to have a character at +29.

As to getting upset with 100% thing, I've seen a similar thing with a great GM who I guess was just frustrated with the diviner's ability to always act on the surprise round (coupled with an inquisitor with lookout who stood next to her) and he just gave the enemies some kind of mega-surprise round that came before the surprise round, and given that I was the diviner and I felt pretty bad about that, I know what you mean. I mean, Cordy didn't even do anything to the encounters during her free surprise rounds before that point. Once she cast vanish, once she touched up her makeup.

[nosig]

Rogue Eidolon wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, I hope that I am making a distinction between "really good" and "high enough to break the game for others at the table".

If the DC to spot the ambush/trap/whatever is 30, what's the difference between a guy with +15 rolling a 15 to just hit the 30, and a guy with a +30 rolling a 1? They have the same consequence, so how does one of them break the game for others if the other doesn't?

Because the guy with the +15 won't beat it 100% of the time!

This. And it really is a cumulative thing. Not an isolated incident.

Hmm, you know, just speculating, but maybe the reason nosig sees this reaction more than people who roll is that he needs +9 less of a bonus on the skill than the rolling people before he gets a 100% success rate and thus he is more likely to upset the judges who get upset with a 100% success.

Disclaimer: Again, not that I am one of those judges!

Example: Rob the Roller has a character with +20 to perception, and so does nosig. LEt's say all the DCs in the entire adventure are either 25 or 30. nosig's character automatically succeeds all the time, and Rob the Roller has either a 55% or 80% chance depending on whether it was 25 or 30. Same build, but only the Take 10 leads to the 100% success rate. For Rob to have the same success rate, he'd need to have a character at +29.

As to getting upset with 100% thing, I've seen a similar thing with a great GM who I guess was just frustrated with the diviner's ability to always act on the surprise round (coupled with an inquisitor with lookout who stood next to her) and he just gave the enemies some kind of mega-surprise round that came before the surprise round, and given that I was the diviner and I felt pretty bad about that, I know what you mean. I mean, Cordy didn't even do anything to the encounters during her free surprise rounds before that point. Once she cast vanish, once she touched up her makeup.

I do need to point out that I do not have a 100% success rate. I just always take 10 (yes, even when I fail. Though if I fail, I might not do it again. I might though. Depends on the RP of the event.

I also take 10 on my Bard with the 2 Perception. (yes, she had a rank in the skill, and yes, I always - when allowed - take 10).

Edit:
try these numbers...
1) "Rob the Roller has a character with +16 to perception, and so does nosig. LEt's say all the DCs in the entire adventure are either 25 or 30."

2) "Rob the Roller has a character with +10 to perception, and so does nosig. LEt's say all the DCs in the entire adventure are either 25 or 30. "

3) "Rob the Roller has a character with +2 to perception, and so does nosig. LEt's say all the DCs in the entire adventure are either 25 or 30."

4) "Rob the Roller has a character with +30 to perception, and so does nosig. LEt's say all the DCs in the entire adventure are either 25 or 30."

Results?
My T10 gives us more Judge time for the story and the RP. And, in cases 1 & 2 the judge knows what the outcome is likely to be before we even get to that part of the adventure - so he can plan what will happen and make it awesome! (Yeah, even the "BOOM!")

[Grimmy]

BTW nosig I am not saying there's anything wrong with taking ten or specializing for that matter. I'm just interested in the thread because I'm prepping a lot of material for my home game and it's food for thought as I decide where to set my DC's for a lot of different challenges.

I also have been a little frustrated in my few times as a player in PFS before when people seemed to roll their eyes a little at my efforts to implement scouting and diplomacy. Other players at the table more then judges incidentally.

So I'm definitely not trying to team up on you and tell you the problem is your play-style, but I think there are some posts in this thread that can give some insight into what is happening with the social aspects and mechanical aspects of the game colliding. I think if those posts are taken as insight rather then criticism then more will be revealed about the situation you are describing then would otherwise come to light.

[Caderyn]

I have found a few GM's seem to dislike the taking of 10 on everything, I was at a couple of Cons in which someone was repeatedly taking 10 and despite actually getting higher values than my PC (we both beat the DC) the GM faced me and told me the information I found (saying oh yeah you know it too when the other person reminded the GM of his take 10 result).

