advice on when to make rolls for players

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
For attack rolls, I never would.  That just wouldn't be D&D.

But I'm having problems with players using player knowledge when they know they beat the DC.

Say the DC is 26.  (After many sessions, they've pretty much sussed this out.)

If they roll low, I say they have no idea.  They take this as the truth because they know they rolled low.

If they roll high, whatever I tell them is taken as the truth, because they know they rolled high.

But from now on, I would like to experiment with making knowledge checks & guesses myself for them.  That way, it'll up the fear factor.

E.g.:  "I make a dungeoneering check to determine if the floor is gradually sloping downward."

DM: (hidden roll for them) "As far as you are able to determine, it isn't."

Massively more creepy!

Experience/advice with this? 
Let them make all the rolls for their characters and trust them to react appropriately and plausibly to the results, even if it means acting on what they know to be true. Hiding rolls seems like a good idea, but it's very forced, undermines trust, and can lead to unnecessary confusion without much real benefit.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

First, I am comfortable with just telling the players that they always believe that what they know to be true is true. They never doubt themselves.

Second, if your players are having a difficulty with this, consider:
Have all of the players make ten d20 rolls and give you the results in order. Write them down. Whenever they call for a knowledge check, have them tell you the modifier and then compare it to the next number in their list, crossing it off when it is used. (To avoid the strong memories of some of the players, use the numbers in a patterned order like odd slots first, then even.)

I have used this for knowledge, perception, and insight checks with different player groups, and it works well when it is needed.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.


If they roll low, I say they have no idea.  They take this as the truth because they know they rolled low.



I almost never say this. Unless its something like "I try to jump the chasm". A skill roll always succeeds. 


I roll a knowledge check, I got a 7, what do I know about trolls? You know that trolls are particulalrly vulnerable to sonic damage and loud sounds. They also are known to live in dens they keep perpetually in flames.


Now, none of that info is correct, but presenting it as such frames it in a way that the player knows what the character knows. They will figure out what you are doing fairly quickly, and you shouldn't deny it. It won't help on obvious failures or successes, but it will definatley blur the middle ground a lot. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Let them make all the rolls for their characters and trust them to react appropriately and plausibly to the results, even if it means acting on what they know to be true. Hiding rolls seems like a good idea, but it's very forced, undermines trust, and can lead to unnecessary confusion without much real benefit.



+1.

OP: You're also trying to illicit some kind of emotion from your players using dice. That's not certain to work and probably isn't worth the effort. It's not something you can control, so don't bother trying. Emotional responses from players will happen on their own or they won't.

You're also probably asking for skill checks when failure is not interesting ("I say they have no idea"). That's not a good time to ask for a skill check. Only ask when they're in a charged situation and when failure could be cool. Otherwise, they do what they want to do or know what they want to know. 

Also, think about this: They fail, but they still get the right information or do the thing they want to do, only it costs them something - time, opportunity, resources, just about anything as long as it matters and makes sense in context.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I never roll for my players.  Ever.  I always give them a chance to affect the world around them on their own so that if stuff does go bad it never feels to them like it was forced.  Especially when there's a possibility for negative impact on any level.

If they are rolling for perception and fail to detect something even if there's nothing there I'll answer with "You don't THINK there's anything there."  This is because you leave room for the unknown which makes them wonder.  Especially if they rolled low even if there's nothing there at all.

I'm touchy about this subject because of past bad experiences..  Sorry.. 
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Related topic:

Does anyone ever create red herrings with this kind of thing?

Just for fun, I once put a fig that looks like a statue on the battle map, asked all of my players what their passive perception was, and then told them they think it's a perfectly normal statue. I also put an initiative card in the order, and said things like "Okay, the ranger's complete? Statue's turn. It continues to be a perfectly normal statue. Monk, your turn!"

The mechanics behind it - DC 10 Perception reveals that it's a perfectly normal statue.



Way too annoying to do in every encounter, but funny once. ONCE.
Experience/advice with this? 

I normally just use their 'take 10' value (although, if it's a task that you only get one roll for, I'll often ask them if they want to 'take 10' or roll).

