This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Everybody always rolling for checks

Started by mAcular Chaotic, April 19, 2015, 10:34:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 ... 5
User actions

mAcular Chaotic

April 19, 2015, 10:34:15 PM
How do you handle it? When you're GMing a game, and every time somebody searches for something, every single player waits to see the results of the previous roll before making their own roll, if it's a bad roll.

Or for a persuasion check, they each step up and try. Or intimidation. Or insight.

It gets on my nerves. Is there a better way of handling these kinds of checks?
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

Simlasa

#1
April 19, 2015, 10:37:58 PM Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 10:42:29 PM by Simlasa
If a PC has the skill at a decent level (I'm thinking in BRP terms)  I won't make them roll unless there's some obvious adversity or they're trying to do it quickly.
Persuade default works unless the NPC is somehow inherently inclined not to cooperate.

mAcular Chaotic

#2
April 19, 2015, 10:44:57 PM
Quote from: Simlasa;826757If a PC has the skill at a decent level (I'm thinking in BRP terms)  I won't make them roll unless there's some obvious adversity or they're trying to do it quickly.
Persuade default works unless the NPC is somehow inherently inclined not to cooperate.

What if they're trying to figure out if an NPC is lying to them, and are rolling an Insight check?

Player A rolls, gets a 2. Now player B wants to roll... etc.
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

Werekoala

#3
April 19, 2015, 10:52:10 PM
I guess it's fallen out of favor, but aside from combat rolls, I think the DM/GM should make all the rolls behind a Wall of Ignorance and Fear (tm); after all, how would the character know if he just blew a roll, as opposed to there not being an actual secret door in the room (for example)?
Lan Astaslem


"It's rpg.net The population there would call the Second Coming of Jesus Christ a hate crime." - thedungeondelver

Spellslinging Sellsword

#4
April 19, 2015, 11:00:00 PM
One of the things that you can do is only roll for the player with the highest skill. That way if the most talented/skilled person fails then less skilled/talented people auto-fail. This can be done by the player or the GM either one.

TheHistorian

#5
April 19, 2015, 11:08:57 PM
What part of it is bothering you?

1. The time it takes for each player to check in succession

2. The stretching of believability for each player to attempt something in succesion

3. Players trying things just to gain experience in a skill

4. Something else

mAcular Chaotic

#6
April 19, 2015, 11:10:57 PM
Quote from: TheHistorian;826763What part of it is bothering you?

1. The time it takes for each player to check in succession

2. The stretching of believability for each player to attempt something in succesion

3. Players trying things just to gain experience in a skill

4. Something else

#1 and #2, and also that it is actually meta-gaming, because IC the characters don't know that someone just failed a roll.
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

soviet

#7
April 19, 2015, 11:17:25 PM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826756How do you handle it? When you're GMing a game, and every time somebody searches for something, every single player waits to see the results of the previous roll before making their own roll, if it's a bad roll.

Or for a persuasion check, they each step up and try. Or intimidation. Or insight.

It gets on my nerves. Is there a better way of handling these kinds of checks?

I don't let them do it. The person who has the idea makes the roll and I don't tend to let anyone else try unless they step in and take over within the fiction as well. As a player in stuff like D&D, if I wasn't looking for the thing that the perception roll is about, or thinking about the stuff the history roll is about, I just choose not to pick up the dice. I don't like upstaging other players like that, by doing their own idea better than them.

In less traditional games with conflict resolution you can get around this by setting stakes of failure that always move the situation along one way or another, so win or lose things have changed enough that someone else can't just come in and go 'me too'.
Buy Other Worlds, it\'s a multi-genre storygame excuse for an RPG designed to wreck the hobby from within

mAcular Chaotic

#8
April 19, 2015, 11:34:22 PM
Quote from: soviet;826765I don't let them do it. The person who has the idea makes the roll and I don't tend to let anyone else try unless they step in and take over within the fiction as well. As a player in stuff like D&D, if I wasn't looking for the thing that the perception roll is about, or thinking about the stuff the history roll is about, I just choose not to pick up the dice. I don't like upstaging other players like that, by doing their own idea better than them.