In some cases its better to roll because the GM is more engaged with you and thus you are actually a part of the story rather than the guy people give info to as an aside.

Occasionally taking 10 does not seem to have this effect (as I occasionally take 10 myself), neither does the GM asking everyone whats your take 10 on skill X.

I think the main understanding of take 10 among those GM's is that it is more a GM tool to control the speed of the session not the standard operating procedure for the players.

Honestly I cant say what my reaction would be if someone continually took 10 as it has never happened at a table I am judging, I think I would find it moderately annoying.

[Grimmy]

Take 10 is perfectly legitimate though. I would never announce at the beginning of a session that my PC should be assumed at all times to be taking 10 on a particular skill, that would seem discourteous to the GM who already has a lot to keep track of. But if the GM asked me to make a check and I gave him my take ten result instead of picking up a dice, that shouldn't be an issue at all.

[Alecak]

nosig wrote:

Some time back I posted a thread about judges who still use the 3.5 Search/Spot rules. I only noticed this with one judge at this CON. In fact, it has gotten so rare for a judge to still be using the Search/Spot rules that this one cought me by surprise. My "rogue" did the Perception thing and spotted a trap, disarmed it, and another PC moved past me into the room - hitting another trap just past the first, in the next 5' space. I told the other player "sorry about that! must have been a hard one to see!" and the judge pointed out that I had "not checked that 5' square".

[http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n12p?Perception-Why-do-DMs-still-use-the-35-Search#1]Older thread about Perception[/url].

I paused the game long enough to discuss with the judge how she did Perception and "checking for traps". Thanked her for the explaination and adapted to the older rules (basicly started checking every 5' square - taking 10), and (respectfully) asked her to check the rules after the game if she could - as I was sure the rules were different for this.

In all other cases the judges ran the Perception rules for locating traps as I beleave PFS has them.

But for detecting monsters? I'm not so...

As a GM I would Remind the players that taking 20 is equal to an hour of time. So you are saying you stand in the door to each room for an hour?

[N N 959]

Caderyn wrote:

I have found a few GM's seem to dislike the taking of 10 on everything...

I get that sense as well. I think it's something VC's and VL's should work to stamp out. T10 is a 100% valid way to play the game. Without T10 and T20, the skill system is actually nonsensical.

Quote:

Honestly I cant say what my reaction would be if someone continually took 10 as it has never happened at a table I am judging, I think I would find it moderately annoying.

I'm going to pull a Jiggy and spit out a partially baked thought:

What if the game actually intends that as character progress, something things are meant to be trivial?

When I first started learning to play basketball, making a layup when I'm alone in the gym was a challenge. Eventually it became trivial. My game matured and I focused on more complex things. I would submit to many of those in Andrew's camp that its unreasonable to keep expecting characters to be challenged by the same stuff at level 7 as they were at level 4.

The fact that my character can T10 and know when someone is lying or trying to deceive me, represents a milestone in my characters growth and development. When I get to the point where I can routinely (out of combat) spot invisible creatures who are not moving, that too will represent a milestone in my characters growth. As GM, why not get on board with that progression instead of being bothered by it.

I really put the onus on the PFS heads of state and the VCs and VLs to disabuse their GMs that players who T10 on everything are badwrongfun. T10, imo, should be embraced. As nosig points out, it can significantly speed up the game. And that's ignoring all the meta-info that is communicated when you ask people to suddenly make Perception checks.

I really don't get the bitterness towards T10. Characters should be allowed to be competent at stuff and GMs should not be conditioned to penalize that competency. There's plenty of dice rolling in combat.

[BigNorseWolf]

Alecak wrote:

As a GM I would Remind the players that taking 20 is equal to an hour of time. So you are saying you stand in the door to each room for an hour?

It takes 20 times as long as doing it once.

You can make 2 perception checks in 6 seconds so doing it 20 times takes = 1 minute.

