| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking I wouldn't limit it.
There's a few things at play
a) If there's no in-game time pressure, I'd rather everyone who wants to roll, to roll at once. I don't want to do each roll sequentially. I like being able to say something like "You put your heads together and point out different aspects of the statue. X and Y highlight A, while Z highlights B." This works really well for GM rolled (or VTT/Foundry Blind GM) checks.
b) If its a choice of do check A, or action B, or check C during the same unit time interval, I prefer everyone to predeclare which action they're taking. If they want/are allowed a second round, then they can switch it up. But often that would be at the expense of more timing passes(that might be relevant), or forgoing other avenues of investigation.
This situation has been around for many editions, and like others have noted, that's what a person/character would naturally do.
"I dunno, you know?"
Players, including myself, would often put a minimal investment into a knowledge skill simply to have a long shot since there were seldom repercussions for failure. This is why I appreciate PF2's critical failures giving false info! Dunning-Kruger enabled, and none of that phony don't know vs. do know (and absolutely trust no matter who says it) dichotomy. Yes, it's extra labor (and hopefully published adventures will help more with false info), but IMO that's the better default though I understand skipping that for quicker play since false data takes thought and might derail a plot.
ETA: This is all assuming in-game reasoning between PCs, not players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also depends on the check.
For a Recall Knowledge check, yes - each character would make their own check based on their own knowledge. And would likely all do so in sequence until one of them succeeds if given enough time.
For a lot of other checks, I really don't like allowing that. A perception check to search the room for example. If multiple characters want to do that, they would make one main check supported by multiple Aid checks.
Otherwise it will really throw off the math of the DCs.
A check that has a 55% chance of success when made once will have a 96% chance of at least one success out of four characters attempting it.
A check that has a 20% chance of success when made once will still have a 60% chance of one character succeeding if they are all allowed to make independent attempts.
So unless it is something that you really want to let your players succeed at - but for some reason want to still have them roll for - it is better to use one main check and Aid. Or a skill challenge. Or something similiar to how secondary checks of casting Rituals works.
For a knowledge check, since I love to give lore I'm usually happy to let the party try at once when their attention is drawn to a thing. That said, there is an option for putting a little limitation in the "Oh, A failed so now I should try" ripple effect.
Since Recall and most uses of Perception are Secret checks, if you have the players roll into a dice tower or you roll for them, on a failure you can tell them that there's nothing to see (or obfuscate with basic details; "You search the bookshelf and find books") or that they can't think of anything relevant.
This won't stop people from calling your bluff and trying to figure out for themselves anyway, but it does mean when other characters try their rolls its less likely to be directly triggered by the knowledge that a previous check failed so now they gotta try, and more likely triggered because they're noticing in another PC taking interest in the subject of investigation and going over to have a look.
Mind you, if the primary problem is just the amount of time it takes when everyone rolls one at a time, the most obvious solution is to have everyone roll at once who dares (those untrained might get a lucky throw... or they might spew bad info that conflicts with another player who did succeed...)
Isn't this why secret checks exist?
There are two ways to handle this.
1. Play the RAW and roll the checks secretly and give false info on critical failures. Rolling the checks yourself takes time but if players realize by rolling with a bad bonus they will likely get bad knowledge, then only the players who are decent at the check will bother.
2. Just tell everyone to roll it at once and tell you the highest. Consider ignoring the critical failure condition, or just have fun with it. Even if it is obviously false to the players, they may enjoy roleplaying it as fake. I've started doing this with Dubious Knowledge. "Ah, yes, you can tell that to lay this haunt to rest you must destroy the bones of the kobold [and the best way to do that is by making them into a soup stock.]" Now suddenly your party is stopping for lunch.
It also depends on the check.
For a Recall Knowledge check, yes - each character would make their own check based on their own knowledge. And would likely all do so in sequence until one of them succeeds if given enough time.
For a lot of other checks, I really don't like allowing that. A perception check to search the room for example. If multiple characters want to do that, they would make one main check supported by multiple Aid checks.
Otherwise it will really throw off the math of the DCs.
A check that has a 55% chance of success when made once will have a 96% chance of at least one success out of four characters attempting it.
A check that has a 20% chance of success when made once will still have a 60% chance of one character succeeding if they are all allowed to make independent attempts.
So unless it is something that you really want to let your players succeed at - but for some reason want to still have them roll for - it is better to use one main check and Aid. Or a skill challenge. Or something similiar to how secondary checks of casting Rituals works.
I'm pretty sure the math of searching rooms in particular assumes multiple people are allowed to make rolls. Secret doors, treasure, and what have you are there to be found. I hate seeing players miss crap because everyone rolled bad.
I'm pretty sure the math of searching rooms in particular assumes multiple people are allowed to make rolls. Secret doors, treasure, and what have you are there to be found. I hate seeing players miss crap because everyone rolled bad.
Yes. That is certainly a judgement call that should be considered.
My preferred option for such things though is to simply allow the secret/treasure to be found just by thinking of searching rather than setting a roll for it. Perhaps have a roll to decide which of the characters finds said secret, but not gating success on it.
If you are going to gate success on a die roll, you (the GM) should know what your probabilities are. A single d20 roll is intuitively predictable. Multiple d20 rolls is exponential, and that surprises most people who haven't studied probability.
I'm also cool with skipping the roll.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you guys’ limit when player’s attempt to redo another players failed check?
What I mean is:
Player A: “So I’m looking at this strange statue, can I try to figure out what it is?”
DM (Me): “Sure, that’ll be a Recall Knowledge Secret Religion check.”