In less traditional games with conflict resolution you can get around this by setting stakes of failure that always move the situation along one way or another, so win or lose things have changed enough that someone else can't just come in and go 'me too'.

The probem with your suggestion, as good as it is, is that the player who wants to always roll no matter what in these situations isn't going to just stop there. He'll say, "Oh well my character suddenly decides that he wants to check this out too" and it just becomes an extra step in the process.
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

Simlasa

#9
April 19, 2015, 11:41:46 PM
I really do like hidden rolls for things where PCs would not know right away if they succeed or not.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826759What if they're trying to figure out if an NPC is lying to them, and are rolling an Insight check?
It depends. If NPC is actively trying to hide something or lie... an opposed roll might be in order. Any PC who states they're observing can participate... roll for them all (hidden roll) and tell each what he whether he thinks the PC is lying and then let them sort it out between them.

Simlasa

#10
April 19, 2015, 11:45:25 PM Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 11:48:45 PM by Simlasa
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826766The probem with your suggestion, as good as it is, is that the player who wants to always roll no matter what in these situations isn't going to just stop there. He'll say, "Oh well my character suddenly decides that he wants to check this out too" and it just becomes an extra step in the process.
I think that's fine for some things, like Mechanical Repair or trying to operate some device. I can see a bunch of guys taking successive turns trying to fix something... with the potential of a fumble that will make the situation worse. But something like observing a lie is a once chance thing, either you were both/all paying attention and used your skill or not.

A lot of games have rules for assisting on skills as well, BRP has that... so the one guy rolls and others roll their skills to give him bonuses. It models looking over his shoulder and giving suggestions or somesuch. But I still think detecting a lie should be a bunch of individual skill uses... and a subsequent discussion.

mAcular Chaotic

#11
April 19, 2015, 11:49:07 PM
Quote from: Simlasa;826767I really do like hidden rolls for things where PCs would not know right away if they succeed or not.
It depends. If NPC is actively trying to hide something or lie... an opposed roll might be in order. Any PC who states they're observing can participate... roll for them all (hidden roll) and tell each what he whether he thinks the PC is lying and then let them sort it out between them.

So what if something like this happens?

NPC:

Player A: I want to see if he's lying.

GM: OK, roll Insight.

Player A: A 2... damn.

GM: You're not sure if he--

Player B: Wait! I want to check too!

GM: ... Fine, roll.

Player B: 5.

Player C: Can I check?
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

Matt

#12
April 20, 2015, 12:06:30 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826769So what if something like this happens?

NPC:

Player A: I want to see if he's lying.

GM: OK, roll Insight.

Player A: A 2... damn.

GM: You're not sure if he--

Player B: Wait! I want to check too!

GM: ... Fine, roll.

Player B: 5.

Player C: Can I check?

To start, the player shouldn't be rolling for that; the GM should and the player shouldn't know for sure what the result was. The player should only know what his character thinks vis-a-vis the NPC lying. And no one else would need to roll since player 1 will tell the others "hey I think this guy is lying" or whatever.

Simlasa

#13
April 20, 2015, 12:14:38 AM Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 12:19:47 AM by Simlasa
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826769So what if something like this happens?
My version would be more like:

NPC:

Player A: I want to see if he's lying.

GM: OK, anyone else want to pay attention and see if they think the guy is telling the truth?

Player B: I do

GM: (Rolls Insight for A and B behind a screen) OK, Player A, you think he's lying... Player B, you think he's being truthful (or however the rolls turn out)

Player C: I want to try too!

GM: Too late, you weren't paying attention!

The PCs then sort out amongst themselves how to proceed based on their impression of what just happened. Maybe Player B has a reputation for being gullible (having a low Insight) or maybe he's right this time...

Xavier Onassiss

#14
April 20, 2015, 12:17:24 AM
If someone volunteers to make a skill check on a "Me too!" basis, I'll usually allow them to assist the first player who thought of making the roll. That usually prevents the "everybody throw dice until someone hits the jackpot" effect. But they still get to make the assist, so their skill check gives the first player a small bump without breaking the game.

Not every skill is amenable to this mechanic, unfortunately.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 ... 5
User actions