[nosig]

Alecak wrote:

nosig wrote:

Some time back I posted a thread about judges who still use the 3.5 Search/Spot rules. I only noticed this with one judge at this CON. In fact, it has gotten so rare for a judge to still be using the Search/Spot rules that this one cought me by surprise. My "rogue" did the Perception thing and spotted a trap, disarmed it, and another PC moved past me into the room - hitting another trap just past the first, in the next 5' space. I told the other player "sorry about that! must have been a hard one to see!" and the judge pointed out that I had "not checked that 5' square".

[http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n12p?Perception-Why-do-DMs-still-use-the-35-Search#1]Older thread about Perception[/url].

I paused the game long enough to discuss with the judge how she did Perception and "checking for traps". Thanked her for the explaination and adapted to the older rules (basicly started checking every 5' square - taking 10), and (respectfully) asked her to check the rules after the game if she could - as I was sure the rules were different for this.

In all other cases the judges ran the Perception rules for locating traps as I beleave PFS has them.

But for detecting monsters? I'm not so...

As a GM I would Remind the players that taking 20 is equal to an hour of time. So you are saying you stand in the door to each room for an hour?

Please do not take this the wrong way, but ... actually Take 20 takes 20 times as long as the skill would normally take.

Taking 20:

Taking 20: 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 roll a d20 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).

A perception check takes a move action. so, when not moving, a Take 20 Perception check takes 1 minute (or there abouts). Perhaps a little more?

[Caderyn]

N N 959 wrote:

I really put the onus on the PFS heads of state and the VCs and VLs to disabuse their GMs that players who T10 on everything are badwrongfun. T10, imo, should be embraced. As nosig points out, it can significantly speed up the game. And that's ignoring all the meta-info that is communicated when you ask people to suddenly make Perception checks.

Never said it was badwrongfun, just that if I was honestly faced with a person who took 10 over every thing, pass or fail every time they were faced with a skill check it would probably become annoying to me.

I am not saying that reaction in and of itself is correct either, just that it would probably be what would happen, I am at the moment honestly not clear on why it would bother me, just that I am fairly certain it would. It probably points to a failing in some way on my behalf

I can understanding taking 10 when an action is trivial and irrelevant, but the point is if you are taking 10 all the time arent you basically saying that everything is trivial and irrelevant? (Actually that probably answers my question as to why it would annoy me).

[BigNorseWolf]

Nosig, its a game about role playing and rolling dice. Not rolling the dice is going to raise some "he's not playing the game" hackles. Not rolling the dice to auto succeed on 99% of perception checks is going to raise both the "he's not playing the game" and "he's cheatin" hackles.

Quote:

I do need to point out that I do not have a 100% success rate. I just always take 10 (yes, even when I fail. Though if I fail, I might not do it again. I might though. Depends on the RP of the event.

You will in some scenarios. In those scenarios you're going to annoy the dm.

For going first with a trapspotter ahead of the tank or another scout its often a matter of which player shouts out they're doing something first. I find that incredibly annoying. The only solution I've found so far is turning into a bat and setting up the sonar station on the head of the person in front. I don't care who's in the lead as long as they take their hat.

[nosig]

Please realize that Taking 10 does not mean that you auto succeed. I fail a lot. I just don't take time to roll the dice.

Judge: "make a XX skill check"
Player at the table taking 10: do math "YY"
Player at the table not taking 10: find dice, roll dice, read dice, do math, "ZZ".

and you know what? there are more mistakes in four steps than one.

(silly aside: then there are the players who never roll < 16... I sometimes wonder about their dice...)

[nosig]

Caderyn wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I really put the onus on the PFS heads of state and the VCs and VLs to disabuse their GMs that players who T10 on everything are badwrongfun. T10, imo, should be embraced. As nosig points out, it can significantly speed up the game. And that's ignoring all the meta-info that is communicated when you ask people to suddenly make Perception checks.

Never said it was badwrongfun, just that if I was honestly faced with a person who took 10 over every thing, pass or fail every time they were faced with a skill check it would probably become annoying to me.

I am not saying that reaction in and of itself is correct either, just that it would probably be what would happen, I am at the moment honestly not clear on why it would bother me, just that I am fairly certain it would. It probably points to a failing in some way on my behalf

I can understanding taking 10 when an action is trivial and irrelevant, but the point is if you are taking 10 all the time arent you basically saying that everything is trivial and irrelevant? (Actually that probably answers my question as to why it would annoy me).