Player A: Rolls a Failure
DM: “Yeah, your mind is fuzzy and drawing a blank.”
Player B/C/D: “Can I give a try?”
I mean I get it; an argument could be made. During the time that other characters would see this statue and think “Huh I wonder what this is, I’m going to search my knowledge.” But I’ve noticed it slows down my game when everyone is rolling for the same check. And takes the spotlight away from them achieving the check.
If you think about it, why couldn't two people both think about an issue to come up with an answer? Or if one of them tries first, then and only then does the second one bother to really think about it.
So it doesn't really make sense from a plausibility standpoint to say no. You're annoyed because it slows things down, not because it's bad for immersion or balance or something.
So improve the efficiency of your checks. I usually keep a sheet of paper with everyones' skill bonuses for skills that typically do secret checks. I can quickly roll for everyone and say "well you believe X, you don't know, and you believe Y". And the person who's really invested in the skill is of course going to be right much more often.
Of course, there are a few exceptions, some checks require you to be at least trained or even expert, if form a published Adventure Path.
This is something the CRB reads like they thought they were going to do it a lot, but as time passes, I don't see it very often. It's not the best game mechanic. You don't get all that many choices on what to make expert+ and you can't read the writer of the next book's mind.
And also, normal DCs are already kind of set up to assume you keep up with the skill. At level 10 a normal DC is already difficult if you're only Trained. So this proficiency gating isn't really needed either.
Some checks aren’t important for the story. Like trying to climb a wall to get to the other side. In those instances, I could see others or even the same player who failed the attempt. Try and redo it. In such case I’d say “I can hand wave the roll but it will take you x amount of time to pass the check.”
If it's something they'll succeed at eventually, I generally don't even ask for the check, or I make the check about how long it takes them. So one check to climb the wall, on a success you get over it quickly. On a failure it takes longer. On a critical failure you still get over it, but something else a little bad happens.
My thought to limit this:
- If a player wants to try and achieve the same check another player failed, they must have a given proficiency.
- When I ask for the Check, I ask anyone within the area. If they are attempting the check as well or aiding the person. If they fail other players cannot attempt the check. Unless something changes, like the passage of time, players learn some new information tied to the statue.Or am I being a curmudgeon wanting to limit this?
Yeah I don't think these are good ideas. They feel artificial and unnecessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Matt Colville on "Skill Piling", why you should ban it, and solutions to it
His point about proficiency getting is more relavant for PF2 than 5e, but PF2 has penalties for (critical) failure which undermines his point a bit when applied to PF2.
He's also trying to solve a different problem than the OP. Matt thinks it is silly when an untrained character succeeds at the roll. The OP just thinks it slows down the game.
It's better advice than you and Castiliano just throwing up your hands and saying "Gamers, am I right? What are you gonna do?"
It's better advice than you and Castiliano just throwing up your hands and saying "Gamers, am I right? What are you gonna do?"
Though I noted it's a gaming trope of sorts, I didn't throw up my hands. I both embraced PF2's critical failure mechanic for addressing it re: Recall Knowledge and noted how that's what people (as in the PCs, and this includes in the high fantasy genre) would operate.
"Didn't think of anything/find anything/get that door open? Let me have a go." That's simply normal teamwork, both IRL & in game.So not a problem, so in answer to your only question, yes, you're being a curmudgeon, I just didn't want to speak so bluntly. And most players enjoy taking stabs at obstacles, as long as the obstacles are worthwhile (as others noted).
And I agree with most of the advice re: table management.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pretty much. This isn't actually a problem, IMO, and the OP is being curmudgeon about it. But we did suggest a couple ways to cut down on it.
I'd also argue that we did it in two paragraphs and tied our advise to the system in question, instead of using a 10 minute video discussing a different game with extremely relevant differences to the topic at hand. (I like Matt Coleville, and I don't regret having watched the video or anything. I'm just saying he's trying to solve a problem PF2 doesn't really have.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, there are two solutions to this problem. One is to have a copy of your players' character sheets (this is simple if you are doing online play, just make sure their character is up to date on the paizo website). Ask the players to roll 10 rolls in advance, write them down, and use the rolls for secret checks as you use them.
On the other hand, if they players are activly doing something, then it makes total sense for them to be able to do what you are describing.
Player 1: What do I know about ancient Osirion?
GM: Roll society
Player 1: (Rolls Failure) "Sorry guys, I'm drawing a blank about ancient Osirion."
Player 2: "Oh, you are trying to figure something about ancient Osirion? Let me have a look." GM: Can I roll too?
|
Do you guys’ limit when player’s attempt to redo another players failed check?
. . .
DM (Me): “Sure, that’ll be a Recall Knowledge Secret Religion check.”
In the case of Recall Knowledge, specifically, I’ve adopted a house rule moving the Fail result to Crit Fail, dropping the misinformation from crit fail, and changing fail to just not getting anything for this check, so I sometimes get the same player attempting to redo his own failed checks. This increases the chance of SOMEONE recalling the relevant knowledge, but honestly, I prefer that most of the time, because it’s usually more interesting for the players know about the world than for them to not. To balance this, though, I treat the entire party as a single “unit” for purposes of Recall Knowledge, so if the Untrained buffoon decides to try and rolls a crit fail, the entire party is locked out of the check.
For other types of checks, I just go with what makes sense in the situation. In-world time constraints are the most common limitation.
Defined exploration activities also help with this — if a PC is doing Defend, then they aren’t making Recall Knowledge checks, for instance.