But a player could always say they want to spend more effort on something that allows rerolls... effectively 'taking 20' even. This almost never seems to occur in my games though.
Related topic:

Does anyone ever create red herrings with this kind of thing?

Just for fun, I once put a fig that looks like a statue on the battle map, asked all of my players what their passive perception was, and then told them they think it's a perfectly normal statue. I also put an initiative card in the order, and said things like "Okay, the ranger's complete? Statue's turn. It continues to be a perfectly normal statue. Monk, your turn!"

The mechanics behind it - DC 10 Perception reveals that it's a perfectly normal statue.



Way too annoying to do in every encounter, but funny once. ONCE.



All the time .

I learned quickly that if you do not create "red herrings" then whenever you ask the players to roll dice they instantly assume something is up.

Specifically with Perception (Spot, Search, and Listen) checks.  While traveling I will ask the players to make spot checks and have them spot nothing at all (no matter how successful they roll - this gets them really jumpy sometimes especially if I roll dice before they do :p) or local wildlife.  While dungeon delving, spot checks will often result in seeing patterns in the stone that mean nothing (it's funny to watch some players over think what the pattern indicates, which often lead to knowledge checks that result in them learning that the pattern is a random convergence ), or noticing insignificant creatures (a lone rat, a [normal sized] spider web in the corner of a small room, etc).

The point is two fold:

1) getting (over)reactions from the players that can be very humorous
2) keeps the players from using player knowledge vs character knowledge unfairly (the player may know something is coming and prepare for it even though the character perceives/knows nothing about the upcoming encounter).

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
I don't think these are true red herrings, but rather ways to screw with your players and waste time for no particularly good reason. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to perhaps. Smile

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Sometimes I give my players red herrings like ok everyone roll perception, and just have them not notice anything interesting or particular.  It makes the players be on their toes and builds up anticipation..  I don't however do it all the time because then I feel, like iserith pointed out, that it can just bog things down and just make it unfruitful.

To me anyway there's a good reason to do it in a dungeon or stressful situation where it would make sense for the PC's to make those kinds of random checks VS true red herrings.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

The reason I think that's pointless is because there are a few things at play here. First, you're trying to "make" someone be on their toes or build up anticipation. These are not things a DM can control (since it exists in somebody else's mind) or even influence consistently. They'll either be on their toes and breathless with anticipation organically on their own or they won't. Second, it can possibly feed into failure mitigation syndrome which is already rampant in many gaming circles. The hobby doesn't need more of that. As well, I'd argue that it breaks down trust between the players and DM on some level. I never want to put that trust out there to be dinged. It's the DM's greatest treasure. So to me, there aren't enough upsides to put this trick in my arsenal.

And if we're talking true red herrings as in a mystery novel or the like, that's a huge mistake in D&D, especially if you're running a plot-based/linear game. 

Anyway, I guess this is still somewhat related to the topic because it's essentially about influencing player behavior with dice.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I don't know if I agree with you here iserith.  If it's not possible to make someone be on their toes and build up their anticipation how are all the novels of the type doing it ?  The writter puts in sentence structures, mentions details etc that directly influence how the reader feels.  It is entirely possible to influence how someone percieves a situation in their minds, everyone has this happen to them every single day of their lives.  The people around you influence that in subtle or very direct ways.  Saying that I, as the DM, can't possibly affect how you perceive something in DnD doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe I just need it explained to me further, but I don't get it.

As for trust, I think that's more subjective to the people at the table themselves than the method.  If trust is an issue a lot of things won't work well and that's not just about the methods the DM uses.  I agree that trust is very important but maybe if the trust is there, players won't stop trusting the DM because of this kind of method being used in the right kind of situation.  I often reward players with tactical knowledge, bonus treasure or what not if they roleplay or roll well.

Agreed that true red herrings are not a good idea.

oh btw, you now owe me two games iserith !  ;) haha
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

I don't know if I agree with you here iserith.  If it's not possible to make someone be on their toes and build up their anticipation how are all the novels of the type doing it ?  The writter puts in sentence structures, mentions details etc that directly influence how the reader feels.  It is entirely possible to influence how someone percieves a situation in their minds, everyone has this happen to them every single day of their lives.  The people around you influence that in subtle or very direct ways.  Saying that I, as the DM, can't possibly affect how you perceive something in DnD doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe I just need it explained to me further, but I don't get it.



