Quote from: Skarg;826879Even rolling dice only when something "interesting" is going on, gives the players extra information,

Players who are playing characters can know things their characters don't. I make it clear to my players that they need to have their character act based on what the character knows, not what they know.

The upside is that I will often tell players they know things without them having to ask, and they don't abuse the knowledge that they know the results of their dice rolls.

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?

Find players that will role-play what their characters would do. Get rid of players that are trying to win the game.

Quote from: nDervish;826816Agreed.  Unfortunately, I've not been able to find a good solution to that.  Multiple characters attempting a task should make it easier, but not by the degree that it becomes easier when "multiple characters attempting" comes down to "throwing more dice at it".

One option:

First character attempting the action is at their normal chance.

Second character attempting the action is at 1/2 THEIR normal chance.

Third character attempting the action is at 1/4 THEIR normal chance.


It's redundant effort, so it's harder to cover new ground.  If those penalties feel too harsh, make it a -10%, -20%, etc. progression, or whatever works for you.

Quote from: jhkim;826884This is a matter of convention. In general, as GM I ask players to make Perception and Insight checks as a matter of course. Unless they say otherwise, I assume that the PCs are being alert and careful, and give them appropriate information based on that. I don't want to encourage what I consider micromanagement or "pixel-bitching", where the players benefit if they constantly say things like "I look around me" or "I pay attention to him as he's talking" or such.

If I said "he says X, make an Insight check" then they'd know he was lying. If I I am speaking the NPC's words then they certainly already have enough info to ask for an Insight check. Or if they had expressed scepticism I might ask for an Insight check whether he was lying or not; more likely in the latter case I'd check their passive insight. BTW I don't normally tell a player 'you believe him' on a failed roll, since I roll in the open I might say 'you can't get a read on him' if the insight roll is below his bluff.

IMO asking for an Insight check without the player doing anything would be like asking for an attack roll from a player who hasn't said 'I attack'. It's not pixelbitching IMO. But yes I accept it's convention - some players expect to spend the evening playing on their smartphones and do no worse than the player paying attention.

With the Insight-example, the character doing the insighting and actual interacting with the NPC gets to test. Unless the situation is a full on 3rd degree interrogation, the other characters don't.  

I prefer rolling pass/fail tests such as this behind the screen. Generally, the result of many social interactions taken in-game depends more on the characters' capabilities and how players approach a situation - the skill-test is often just a test of how they do instead of if they do.

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.

First off, I think a good bit of Shawn's answer: it sounds like you've got a bunch of people who think this is a board game, not a roleplaying game.  Sequential intimidation checks?  How in the hell does that work?  PC #1 tries to intimidate the street gang, they're unimpressed, so the second PC steps up to the plate and struts around, followed by the third, followed by the fourth?  Is anyone reading this thread envisioning any result other than the gangsters laughing themselves hoarse and thinking the party is a bunch of clowns?  Multiple persuasion checks?  Don't you have sneering bad guys answer "What fucking part of "No, I'm not playing ball with you apes" are you having a hard time understanding?"

I've seen this syndrome before among D&D players, the notion that their skills are some sort of magic power, that all they need to do is (say) make a Bluff roll which -- completely divorced from the situation -- will automatically get the NPCs to do their bidding.

*I* do a good many of the rolls.  If the group wants to know if Soandso is lying (above and beyond the players' own powers of observation), then *I* make that roll.  I see no reason why the PCs should be informed that they've screwed it up.  (Never mind that in GURPS, Detect Lies is an uncommon, somewhat difficult skill with an ugly default.)

You may just want to take over any roll which they oughn't have automatic, perfect knowledge of the results.

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?

Player A rolls, gets a 2. Now player B wants to roll... etc.

If several people are watching, then why not give all of them a roll? That's what I do. If some of them succeed and some of them fail, then you tell them different things. Just having several roll in a row is the same, but if ones succeeds then the others don't need to roll.

You might as well give everyone a chance to succeed - Why wouldn't you?

Quote from: soltakss;827128If several people are watching, then why not give all of them a roll? That's what I do. If some of them succeed and some of them fail, then you tell them different things. Just having several roll in a row is the same, but if ones succeeds then the others don't need to roll.

You might as well give everyone a chance to succeed - Why wouldn't you?

Because somebody is inevitably going to get the high roll in that case, in which case, why roll at all? Just give them the information outright then.

