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?
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
Quote from: TheHistorianWhat 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
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826764#1 and #2, and also that it is actually meta-gaming, because IC the characters don't know that someone just failed a roll.
In-character, the characters aren't rolling dice. The question is - what in-character actions are they doing? If they're all helping search, then they should all roll - or perhaps they should use a helping rule where some characters give a bonus to the lead character's roll.
In-character, multiple people working together to search an area should have a better chance to find something than a single character searching by themselves.
My typical problem with this is just that most rules give too much weight to random chance, and not enough of a bonus for ability/skill. Thus, it seems like cheating if you give many chances to roll, because they're almost guaranteed success if they all get to roll for search. That's mainly a problem with the rule system, in my opinion, not with player behavior.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;826775If 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...
Not every skill is amenable to this mechanic, unfortunately.
Yeah, I think detecting a lie is one of those situations that falls outside of the assist mechanic... most things that involves personal observation I'd keep as individual rolls.
Quote from: Simlasa;826777Yeah, I think detecting a lie is one of those situations that falls outside of the assist mechanic... most things that involves personal observation I'd keep as individual rolls.
So couldn't each player individually try to do it?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826782So couldn't each player individually try to do it?
Yeah, and as has been mentioned/suggested... have all that want to try be rolled at the same time, by the GM. Because it's one of those things that's temporally isolated (the NPC is only telling THAT lie at that moment), you can't really KNOW if you (or anyone else) succeeded until later consequence (like disarming a trap) AND it's not really the sort of thing you can lend a hand on either... each person is going to have their own impression of what's going on, modified by their skill.
Similarly it's also one of those situations where I wouldn't allow a 'Push'... a second try of the same skill... though I might with something like operating a machine.
I've seen a lot of GMs do it with open rolls instead... just call for anyone in earshot to roll to see if they hear something amiss. Anyone who makes their roll hears the thing... the PC who is asleep or listening to his iPod doesn't get to roll. There's nobody left to say 'me too!' in case no one makes their roll.
The downside is that if no one makes their roll they're left wondering what it was they didn't hear... and have to play out their PC's ignorance despite the Players being on guard.
We had that happen in our Call of Cthulhu game tonight, but in that case it was a GOOD thing no one saw whatever it was we didn't see.
Prior to 5e I just had the players pick one player to roll, but with 5e I use one of three options:
If it is a one player thing, they players pick which one of them rolls.
If it is something a couple of players want to do, they pick one to roll and they get Advantage if another player helps. (if at least one is watching out)
If it fits a group check for everyone, they do that.
It's a bit story-gamey, but I don't let players roll until everybody is clear on what the stakes are. If the players are rolling checks, they should win something if they succeed and lose something if they fail. If the player rolls prematurely before the stakes are set, the roll doesn't count for anything.
Quote from: Werekoala;826760I 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)?
Yes, I've been doing the non-combat rolls in my 5e online game & I find it works much better.
I think for my Classic D&D game with d20-roll-under-stat I will roll one d20 myself, and everyone whose stat is equal to or less than that succeeds - this makes stealth, knowledge, persuasion etc work a lot better, though Classic also has a good d6 based Surprise check system that incorporates stealthiness.
Quote from: Simlasa;826773My 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!
At least player A was paying attention. I've had players who expect to be able to auto-pilot and never request an Insight check when the obviously deceitful NPC (Zark, captured dwarf evil slaver/kidnapper) says something obviously shifty ("Oh yes, free me and I'll fight for you against the other evil slavers") and get angry when the NPC they've freed and armed turns against them during the battle. They thought
I should have asked
them to make Insight checks! :eek:
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.
I generally don't do pass/fail rolls outside of combat - if you roll better, you get a better result. Because of this, when a situation comes up where more than one person can attempt a task, my players will all roll simultaneously (whether I tell them to or not...) and work out who rolled best. They don't roll in sequence waiting for me to tell them something because they know that, even if I do tell them something on a roll of 10, I might tell them more on a 15, so just getting a piece of information isn't enough to know that there's no point in anyone else rolling.
Quote from: Werekoala;826760I 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)?
This too! I frequently do the rolls myself in situations where the characters wouldn't know whether they succeeded or failed, although it's also fun when playing with people who I know will choose not to act on OOC knowledge. Actual statement made by a player during a nighttime ambush by Evil Samurai: "I'll try to hide in this nearby bush... A 2. I
think I'm being really sneaky and well-hidden..."
Quote from: ptingler;826761One 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.
The problem with that is that then you always have the same person noticing everything. One character makes all the Perception rolls, so everyone else may as well be blind and deaf.
Quote from: jhkim;826776My typical problem with this is just that most rules give too much weight to random chance, and not enough of a bonus for ability/skill. Thus, it seems like cheating if you give many chances to roll, because they're almost guaranteed success if they all get to roll for search. That's mainly a problem with the rule system, in my opinion, not with player behavior.
Agreed. 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".
Quote from: Werekoala;826760I 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)?
