|
9 months ago ::
Sep 06, 2012 - 11:03PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2010
|
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?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 06, 2012 - 11:09PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
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.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 6:28AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2001
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 7:23AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
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.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 7:24AM
#5
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 8:17AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
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"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 9:14AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 10:23AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 2:28PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
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).
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 2:58PM
#10
|
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