It defeats the point of taking any of those skills.

Quote from: S'mon;827072IMO asking for an Insight check without the player doing anything would be like asking for an attack roll from a player who hasn't said 'I attack'. It's not pixelbitching IMO. But yes I accept it's convention - some players expect to spend the evening playing on their smartphones and do no worse than the player paying attention.

If as a player, I have to keep saying the same standard statements repeatedly rather than having them assumed, then I call that micro-management or pixel-bitching.  I should just be able to say "I'm a wary sort of character - I look critically at all the NPCs I'm talking to". rather than repeatedly saying "I look critically at Anne talking" and then later "I look critically at Bob talking" followed by "I look critically at Cathy talking", etc.

Quote from: Ravenswing;827115First off, I think a good bit of Shawn's answer: it sounds like you've got a bunch of people who think this is a board game, not a roleplaying game.  Sequential intimidation checks?  How in the hell does that work?  PC #1 tries to intimidate the street gang, they're unimpressed, so the second PC steps up to the plate and struts around, followed by the third, followed by the fourth?  Is anyone reading this thread envisioning any result other than the gangsters laughing themselves hoarse and thinking the party is a bunch of clowns?

This is equally true of combat and other game situations. It is laughably stupid to picture a bunch of guys standing still, doing nothing while first one does an action, then he goes back to being frozen and the next guy takes an action.

Both board games and RPGs represent multiple simultaneous actions by taking turns among the players - even though in the game-world everything is happening at once.

Quote from: soltakssIf several people are watching, then why not give all of them a roll? That's what I do. If some of them succeed and some of them fail, then you tell them different things. Just having several roll in a row is the same, but if ones succeeds then the others don't need to roll.

You might as well give everyone a chance to succeed - Why wouldn't you?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827136Because somebody is inevitably going to get the high roll in that case, in which case, why roll at all? Just give them the information outright then.

It defeats the point of taking any of those skills.

That depends on difficulty. If something is easy to notice (i.e. each PC has a 50% or more chance), then yes, you should just tell them the information. However, at high difficulty, then each PC might have only a small chance. You can choose to only make them roll if it is significantly difficult.

As I noted earlier, most systems tend to give an unrealistic importance to random chance and not much weight to skill.  If this bothers you, then you can have a house rule to multiply the effect of skill and raise difficulties by a fixed amount.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827136Because somebody is inevitably going to get the high roll in that case, in which case, why roll at all? Just give them the information outright then.

It defeats the point of taking any of those skills.

Which is why you have three basic choices as a GM.

1) Use a method so that the players don't know whether or not their roll was a success. The usual method is the GM rolls, but their are other choices.

2) Play with people who are willing and able to ignore the OOC knowledge that knowing what their exact die roll was and who can and will role play their character's response based on the IC information the character has.*

3) Decide you just don't care if the players use OOC knowledge to game the system.

While I prefer methods 1) or 2), I've seen all three methods used.

As a side note, while I understand that we are focused on the cases where a high roll does result, getting a high roll is not inevitable given the low number of rolls were are discussing.


* Players fall into several somewhat overlapping categories.

   A) Those players who intentionally use OOC knowledge. They aren't actually interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge.

B) Those players who are interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge but who, for one reason or another, end up more or less unintentionally using  OOC knowledge.

C) Those players who are interested in separating IC and OOC knowledge and who are willing and able to separate the two.

D) Those players who separate IC and OOC knowledge, but go too far and have their PC do IC stupid actions just so they won't be perceived to be using OOC knowledge.

Most people I game with fall into types B) and C). Category B) players will sometimes ask not to be told things their characters don't know. Some players who really want to act from a deep in character perspective will also not want to know OOC stuff.
As another side note, in over 40 years of gaming on two continents and many states I've never encountered a player who in my judgment was able to fully separate all OOC knowledge.

Quote from: Ravenswing;827115Sequential intimidation checks?  How in the hell does that work?  PC #1 tries to intimidate the street gang, they're unimpressed, so the second PC steps up to the plate and struts around, followed by the third, followed by the fourth?

Happens for real so why not in a game?

Though in the cases I've seen or used it, its been me negotiating at a con over a problem, and when that failed, I called in my friend who was at the con too, who is a foot taller than I and looks like a bouncer, because he is, and let him negotiate. Good cop-Bad cop sorts of deals.

