RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've seen that come up as a legitimate question for Golarion. During Reign of Winter we received a shock when someone from another world replied to us in Talden. The player with 20+ languages on his character was annoyed at finding yet another language he didn't know, until we told him that Talden was Common.
That makes me chuckle because I've replied to the "what is it written in" with "Taldane, Common."
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perception requires line of sight (or at least line of effect for sound). A single Perception checks "searches/spots" the whole room at once, with appropriate modifiers for distance. Anything with total concealment (like the inside of a drawer) is not "searched/spotted" until the line-of-sight occurs.
Taking 20 on Perception takes 1 minute, but still does not deal with opening drawers, etc. (although I typically allow them to do that as part of a take 20 if they mention it). Perception automatically checks for traps, so you don't have to state that separately.
I could hug you.
Sooooo many people have goofy misunderstandings about Perception/T20 that would totally overpower it and then compensate with weird countermeasures instead of re-reading how Perception actually works.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who used to use a d20 the size of a pea which needed a scanning electron microscope to see the numbers.
It always rolled 17-20...
After several attempts to politely tell him not to use it, I picked it up and swallowed it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player1: <constantly rolling dice> <stops>
GM: OK Player1 your turn.
Player1: I hit for XX damage. <begins to start rolling dice again>
Actually a variation on this is something I actively encourage in high level/experienced play (and do myself). Especially when you have attackers with ridiculous numbers of attacks. During Eyes of the Ten our Grenadier basically spent the entire time it wasn't his turn rolling dice, writing down attack totals and damage.
But back to annoying things:
"I'm going to walk through this whole dungeon in total defense."
"At the start of the day I hex the fighter with fortune and then cackle every round."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swallowed it?
Did he want it back?
I gave him the option...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A pet peeve of mine.
Player: I roll perception
*rolls
Player: I got a 29
Me: What are you looking for?
Maybe it's just me, but I believe that skill checks should only ever be rolled after the GM asks for one. All too often I see players just decide to roll a skill check without first consulting the GM. They might not need to make the check they think they do. The DC might be unbeatable. The DC might be an auto success. A number of other things could affect the necessity to make a skill check. I guess I'm against needless die rolls.
Which leads into another pet peeve of mine, not as a GM but as a player. I've seen a number of GMs that are so strict on take 10 and take 20 that it seems they will look for any excuse to deny taking 10 or 20 and make you roll even for things specifically called out in the take 10 rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) The players is asked to roll a skill check and says, "That's a 16, 17 with Guidance," when it was a monster knowledge check, gather information check, perception check to avoid surprise or any other roll where the skill takes longer than a minute to use, or the PC couldn't possibly know they were going to have to make a skill check before they made it.
2) As number 1 above, but this time it is other players trying to do Aid Another on things it just doesn't make any sense you could aid on.
3) After clearly stating "Okay, let's get started." and I start reading the scenario intro, players at the table still continue their ongoing conversation and even raise their volume to talk over me reading the mission briefing so that the players who actually want to hear me can't. (A reprimand from the Venture officer conducting the briefing is usually sufficient to stop this, but it still happens too frequently.)
4) Player uses an effect, spell, etc. on a monster that is immune to that type of effect, for example, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature. Then, after you tell them it has no effect their response is, "Oh, well, I wouldn't have done that then. I do this instead."
5) After you tell Player 1 that he was the only one in the party to Spot the rogue hiding in the corner and before Player 1 has had a turn to relate this information, another player announces they are charging the rogue hiding in the corner.
6) The player asks what the monster looks like. I tell him it looks exactly like the Paizo/WotC mini I put on the table. The player then picks up the mini, reads the bottom, then proudly announces to everyone what they are fighting.
7) Players who are seldom actually sitting at the table when you call out their name in the initiative order.
8) Players who use dice you can't read either because of lack of contrast or because they use special characters.
9) Players with poor math skills that insist on playing heavy damage dealers so that it takes them 5 minutes to calculate their damage.
10) Players who can never seem to get the concept that they can't full attack in the same round that they moved.
|
My wife refuses to play a PC with a high Diplomacy score because she's afraid of a GM like that forcing her into the spotlight.
I've never dumped Charisma -- I almost consider 14 CHA a character minimum, because I really enjoy playing Face characters. However, I have come to realize that in PFS I'm really bad at RPing the conversations -- mostly because I just don't think that quickly. Give me 15 minutes and I'll come up with the best con you ever heard of, but on the spur of the moment all I'm going to do is stammer.
I never have problems ad libbing in a home game or as a GM -- my working theory is that as a GM I understand enough of the background to go with the flow, and in a home game I have a lot more continuity of character and situation.