Right, but it's still up to the reader to buy-in. The writer can't control it. It's hit or miss. I'd mention that above I said you can't control it (which is true) and influencing the players in this regard is "inconsistent" (which I think is reasonble even if not easily demonstrable). My style is to only do those things I know work which, not surprisingly, are always the things that I can control. Everything else is a shot in the dark and of questionable value. In my opinion, of course. It goes without saying if you think it works and your players seem to respond to it, you should keep on keepin' on. I'm just presenting another view.

As for trust, I think that's more subjective to the people at the table themselves than the method.  If trust is an issue a lot of things won't work well and that's not just about the methods the DM uses.  I agree that trust is very important but maybe if the trust is there, players won't stop trusting the DM because of this kind of method being used in the right kind of situation.  I often reward players with tactical knowledge, bonus treasure or what not if they roleplay or roll well.



Again, it will depend of course as you say. But to me it's not worth a potential hit to that trust in light of my views above. Still all just my opinion.

oh btw, you now owe me two games iserith !  ;) haha



Yeah, yeah, working on it!

Might be as early as next weekend. I'll let you guys know. 

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I never roll for my players.  Ever.  I always give them a chance to affect the world around them on their own so that if stuff does go bad it never feels to them like it was forced.  Especially when there's a possibility for negative impact on any level.

If they are rolling for perception and fail to detect something even if there's nothing there I'll answer with "You don't THINK there's anything there."  This is because you leave room for the unknown which makes them wonder.  Especially if they rolled low even if there's nothing there at all.

I'm touchy about this subject because of past bad experiences..  Sorry.. 


I have to say, regardless of success or failure, I tend to use 'you don't think there's anything there/that he's lying' unless I really want it to bang home what the result is.  Simply because using the same language each time, goes some way to avoiding the pitfall of your language being different (and therefore, obvious) for success as for failure.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
I really, really hate "You don't THINK there's anything there" and that's because it gives the players an excuse to obsess about a meaningless detail in my game.

If I'm intent on not letting players know the result of their dice roll for, say searching for traps, then every time a check comes up negative, regardless of whether or not there's anything actually to be found, I have to say "you don't THINK there's anything there." I have to do it the same way every time or they'll be able to tell when there's a trap or not and "prepare" for it.

If I don't put a trap on every door, and they don't find every trap that I do put out, and some of those traps cause real problems for them, then I've put myself into a situation in which the players have an incentive to treat every door as if it were trapped because doors without traps are the same as doors with traps they've missed. The might decide not to go through a perfectly harmless door, or roll repeatedly to check. I don't want either of those to be the case. I also don't want to set myself up for accidentally NOT saying the phrase the same way and just giving it away what I was trying to hide.

So, I don't bother. I don't play gotcha. I don't bother with things like trapped doors. I think doing away with those as part of the rules was one of the best things 4th Edition did. If I were to use a door trap or some other gotcha, I would tell the players there's a trap, and they could react to that however they want in character. They would not have to go through what, to their characters, seems like a safe and inviting door. I don't even care what their in-game reason is for it, or if that even know it. I'd much rather just have them go on to something else in the game that they and I am interested in.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I roll Perception for the players, it avoids the whole mess of "Oh gawdz, I rolled a low roll so me seeing nothing dosen't mean ANYTHING!",  and so on.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
I roll Perception for the players, it avoids the whole mess of "Oh gawdz, I rolled a low roll so me seeing nothing dosen't mean ANYTHING!",  and so on.

Just for the sake of conversation, what if you didn't have them roll Perception to know whether or not something was there, just whether or not they could do anything about it? I can think of some responses to that, but I won't try to anticipate your response.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

If the players invest enough time on a "red herring" I'll end up connecting it to some plot element anyway.
What if the relative success or failure of the Perception check didn't gauge whether or not the PC was aware of something hidden that the DM put there... but rather if something was there in the first place?