Taking 10: 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.

No... I am saying that I fear that "a poor roll might fail".

Also, "Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help." Like any skill that has a success on a specific DC. Making the perception check for a trap by +11 does nothing more than makeing it by 1.

[nosig]

Can we get back to discussing the Perception skill? Take 10 and Take 20 should be two other threads...

[Ximen Bao]

nosig wrote:

Can we get back to discussing the Perception skill? Take 10 and Take 20 should be two other threads...

What other issues regarding the topic would you like to discuss?

[Caderyn]

The point being does the GM feel that way when you take 10?

I mean personally I take 10 on trivial tasks I was going to pass anyway things with static DC's that are quite low compared to my bonus to the skill and apparently I am subconsciously attributing this attitude to take 10 as a whole, it is quite possible that many of the people GMing for you have similar attitudes and possibly are not even aware of what they are doing.

The problem is at some point to have the problems you are experiencing something is happening to either alienate the GM or the GM just wasnt adequately prepared for the session anyway and thus no matter what you do the situation was out of your control from the start.

Regardless of the reasoning the side effect is you are not actually getting the play experience that you are looking for so the problem becomes is it a GM issue? or is it a disconnect between what you are looking for in the game and what the GM believes should be happening?

[Caderyn]

We hashed out the perception skill before the end of page 2, the reason for table variation is that the core perception system is poorly defined leaving the majority of the decisions to the GM.

Range searched (not listed) some people assume everything you can see, others assume each square is a separate area for traps and the room as a whole for basic perception

Obstacles, modifiers are listed plus there are opportunities to say flat out that a certain type of perception (hearing/sight) cannot succeed at all. No specifics are given on how to apply this each GM has their own method.

Some GM's will rather than working their way through unclear rules on perception just read the box text and say "they surprise you roll initiative" or DC X perception checks (regardless of distance).

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Nosig, its a game about role playing and rolling dice. Not rolling the dice is going to raise some "he's not playing the game" hackles. Not rolling the dice to auto succeed on 99% of perception checks is going to raise both the "he's not playing the game" and "he's cheatin" hackles.

Quote:

I do need to point out that I do not have a 100% success rate. I just always take 10 (yes, even when I fail. Though if I fail, I might not do it again. I might though. Depends on the RP of the event.

You will in some scenarios. In those scenarios you're going to annoy the dm.

For going first with a trapspotter ahead of the tank or another scout its often a matter of which player shouts out they're doing something first. I find that incredibly annoying. The only solution I've found so far is turning into a bat and setting up the sonar station on the head of the person in front. I don't care who's in the lead as long as they take their hat.

bolding mine: actually, this is not true. In the games that caused me to create this thread, the judges were all fine with me Taking 10 on the traps, and other than the one I miss because I had not checked that 5' square (just the one in front of it), I don't think I failed on any. I even took 10 on the Disable Device checks (failed some of those, but not by more than 5 thankfully).

It is actually the Perception Checks that were the problem. These seemed to be Auto fail both for my scout and for the PCs that rolled dice (un-asked by the judge, we'd come to a doorway and the extra player just would roll and say "My perception is XX".)- mostly there was no check.

I do not understand your last paragraph. Any player who "...shouts out they're doing something first..." I would consider very rude. And if they continued to shout at the judge over the other players I would refuse to play with them again. If they want to be "scout", I will be happy to move to the back of the party and let them. As I did when the Paladin player insisted his PC had to be in the front of the party. I moved to behind him and did my perception rolls from there.

[nosig]

Caderyn wrote:

The point being does the GM feel that way when you take 10?

I mean personally I take 10 on trivial tasks I was going to pass anyway things with static DC's that are quite low compared to my bonus to the skill and apparently I am subconsciously attributing this attitude to take 10 as a whole, it is quite possible that many of the people GMing for you have similar attitudes and possibly are not even aware of what they are doing.

The problem is at some point to have the problems you are experiencing something is happening to either alienate the GM or the GM just wasnt adequately prepared for the session anyway and thus no matter what you do the situation was out of your control from the start.

Regardless of the reasoning the side effect is you are not actually getting the play experience that you are looking for so the problem becomes is it a GM issue? or is it a disconnect between what you are looking for in the game and what the GM believes should be happening?

