I always hate when a player can roll a Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, etc. check and know (or assume) they failed by rolling low.
I made a little excel table numbered 1-20 with random values, also 1-20, in the next column. The randomized column would represent the actualy roll values for certain checks. They can easily be regenerated, so a player can't catch on to what a good roll is.
I don't want to implement it for combat. I feel like a player might roll a 20, and be upset if the corresponding value is a 1 or something.
I could see it being useful as a DM to "fudge the rolls" if the players are just having a terrible string of luck though. Overall, I think it would hurt the game more than help it to use for attacking in combat.
Also, I most likely wouldn't use this for skills that your character would know succeeded or not (climb or disable device checks for instance). A character would know if he climbed a wall or not, and would be able to gauge the difficulty.
However, I could see using it for saves made against effects that don't onset immediately, or for saves vs illusions. Especially the latter. Also, as mentioned above, skill checks that a character wouldn't necessarily know failed.
Now, I have not brought up the idea or implemented it yet, but how would you feel about this as a player? Does it hurt the game in a way I am not aware? I of course can make secret rolls for some checks that are passive (like a perception check to hear something that the player isn't actively listening for), but if the player is actively making a check (for instance, a bluff), do you think this is a good or bad solution?
I always hate when a player can roll a Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, etc. check and know (or assume) they failed by rolling low.
I made a little excel table numbered 1-20 with random values, also 1-20, in the next column. The randomized column would represent the actualy roll values for certain checks. They can easily be regenerated, so a player can't catch on to what a good roll is.
I don't want to implement it for combat. I feel like a player might roll a 20, and be upset if the corresponding value is a 1 or something.
I could see it being useful as a DM to "fudge the rolls" if the players are just having a terrible string of luck though. Overall, I think it would hurt the game more than help it to use for attacking in combat.Also, I most likely wouldn't use this for skills that your character would know succeeded or not (climb or disable device checks for instance). A character would know if he climbed a wall or not, and would be able to gauge the difficulty.
However, I could see using it for saves made against effects that don't onset immediately, or for saves vs illusions. Especially the latter. Also, as mentioned above, skill checks that a character wouldn't necessarily know failed.
Now, I have not brought up the idea or implemented it yet, but how would you feel about this as a player? Does it hurt the game in a way I am not aware? I of course can make secret rolls for some checks that are passive (like a perception check to hear something that the player isn't actively listening for), but if the player is actively making a check (for instance, a bluff), do you think this is a good or bad solution?
I think you've found your way to the Card Game forum by accident. While you wait for your post to be redirected to the appropriate forum, why not play a game of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game? Maybe it is the solution to your problem. (Though probably not, since it seems totally unrelated. But it is still fun to play.)
While I hate players meta-gaming knowledge/perception based on the numbers on the dice, I think this would just lead to a lot of confusion.
The only solution I've found for that stuff is to have knowledges rolled, but not tell them what kind it is. I keep a tally of their bonuses and apply them accordingly. So they might know they failed, but they can't be like "Oh well it was a lizard and knowledge:arcana, so obviously it was.."
EDIT: forgot how I actually did it
I agree with mephnick, randomizing their numbers again would not only be confusing, but it could lead to some mistrust between GM and players - I advise against this idea. I also think that rolling such rolls in secret would be the best solution, but that takes fun away from the players - again, I advise against this idea.
My suggestion would be this: Reminder your players frequently and constantly that they are Thumpithukus Gnackle, half-elf defender of the homelands and bastion for all that is good, not John Smith from the next town over, sitting here at a table with friends. After you've done this a few times, point out to them that their character isn't aware of what a d20 roll is and certainly not the results of it. A good way to reinforce this idea is to make sure that varying levels of information are given for knowledge checks. For example, a natural 1 (which does not automatically fail a skill check) plus 11 is still a 12, which would be enough to know that a wraith is a type of incorporeal undead, but probably not enough to be aware that it drains strength, and certainly not enough to know that it's strength drain will cause a victim to rise as a wraith if it reaches zero.
If this isn't enough to put your players on the right path, you should eventually point out to them that using the rolls for player knowledge is metagaming, which is essentially cheating. Ask them if they think it's fair for your monster to be aware of all their character weaknesses that you as the GM are aware of... That should help to frame the issue in a light that they can understand.
It is my general thought that the inability to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is an issue of a newer role-player. I find myself getting better at it each and every time I play, and many of my friends who have been at gaming for decades are even better at it than I. That said, some people progress faster than others. I'd advise making a strong attempt to foster a good GM / Player relationship and avoiding anything that could be construed as adversarial. Some people (players and GMs alike) are very sensitive to the feeling of being accused of wrong doing.
Guide your players to good roleplaying with a gentle, helping hand, rather than more extreme measures.
|
If you're going to re-randomize the player's roll, why did you make him roll in the first place?
---
If you don't want the player metagaming off the die roll outcome (and asking nicely isn't sufficient), make the roll for them. If the players are using Sense Motive against the archvillain, that's perfectly legitimate - it would cramp the players either way to know the result of the roll.
As a player, I prefer not to have some knowledge OOC. It can be very liberating. For example, I'm talking with the archvillain. He might be lying. If I don't know how well I rolled on Sense Motive, I'm free to say "even though I can't tell if he's lying, I just don't think that story is plausible.
If I knew OOC that I rolled rock bottom, that would seem like metagaming - I'd be wondering myself if I wasn't metagaming. But because OOC I don't know how well I rolled, I'm free to do all the IC deductions I can.
---
On the other hand, you could just rule that if you roll well on the roll, your character is also sure of himself. If you roll a 20, your character might say "I'm pretty sure about what I know about this monsters." On a 1, you'd be "I'm pretty sure I don't have a clue." On a middling 10, you'd be "I think it might be X, but I might be wrong..."
We sorta do this in combat. If you roll a 19, you know you just made an elegant move. If it still doesn't hit, you KNOW it wasn't because you suck, but because the monster is just really hard to hit.
As a GM, i roll the knowledge checks for my players, i have their ranks noted down behind the screen and roll the dice assuming that if two or more of them have the same skill, they are aiding each other and the highest rank character rolls with a bonus.
Ex:
Two characters have Knowledge(Religion), one at +10, the other at +6.
(GM Roll) Character A rolls with +12 and i tell the group the results of their observations.
Knowledge checks are not a success or suck type of check, they get more information out of it the better they roll, so if the GM says only one or two tidbits of info, they know their check was bad, but if the GM gives out some of their vulnerabilities, they know they rolled good.