Having said all that, I'm a bit of a hypocrite, because I get annoyed at people who want to just roll the social skills without commentary, but I'm usually fine if they can just give me some hint of where they want to go.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A pet peeve of mine.
Player: I roll perception
*rolls
Player: I got a 29
Me: What are you looking for?Maybe it's just me, but I believe that skill checks should only ever be rolled after the GM asks for one. All too often I see players just decide to roll a skill check without first consulting the GM. They might not need to make the check they think they do. The DC might be unbeatable. The DC might be an auto success. A number of other things could affect the necessity to make a skill check. I guess I'm against needless die rolls.
Although I agree that it's annoying when they announce Perception but don't say what for (or announce any other skill check without saying what they're actually doing), I disagree that they should only make skill checks when prompted by the GM. Some checks are metagame constructs that the characters aren't aware of (like a reactive Perception check), but others (like a Perception check to search) are intentional, action-costing activities that the character could decide to do. Deciding to spend an action to do something—regardless of whether it involves a skill check or not—is always the player's responsibility. They don't get to see the trap unless they choose to spend the actions to search, and I don't get to force their characters to take actions.
|
|
If you cast a spell, know what it does. It's not the GM's job to tell you how your character works.
GM: "Player 4, your turn."
Player 4: "I cast Summon Monster I".
GM: "OK, that spell takes one round to cast so you begin casting this round. Player 5, your turn."
[Fast forward back to Player 4]
GM: "Player 4, your turn. You complete your spell. What monster appears?"
Player 4: "Umm, what monsters can I summon again?"
[discussion starts]
Player 4: "I'll summon a celestial eagle!"
GM: "OK, I assume you want it to appear adjacent to your opponent so it can make a full attack? Go ahead and roll."
Player 4: "Does anyone have a Bestiary? I don't know what the stats are for eagles."
[Smoke comes out of GM's ears. After another delay, Player 4 manages to complete all the eagle's attacks.]
GM: "All done Player 4?"
Player 4: "Yes."
[A couple of players later]
Player 4: "Did I get skipped?"
[Players frequently forget that a one-round spell completes at the beginning of their next turn, leaving them a full turn left to act.]
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I'm known for asking for saves for no reason (except paranoia)Excellent! I am.going to steal this and start incorporating it!
Someone role plays well and I allow a diplomacy skill check and suddenly a bunch of other players start rolling dice and start saying "I assist".
My answer: "I don't think so. You must role play in some capacity to assist".
I have just accepted the fact in society I have to deal with such things. Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit.
The game I played in yesterday each player described his character as "tall human with brown hair wearing plate armor." I come in and give a detailed written description followed by a short speech an I received crickets in return.
I commiserate(sp?) with your experiences but disagree with how you're handling it. When I GM PFS scenarios I typically spend three to four hours prepping (or more if the scenario is long, complex, and/or presents new mechanics). I consider that my 'investment' in trying to run a smooth, fun table that finishes on time. The *LEAST* the players can do is attempt to breath at least the barest semblance of life into their sheets of stats, abilities, and equipment so that I get a pay off for my investment.
* room size compared to 10' radius footprinting to determine how many perception checks it takes to get a +0 range modification on the DCs of anything which needs to be searched.
* number of things which would need to be manipulated to find the objects hidden within a compartment at the back of a drawer - are there one, two, fifty, five hundred drawers in the room?
There's places where one-and-done, or 30-second-glance around the room won't find things, and a thorough search of the room will take an amount of time. Some scenarios spell these out well when they're part of the plot of the scneario, rather than just part of the mid-tier buff-timing game.
And I've had others do it more this way. Some requiring the players to tell them everything they searched, where they were moving and what they were moving.
If you didn't say "Opening all the drawers", you wouldn't check the drawers. If you didn't say "Check for traps on the drawers before opening them", you'd set off the traps.
As far as range modifiers, I assume you'd just apply that as a modifier on a quick check. If there's a DC 15 thing on the wall 35' away, but I got a 20 Perception check, I'd still see it right away?
But for things in drawers or the like, no chance unless you either do a full search taking however long or explicitly say "Look in the drawers"?
A friend and I were hosed in a tournament game at Gen Con once because we didn't cast Detect Evil and Detect Magic on a gem that an undead spellcaster was using for an eye. The gem was glowing brightly. The paladin in our group said "That thing is evil". But since we didn't specify that we were actually casting the spells, we didn't get to advance.
Is there a mechanical effect to that? Bonus/penalty on the Perception checks? A time past which it doesn't help to search longer? Are you basing this on any actual rules?