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I roll Perception for the players, it avoids the whole mess of "Oh gawdz, I rolled a low roll so me seeing nothing dosen't mean ANYTHING!",  and so on.

Just for the sake of conversation, what if you didn't have them roll Perception to know whether or not something was there, just whether or not they could do anything about it? I can think of some responses to that, but I won't try to anticipate your response.




I'll admit to being a bit confused by this question. To me, Perception would be about noticing something, Insight would be knowing if they had any way of stopping it.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
If there's something specific I want check if they notice right away, I'd use passive perception. If they make a check, I'd describe some detail that hadn't been mentioned before. A critical failure doesn't mean you go blind.
I roll Perception for the players, it avoids the whole mess of "Oh gawdz, I rolled a low roll so me seeing nothing dosen't mean ANYTHING!",  and so on.

Just for the sake of conversation, what if you didn't have them roll Perception to know whether or not something was there, just whether or not they could do anything about it? I can think of some responses to that, but I won't try to anticipate your response.

I'll admit to being a bit confused by this question. To me, Perception would be about noticing something, Insight would be knowing if they had any way of stopping it.

I'm not one who believes that description and narration or DM/player decision should replace skills entirely, but that seems like an overuse of skills. But maybe I was unclear.

Let me use a more concrete example. What if I tell the players that the floor of the room they're about to enter is trapped and that they can avoid the trap with, among other thing, the use of Perception to avoid triggering it to to find a means of disarming it? What if I tell them that they can let this knowledge have any effect they want on their character's choices? I can think of some upsides to this. What are the downsides?

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I roll Perception for the players, it avoids the whole mess of "Oh gawdz, I rolled a low roll so me seeing nothing dosen't mean ANYTHING!",  and so on.

Just for the sake of conversation, what if you didn't have them roll Perception to know whether or not something was there, just whether or not they could do anything about it? I can think of some responses to that, but I won't try to anticipate your response.

I'll admit to being a bit confused by this question. To me, Perception would be about noticing something, Insight would be knowing if they had any way of stopping it.

I'm not one who believes that description and narration or DM/player decision should replace skills entirely, but that seems like an overuse of skills. But maybe I was unclear.

Let me use a more concrete example. What if I tell the players that the floor of the room they're about to enter is trapped and that they can avoid the trap with, among other thing, the use of Perception to avoid triggering it to to find a means of disarming it? What if I tell them that they can let this knowledge have any effect they want on their character's choices? I can think of some upsides to this. What are the downsides?


Ok, I get what you mean now. I don't know if I would tell them, or set a low DC to notice, and several squares before they would get near it.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Ok, I get what you mean now. I don't know if I would tell them, or set a low DC to notice, and several squares before they would get near it.

Say you told them. What would be the downside, considering that they might either make the easy roll or catch it with Passive Perception anyway?

(Passive Perception was really intended to do away with the need for hidden rolls, I feel. But some DMs see the static numbers as taking away the chance of failure. There's a temptation to set the DCs higher, just so someone will have to roll. There's a strong desire to play gotcha, but an acknowledgement that players might cry foul unless there was a chance they could have discovered it, either with higher modifiers, or better decisions.)

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Ok, I get what you mean now. I don't know if I would tell them, or set a low DC to notice, and several squares before they would get near it.

Say you told them. What would be the downside, considering that they might either make the easy roll or catch it with Passive Perception anyway?

(Passive Perception was really intended to do away with the need for hidden rolls, I feel. But some DMs see the static numbers as taking away the chance of failure. There's a temptation to set the DCs higher, just so someone will have to roll. There's a strong desire to play gotcha, but an acknowledgement that players might cry foul unless there was a chance they could have discovered it, either with higher modifiers, or better decisions.)



I'm beginning to think that I belong in the "simulationist" school.  I'm not a gotcha DM, but I do like the concept of Perception as a rollable skill, and I do think it's better to roll behind the screen in order to avoid  paranoid roll analysis. I'm not being short, I just don't really have a way to defend my position other then personal preference.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
I'm beginning to think that I belong in the "simulationist" school.