Also why I allow casual listening checks during negotiation where applicable based on what the characters were doing when the talks started and their general skills and demeanors.

There are times and places where it makes perfect sense. And then there are those where it doesnt, but the players try anyhow. Have a good reason why. Or sorry. No. You aint checking to see if there is a secret door too. But if say there was a dwarf or elf in the group, in the AD&D era I might give them a casual check to notice where the thief failed.

Luckily with the groups I've been in. If someone says "Nope. No traps here." the characters just blithely march on while the players hope things dont go to heck. Or trust to the DM to offer some options if applicable.

Quote from: jhkim;827154If as a player, I have to keep saying the same standard statements repeatedly rather than having them assumed, then I call that micro-management or pixel-bitching.  I should just be able to say "I'm a wary sort of character - I look critically at all the NPCs I'm talking to". rather than repeatedly saying "I look critically at Anne talking" and then later "I look critically at Bob talking" followed by "I look critically at Cathy talking", etc.

That would really annoy me as GM too. IMO you the player should be paying attention to what is actually going, in this case what the NPC is actually saying, the words being spoken by the GM. If you want to get a read on body language etc - elements not fully present at the game table - you can request a check. You can't use checks to replace what the player should be perfectly capable of doing themselves, ie listen.

Alternative would be GM: "He Bluffs you, roll your Insight", which would be fair, but not much of a role-playing game, and no immersion.

We use a system where players can add some onto someone else's check, but there cannot be sequential checks.

The add on allows for PCs to try to help each other, and to simulate helping, but stops the annoying multiple checks.

Depends on the game.

If using the skill is a resource, like most versions of early D&D, multiple skill checks require time which can produce undesired results, like wandering monsters. Searching for treasure in the room for an exotic room in a dungeon is worthwhile, but the danger of treasureless wandering monsters, expenditure of light and food requires some consideration.

I normally do not ask for rolls for simple tasks. But, if the game has results which has tiered success, such as Legend of the Five Ring's Roll and Keep system, I will make players make even simple rolls. For example, in L5R striking a dummy is a simple process not requiring a roll, but in a public display, you want to appear to be skilled. The player has the option to increase the difficulty to get a better result, or in this case a flashier result.

For most other games, I use the Burning Wheel's method of "Let It Ride". You make one roll for the resolving the task, and the result does the change unless the circumstances change. If a guy is trying to sneak into a castle, he makes one roll for the entirety of sneaking tasks, for better or worse.

Lastly, skill rolls counting as advancement requires a different approach.  Games such Runequest, Pendragon and Burning Wheel allow a character's skill to increase by using the skill in play. Players will attempt to milk skill advancement by making skill rolls for mundane activities. I usually do allow the roll, but I'm up front about the result not granting experience.

In character driven games and no real danger is involved, I just eyeball the character's skill level and tell the players they succeed.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;827376Depends on the game.

If using the skill is a resource, like most versions of early D&D, multiple skill checks require time which can produce undesired results, like wandering monsters. Searching for treasure in the room for an exotic room in a dungeon is worthwhile, but the danger of treasureless wandering monsters, expenditure of light and food requires some consideration.

I normally do not ask for rolls for simple tasks. But, if the game has results which has tiered success, such as Legend of the Five Ring's Roll and Keep system, I will make players make even simple rolls. For example, in L5R striking a dummy is a simple process not requiring a roll, but in a public display, you want to appear to be skilled. The player has the option to increase the difficulty to get a better result, or in this case a flashier result.

For most other games, I use the Burning Wheel's method of "Let It Ride". You make one roll for the resolving the task, and the result does the change unless the circumstances change. If a guy is trying to sneak into a castle, he makes one roll for the entirety of sneaking tasks, for better or worse.

Lastly, skill rolls counting as advancement requires a different approach.  Games such Runequest, Pendragon and Burning Wheel allow a character's skill to increase by using the skill in play. Players will attempt to milk skill advancement by making skill rolls for mundane activities. I usually do allow the roll, but I'm up front about the result not granting experience.

In character driven games and no real danger is involved, I just eyeball the character's skill level and tell the players they succeed.

What do you do if someone is trying to identify a magic item and rolls low, and then everybody else wants to roll too? Repeat for all the items they find that have something unfamiliar about them.