I just like to get a feel for how long PCs are going to spend on a room, and I tend to prefer specifics as opposed to generalities. Additionally, things might react based on heard.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, Nosig,
It is conflicting styles, but how do you both feel about a GM who wants *something* to go on? Even if it is something as simple as "I want to compliment him on his hat and ask for the map."
As a GM, my personal preference is a cinamatic style of play with descriptions, but don't want to discomfort anyone (well not overly).
Part of being a good GM is adapting, not only to annoyances like in this thread, but to players comfort levels.
This. If I'm GM'ing and I see a shy person trying to contribute in any way via roleplay or just asking questions, I try very hard to do anything I can to encourage them. Shy people are often the most creative people at the table, because they spend a lot of time thinking and imagining (rather than pontificating ... er, like I'm doing right now!).
I think what the original post from the GM was about was more towards lazy and/or inattentive players that would rather surf the internet on their tablet or look up the next feat they're going to take in two levels than try to help us imagine what their murder ... er, Pathfinder looks like, talks like, etc.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me (when filling out Chronicles): How much gold did you get on your day job?
Player: I rolled a 17.
Me: That's nice. How much gold did you get?
Player: However much a 17 gets me.
Me: It's your day job check, dude, not mine. Look it up yourself instead of expecting me to memorize the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)
Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."
GM: "You guys suck."
To be fair, this is realistically what people would do in a hostage situation where raise dead was a reasonable possibility.
|
|
To be fair, this is realistically what people would do in a hostage situation where raise dead was a reasonable possibility.As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)
Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."
GM: "You guys suck."
True. Makes me think that the cost of raise dead should scale with level (the higher level of being you are, the more it costs to restore your full life force XD).
|
|
To be fair, this is realistically what people would do in a hostage situation where raise dead was a reasonable possibility.As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)
Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."
GM: "You guys suck."
Heck, I have often wondered how effective threatening to slit someone's throat is when Cure spells are available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) Player uses an effect, spell, etc. on a monster that is immune to that type of effect, for example, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature. Then, after you tell them it has no effect their response is, "Oh, well, I wouldn't have done that then. I do this instead."
A witch of 18+ intelligence, especially one who made his knowledge roll to identify the creature, ought to know how his hexes work and what they can affect. If it was a plant creature that didn't look like a plant creature, and they failed the knowledge roll, sure, but as the previous discussion about diplomacy covered, don't penalize a player for not being as smart, charismatic, or wise as their character.
6) The player asks what the monster looks like. I tell him it looks exactly like the Paizo/WotC mini I put on the table. The player then picks up the mini, reads the bottom, then proudly announces to everyone what they are fighting.
Nothing wrong with that as long as they keep in mind it is OOC knowledge. I would point this out to them, then use the name of it rather than a description when describing its actions in combat, but I would insist that no one try to look it up in a Bestiary or something unless they make a good knowledge roll.
OK, here's some from me.
Players who spend half an hour arguing about Grapple rules when they make almost no difference to how the combat plays out. (This happened to me as a player, actually, and it was a player arguing with the GM. Argh.)
Players who mistake their mini for their characters. "I've got a sword in my hand, see, right there!" "Um, no, you have to use a move action to draw your sword, and I wouldn't assume you walk around with a deadly weapon in your hand all the time."
Players who assume they walk around with a deadly weapon in their hand all the time. "I fire my crossbow!" "The crossbow that's in your backpack, unloaded?"
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
4) Player uses an effect, spell, etc. on a monster that is immune to that type of effect, for example, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature. Then, after you tell them it has no effect their response is, "Oh, well, I wouldn't have done that then. I do this instead."A witch of 18+ intelligence, especially one who made his knowledge roll to identify the creature, ought to know how his hexes work and what they can affect.
I understand the point. But at what point should you draw the line between what the character does know about how its powers work and what the player should know about how their character works?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6) The player asks what the monster looks like. I tell him it looks exactly like the Paizo/WotC mini I put on the table. The player then picks up the mini, reads the bottom, then proudly announces to everyone what they are fighting.Nothing wrong with that as long as they keep in mind it is OOC knowledge. I would point this out to them, then use the name of it rather than a description when describing its actions in combat, but I would insist that no one try to look it up in a Bestiary or something unless they make a good knowledge roll.