Picture a climb check at the start of the scenario. DC is 5 once the climber drops a knotted rope. The judge states that the wind in the area is adding a circumstance penility of -2. Your PC has a +0 in climb. Do you Take 10 or roll? Realizing that a roll of 1 or 2 will cause you to fall.

I take 10 because I fear that "a poor roll might fail". Do you?

next point. I do not think it is "a GM issue". They were all fine judges. Some were very very good.
Perhaps a play style issue?... "Monster is hidden until the PCs get here, roll Init." These were dungeon crawls after all (Thornkeep and Bonekeep).

[nosig]

Caderyn wrote:

We hashed out the perception skill before the end of page 2, the reason for table variation is that the core perception system is poorly defined leaving the majority of the decisions to the GM.

Range searched (not listed) some people assume everything you can see, others assume each square is a separate area for traps and the room as a whole for basic perception

Obstacles, modifiers are listed plus there are opportunities to say flat out that a certain type of perception (hearing/sight) cannot succeed at all. No specifics are given on how to apply this each GM has their own method.

Some GM's will rather than working their way through unclear rules on perception just read the box text and say "they surprise you roll initiative" or DC X perception checks (regardless of distance).

Then I guess we are done here and I can just go to bed.

Night everyone.

[Grimmy]

g'Night!

[The Fox]

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, the fox, that's what I'm asking. You've observed that some of us with 100+ tables under our belts, see a potential for a problem when players build characters with extreme builds, which circumnavigate some elements of the game, and we recommend against playing that way. Why do you think that is?

Others of us who have GMed hundreds of games (I've been playing RPGs since 1980) don't see it as a problem. Why do you think that is?

[N N 959]

@nosig,

You're essentially asking why GMs are ignoring the rules. I believe these topics are all connected at the core.

Caderyn wrote:

Never said it was badwrongfun, **** but the point is if you are taking 10 all the time arent you basically saying that everything is trivial and irrelevant? (Actually that probably answers my question as to why it would annoy me).

1. I think you're conflating issues. Nosig is not taking T10 on everything. He's using T10 on skills for which he's getting substantial modifiers.

2. I disagree that a player who T10 as SOP thinks everything is trivial. Quite the opposite. As nosig points out, T10 is usually based on the the fear of poor roll, the knowledge a high roll has no benefit, or confidence that T10 is sufficient.

What I think is actually at the core of the annoyance is that many GMs feel players are suppose suffer hardship. There's a fundamental belief in nearly all of us when we put on the GM hat that players should not be handed things for free. When T10 equals repeated auto-success it threatens that belief.

Grant it, I don't think this is what is going on with nosig's examples because the GMs did not seem to be annoyed. But these GMs did not seem to subscribe to the idea that nosig's character should even have the potential to avoid these encounters.

[Grimmy]

The Fox wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, the fox, that's what I'm asking. You've observed that some of us with 100+ tables under our belts, see a potential for a problem when players build characters with extreme builds, which circumnavigate some elements of the game, and we recommend against playing that way. Why do you think that is?

Others of us who have GMed hundreds of games (I've been playing RPGs since 1980) don't see it as a problem. Why do you think that is?

Difference of opinion, that's all. Chris and Andrew and others are politely sharing theirs and are getting nailed to the wall for it a little bit, it seems to me. What they are saying might even be slightly less anecdotal.

Edit: Not meaning to stir the pot or cause offense. I'm just interested in the discussion because I'm still deciding where I stand on it in my own games.

[Caderyn]

The key point in a home game Grimmy is consistancy and expectations, because you are with the same players all the time its a very good idea to just iron out things like this so the players understand what is going to happen from the start.

The difference with organised play is that we will always have table variation on issues (because somethings are not 100% nailed down in the rules to allow home game GM's the flexibility they need when building their world).

Generally what you would do is tell players how perception works (how you apply obstacles, what prevents a perception check from working completely, how they search for traps, how they search a room) and then as they now are aware of your expectations they can build PC's to match those expectations.