Oh, no, say it isn't so. Why would you do that to yourself? It's so limiting. I'll take "Yes, and" over "No" any day of the week.

I'm not a gotcha DM, but I do like the concept of Perception as a rollable skill, and I do think it's better to roll behind the screen in order to avoid  paranoid roll analysis. I'm not being short, I just don't really have a way to defend my position other then personal preference.



Centauri's not talking about making Perception anything other than it is. He's suggesting in this case that Perception would be used for another purpose in this scene, as dictated by the players. He's starting with the premise that the characters are aware that there is a trap in the vicinity, regardless of their Perception rolls. It's simply there and plain to see - a spout, a suspicious statue, a magical turret, whatever. You have now created a tense situation for the characters. They have to deal with this problem or else it's going to cost them.

"Now that you know there's a trap there, what are you going to do about it?" The players can then discuss how they deal with studying it (Dungeoneering? Perception?), avoiding it (Acrobatics? Athletics?), disarming it (Arcana? Thievery?), or any number of fictional actions that may have skill checks attached to them or not.

Why is this potentially better? Because it creates a lot of interaction and fiction. Not finding something is not as interesting as finding something and having to deal with it. In the former, perhaps you stumble into it because your passive Perception sucks or you didn't roll high enough. The trap is sprung, roll initiative. Fair enough. In Centauri's example, you've stimulated a conversation among the players on how to deal with this fictional block (the trap) and randomized outcomes for their attempts by way of skill checks which generate more conversation. All that chatter creates story, fiction, context, and character development.

Now tell me, by the time each of those examples is resolved, which do you think has a better chance of being more interesting?

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I'm beginning to think that I belong in the "simulationist" school.



Oh, no, say it isn't so. Why would you do that to yourself? It's so limiting. I'll take "Yes, and" over "No" any day of the week.

I'm not a gotcha DM, but I do like the concept of Perception as a rollable skill, and I do think it's better to roll behind the screen in order to avoid  paranoid roll analysis. I'm not being short, I just don't really have a way to defend my position other then personal preference.



Centauri's not talking about making Perception anything other than it is. He's suggesting in this case that Perception would be used for another purpose in this scene, as dictated by the players. He's starting with the premise that the characters are aware that there is a trap in the vicinity, regardless of their Perception rolls. It's simply there and plain to see - a spout, a suspicious statue, a magical turret, whatever. You have now created a tense situation for the characters. They have to deal with this problem or else it's going to cost them.

"Now that you know there's a trap there, what are you going to do about it?" The players can then discuss how they deal with studying it (Dungeoneering? Perception?), avoiding it (Acrobatics? Athletics?), disarming it (Arcana? Thievery?), or any number of fictional actions that may have skill checks attached to them or not.

Why is this potentially better? Because it creates a lot of interaction and fiction. Not finding something is not as interesting as finding something and having to deal with it. In the former, perhaps you stumble into it because your passive Perception sucks or you didn't roll high enough. The trap is sprung, roll initiative. Fair enough. In Centauri's example, you've stimulated a conversation among the players on how to deal with this fictional block (the trap) and randomized outcomes for their attempts by way of skill checks which generate more conversation. All that chatter creates story, fiction, context, and character development.

Now tell me, by the time each of those examples is resolved, which do you think has a better chance of being more interesting?



If vthat's what simulationist means, then forget it. I love Yes and.....



I misunderstood his example then, I was thinking more a shifty floorboard type thing. I concur.   
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
If vthat's what simulationist means, then forget it. I love Yes and.....



Well, don't take my one-liner explanation for it. I'm biased. I linked a blog that makes a good run at the two schools of thought.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

If vthat's what simulationist means, then forget it. I love Yes and.....



Well, don't take my one-liner explanation for it. I'm biased. I linked a blog that makes a good run at the two schools of thought.



I really just meant simulationist like I like things to not directly contradict each other in an objective way.


For example, there's a dragon in the dungeon. The player asks if there's  a gold dragon as a prisonrer of the blue. I would say Yes and.....

If he asked if the gold lived next door to the red in the dungeon I might say no, but he does live upstairs.    
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Sign In to post comments