It's a bit of an odd pet peeve. If they saw the mini and recognized it and said the same thing I doubt it would bother me. But when they look at the bottom it makes me feel as if they are somehow 'cheating.' Not rational, perhaps, but it annoys me none the less.
|
I understand the point. But at what point should you draw the line between what the character does know about how its powers work and what the player should know about how their character works?4) Player uses an effect, spell, etc. on a monster that is immune to that type of effect, for example, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature. Then, after you tell them it has no effect their response is, "Oh, well, I wouldn't have done that then. I do this instead."A witch of 18+ intelligence, especially one who made his knowledge roll to identify the creature, ought to know how his hexes work and what they can affect.
I prefer to err on the side of character competence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to err on the side of character competence.I understand the point. But at what point should you draw the line between what the character does know about how its powers work and what the player should know about how their character works?4) Player uses an effect, spell, etc. on a monster that is immune to that type of effect, for example, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature. Then, after you tell them it has no effect their response is, "Oh, well, I wouldn't have done that then. I do this instead."A witch of 18+ intelligence, especially one who made his knowledge roll to identify the creature, ought to know how his hexes work and what they can affect.
I tend to err in the other direction as I feel it encourages players to learn the rules better and not rely on the DM to know everything. Newbs are usually an exception to this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a player and this annoys me.
GM: "Ok, roll a Will save."
Player: *Picking up die and about to roll* "What's the DC?"
GM: "You'll find out."
I've seen this happen with attacks, as well. "What's the AC?"
Just roll the dice and give your result. Don't ask the DC/AC, you don't know.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand what's wrong with that; around here at least, it's common for players to announce their rolls (whether an attack or a save) and let the GM announce the results. Typically it works the other way too, where a GM will announce an attack/save and the player says whether it hits/succeeds or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to err in the other direction as I feel it encourages players to learn the rules better and not rely on the DM to know everything. Newbs are usually an exception to this.
As you can see on this thread, many, if not most, of that dms encourage players to do better on are a combination of arbitrary interpretations, house rules, dice conventions, and personal gaming styles.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand what's wrong with that; around here at least, it's common for players to announce their rolls (whether an attack or a save) and let the GM announce the results. Typically it works the other way too, where a GM will announce an attack/save and the player says whether it hits/succeeds or not.
I think you are misunderstanding the complaint (I did the first time I read it too). He is saying you shouldn't be asking for the DC/AC.
|
|
As you can see on this thread, many, if not most, of that dms encourage players to do better on are a combination of arbitrary interpretations, house rules, dice conventions, and personal gaming styles.
I tend to err in the other direction as I feel it encourages players to learn the rules better and not rely on the DM to know everything. Newbs are usually an exception to this.
I fail to understand this response as the one example I gave, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature, is none of these.
I think you are misunderstanding the complaint (I did the first time I read it too). He is saying you shouldn't be asking for the DC/AC.
Exactly.
Sorry, didn’t think it was unclear.
I don't understand what's wrong with that; around here at least, it's common for players to announce their rolls (whether an attack or a save) and let the GM announce the results. Typically it works the other way too, where a GM will announce an attack/save and the player says whether it hits/succeeds or not.I think you are misunderstanding the complaint (I did the first time I read it too). He is saying you shouldn't be asking for the DC/AC.
It varies. Anyone that's got eyes should be able to tell the difference between perfectly smooth, vertical volcanic glass and and a craggy outcropping full of handholds. Anyone with handle animal should be able to tell a friendly , well trained carthorse and a wild stallion.
|
|
Although I agree that it's annoying when they announce Perception but don't say what for (or announce any other skill check without saying what they're actually doing), I disagree that they should only make skill checks when prompted by the GM. Some checks are metagame constructs that the characters aren't aware of (like a reactive Perception check), but others (like a Perception check to search) are intentional, action-costing activities that the character could decide to do. Deciding to spend an action to do something—regardless of whether it involves a skill check or not—is always the player's responsibility. They don't get to see the trap unless they choose to spend the actions to search, and I don't get to force their characters to take actions.A pet peeve of mine.
Player: I roll perception
*rolls
Player: I got a 29
Me: What are you looking for?Maybe it's just me, but I believe that skill checks should only ever be rolled after the GM asks for one. All too often I see players just decide to roll a skill check without first consulting the GM. They might not need to make the check they think they do. The DC might be unbeatable. The DC might be an auto success. A number of other things could affect the necessity to make a skill check. I guess I'm against needless die rolls.
No, but because players are almost always never aware of all the circumstances, a player should wait for the gm to tell them to roll. Too many times I've had players trying to run about opening every door, perceiving everything and thinking that because they said it or rolled it, that encounters and/or ambushes are immediately nerfed.
Players need to give the GM time to adjudicate what happens when circumstances change (I.e. a door is opened) before they start rolling dice and then act offended when I declare that they are surprised or whatever.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me (when filling out Chronicles): How much gold did you get on your day job?