[Chris Mortika]

I remind nosig that even Sean K Reynolds was getting the Take Ten rules confused a year or so ago, asserting that they couldn't be used if there was a danger of failing. Thereis a visceral dislike of the frequent Take Ten. (I Take Ten a lot, myself, as a player, and I've felt the push-back from GMs, too.)

Another note that might be relevant:

There are folks in nosig's neck of the woods pushing through Thornkeep levels at 4 hours a level, which I consider to be high-speed. The GMs are very good, but they're under pressure.

[Matthew Morris]

Chris Mortika wrote:

[In any case, "appeal to authority" is a fallacy, and I don't think it's a fallacious distinction. (If you want to ask people about making hamburgers, it's not an appeal to authority to ask hamburger cooks. It's an appeal to experience.)

So, the fox, that's what I'm asking. You've observed that some of us with 100+ tables under our belts, see a potential for a problem when players build characters with extreme builds, which circumnavigate some elements of the game, and we recommend against playing that way. Why do you think that is?

** spoiler omitted **

True. though again, when I can't find rules in Pathfinder for the -10 to diplomacy as a full round action. Or Venture Captains are arguing that Gnomes don't have spell like abilities. I'll hold the 'hundreds of tables of experience' in the same level I hold my two passes through the superstar hopper. Not worth very much.

Aside... can you 'take 20' on stealth if you're not being observed when you do it? i.e. setting up for an ambush?

[Ninjaiguana.]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Aside... can you 'take 20' on stealth if you're not being observed when you do it? i.e. setting up for an ambush?

I think this is another area where you may experience table variation.

My personal opinion would be that yes, you can take 20 on stealth if you're settling into a fixed position for the purposes of ambush/guarding, and don't intend to move or perform any other meaningful action once maximum stealth is achieved. Basically, you set up your hide, hunker down, settle your crossbow or whatever and wait. If you start trying to craft a magic item while you wait, or decide you want to do a quick patrol of the area every hour and then return to your little bunker, I'd rule your T20 now invalidated and only give you a regular stealth roll when your ambushee turns up. Obviously I'd warn the player of how I run this before they actually decide whether they want to T20 or not.

[Matthew Morris]

Pete Pollard wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Aside... can you 'take 20' on stealth if you're not being observed when you do it? i.e. setting up for an ambush?

I think this is another area where you may experience table variation.

My personal opinion would be that yes, you can take 20 on stealth if you're settling into a fixed position for the purposes of ambush/guarding, and don't intend to move or perform any other meaningful action once maximum stealth is achieved. Basically, you set up your hide, hunker down, settle your crossbow or whatever and wait. If you start trying to craft a magic item while you wait, or decide you want to do a quick patrol of the area every hour and then return to your little bunker, I'd rule your T20 now invalidated and only give you a regular stealth roll when your ambushee turns up. Obviously I'd warn the player of how I run this before they actually decide whether they want to T20 or not.

I was actually asking with the GM hat in mind. :-)

When I run ambushes and there's no DC given I usually have the NPCs 'take 10' on stealth to generate the perception DC. Unless they're stealth monkeys, naturally invisible, etc, it generates a moderate DC. If the NPCs can 'take 20' then it allows the heroes to be more likely to be ambushed, while rewarding the 'Sherlock scan' PC for investing in it.

[Ninjaiguana.]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I was actually asking with the GM hat in mind. :-)

When I run ambushes and there's no DC given I usually have the NPCs 'take 10' on stealth to generate the perception DC. Unless they're stealth monkeys, naturally invisible, etc, it generates a moderate DC. If the NPCs can 'take 20' then it allows the heroes to be more likely to be ambushed, while rewarding the 'Sherlock scan' PC for investing in it.

Oh, right, apologies. In that case, my standard is this;

- Normally (If no DC is provided) I have groups of stealthed NPCs take 10 on stealth. Individual or named NPCs I generally have roll. If the NPCs are specifically waiting for the PCs, and have a good idea of when the PCs are going to turn up, and have a prepared position, I let them take 20.

(Way I figure it, Jeff the bandit may be lurking by the road for an easy mark all day [And got the PCs! Bad luck Jeff!], he's not going to be taking 20 on that. A group of Red Mantis who have specific instructions to off the PCs, have been given detailed plans of their route and know they're going to be passing some time in the next few hours, them I'll let take 20.)