Player: I rolled a 17.
Me: That's nice. How much gold did you get?
Player: However much a 17 gets me.
Me: It's your day job check, dude, not mine. Look it up yourself instead of expecting me to memorize the table.
Is it bad if I have the table memorized by accident?
|
|
Is it bad if I have the table memorized by accident?Me (when filling out Chronicles): How much gold did you get on your day job?
Player: I rolled a 17.
Me: That's nice. How much gold did you get?
Player: However much a 17 gets me.
Me: It's your day job check, dude, not mine. Look it up yourself instead of expecting me to memorize the table.
It's never bad to have all the rules memorized. It is bad to expect someone else to have memorized them so that you don't have to.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a mechanical effect to that? Bonus/penalty on the Perception checks? A time past which it doesn't help to search longer? Are you basing this on any actual rules?
Taking 20 on Perception (1 minute) doesn't help you read the books on a bookshelf, or analyze documents for evidence.
I've run several scenarios, and at least one Season 5 scenario in particular, where PCs are required to search a room for 1 or more hours in order to gather enough evidence for their mission.
So asking players how long they are willing to search a particular area may have an impact on what they find.
|
|
Is it bad if I have the table memorized by accident?Me (when filling out Chronicles): How much gold did you get on your day job?
Player: I rolled a 17.
Me: That's nice. How much gold did you get?
Player: However much a 17 gets me.
Me: It's your day job check, dude, not mine. Look it up yourself instead of expecting me to memorize the table.
I make sure to keep a copy of the After Scenario Reference Sheet (it should be the top file on the page) in the back slip-cover of my GM binder for easy reference.
|
|
Although I agree that it's annoying when they announce Perception but don't say what for (or announce any other skill check without saying what they're actually doing), I disagree that they should only make skill checks when prompted by the GM. Some checks are metagame constructs that the characters aren't aware of (like a reactive Perception check), but others (like a Perception check to search) are intentional, action-costing activities that the character could decide to do. Deciding to spend an action to do something—regardless of whether it involves a skill check or not—is always the player's responsibility. They don't get to see the trap unless they choose to spend the actions to search, and I don't get to force their characters to take actions.A pet peeve of mine.
Player: I roll perception
*rolls
Player: I got a 29
Me: What are you looking for?Maybe it's just me, but I believe that skill checks should only ever be rolled after the GM asks for one. All too often I see players just decide to roll a skill check without first consulting the GM. They might not need to make the check they think they do. The DC might be unbeatable. The DC might be an auto success. A number of other things could affect the necessity to make a skill check. I guess I'm against needless die rolls.
No, but because players are almost always never aware of all the circumstances, a player should wait for the gm to tell them to roll. Too many times I've had players trying to run about opening every door, perceiving everything and thinking that because they said it or rolled it, that encounters and/or ambushes are immediately nerfed.
Players need to give the GM time to adjudicate what happens when circumstances change (I.e. a door is opened) before they start rolling dice and then act offended when I declare that they are surprised or whatever.
Or the reverse, when the players blurt out they are taking X combat action before the DM has asked for initiative and expect to get a surprise round out of it.
|
|
Ooh yeah, I'll add one. People around here have an obsession with going first. That means a LOT of diviners.
Player: "I always act in the surprise round."
GM: "OK, but there's no surprise round."
Player: "That means I get an action but they don't."
GM: "She's been watching you for the last 3 rooms. She's not surprised."
Player: "But I always get to act in the surprise round!"
GM: ". . ."
As a player I have a big beef with players who start lighting up a mini as soon as the GM plops it down on the table. I like to find out if the new creature is actually hostile. As a GM I don't care as much. If they want to risk a prestige point, so be it.
Tell them how life-link actually works in a PBP game, when the BBEG's eidolon has just been illigitemately kept up and rolled a crit. It requires the eidolon to take enough damage to be sent back to its own plane, it does not kick in if the eidolon is just unconscious. The invisible BBEG with no damage just gave up at that point, I swear I was being very polite, but found myself feeling guilty for spoiling the game :( Though of course this being on the net its possible I was being oversensitive.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't have a figure or dice, can you get me some?" - 9th level player
This is why I keep a Mini of Shame around.
It is a pig that is also a wizard.
I'm actually a little notorious for forgetting essential things like that.
"Alright, I got pregens, minis, PFS cards for new players, all my characters, flipmats I need, mats, markers, chronicle sheets, my tablet with scenarios needed pre-loaded, charger, wallet, keys, phone...O.K. I'm good to go."
*gets to gameday*
"Wait, where are my dice and pencils? Arg...."