Or the art of having a designated player and role-playing what you rolled. This happens to my group at the most interesting of times. Player A is talking with a NPC to get info. Does a check to see if the suspicious NPC is being truthful. Rolls a 4. I tell player A "Seems totally believable to you." who then happily turns to the rest of the group and says "Guys! I think we can trust this fellow!" who then roll their eyes and say "Sure. I'll buy one of those "potions of extra healing" too."
But if say the shady NPC flubs their deception and Player A flubs his. Then I tell any players with applicable skills to make a roll to see if they pick up on the slipup just from casual listening.
Or in the secret door case. The group relies on the word of the point man searching. If he says there is no secret door after a bad roll, no one else jumps in to try and search that spot. They take his word on it and move on.
Quote from: nDervish;826816The problem with that is that then you always have the same person noticing everything. One character makes all the Perception rolls, so everyone else may as well be blind and deaf.
Depends on how you handle it. You could assume that only that player notices or you could announce it in a more general manner. For example, group is in a room and you roll vs. highest skill person to see if a secret door is found. If successful you announce "Okay you guys find a small difference in the southern wall revealing a secret door." But I tend to GM more in a party succeeds or fails as a group than it's a solo beat the guy next to you style.
I wouldn't call it "solo beat the guy next to you style", since it's not intended to be (or presented as) competitive, but, in the real world, someone would generally be the first person to spot the secret door. "Bob sees a secret door" feels much more concrete to me than "you guys see a secret door". The latter just makes me wonder whether there actually are separate characters present or if the secret door was spotted by The Gestalt Party Hive Mind.
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: Nope, Player A already checked, and he says that NPC is telling the truth.
Do this a couple of times, and then hopefully the table will start roleplaying like Omega suggests:
QuoteOr in the secret door case. The group relies on the word of the point man searching. If he says there is no secret door after a bad roll, no one else jumps in to try and search that spot. They take his word on it and move on.
I don't like rolling behind a screen. But sometimes what I do have is a prerolled list of numbers. Everytime a character checks for something (or even when an Elf passes by a secret door unawares), I consult the list.
If you let players see their own true/false information rolls, then you are letting them know (at least in the case of high/low rolls) information that their characters supposedly don't.
(e.g. Oh I rolled great and didn't find anything - there must not be anything anyone could find.)
Letting them see other players' rolls gives them even more out-of-character information.
In cases such as detecting lies, extra care is needed to avoid having hard situations give away information to players. For example, if you're careless about what to say on a failure, then a master deceiver can be easy to read - just have someone weak-minded try to detect lies, and believe the opposite of what they think.
Even rolling dice only when something "interesting" is going on, gives the players extra information,
Quote from: jhkimMy typical problem with this is just that most rules give too much weight to random chance, and not enough of a bonus for ability/skill. Thus, it seems like cheating if you give many chances to roll, because they're almost guaranteed success if they all get to roll for search. That's mainly a problem with the rule system, in my opinion, not with player behavior.
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".
It's not to everyone's taste, but a potential solution is using either a low-randomness diced system (like CORPS) or a fully diceless system.
In reality, expertise matters a lot. An expert has a roughly 100% chance to do many things that an amateur has roughly 0% chance at. A beginning physics student has no chance of calculating a complex Lagrangian that an expert can do routinely. A beginning dancer has no chance to do a backflip that an expert can do routinely. A beginning programmer has no chance to hack into a system that an expert hacker can trivially get into.
However, in most RPGs, this doesn't happen. Beginner skill might be something like 20%, and expert skill is maybe 80%. In these systems, if you want to get something done, the best way is to get multiple rolls. Given this, if I'm playing in those systems, I just expect that and plan around it rather than railing against it.
Quote from: S'mon;826800At least player A was paying attention. I've had players who expect to be able to auto-pilot and never request an Insight check when the obviously deceitful NPC (Zark, captured dwarf evil slaver/kidnapper) says something obviously shifty ("Oh yes, free me and I'll fight for you against the other evil slavers") and get angry when the NPC they've freed and armed turns against them during the battle. They thought I should have asked them to make Insight checks! :eek:
This 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.
In the case of things like perception, detect lie, or search checks:
1) If it's something that they're almost certainly going to notice if they all roll, then I typically won't bother with the roll and will just tell them. ("He seems shifty and evasive on this point.")
2) If the roll is more doubtful, then I'll ask them all to roll unless they specifically have said they're doing something else.
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.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827382What 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.
I have a few ways to approach this.
The first is to allow the characters to re-roll for a trivial roll. Sometimes players just like to roll dice, and it's fun.
The second, if they are going to succeed in due time, just give them the result. If a risk is involved, a re-roll may be more appropriate.
The third, allow only a single roll and give a bonus (or penalty) depending on the number of characters. They do not receive a second roll without the circumstances changing, such as discovering a sage with specialized knowledge.
As well, time can be a bottleneck. If each check requires one week, the rolls do take away from resources and other activities.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827136QuoteOriginally Posted by soltakss
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?
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.
In that case, it seems to me that your spotting system is broken. Which, many of them may be. It's not doing a good job of modelling, though, if it breaks when you roll many times instead of once. What would you do if the party entered the room one at a time, and each one searched? Some things don't really model well as 1D20 checks...
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827382What 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.
That is one of those situational examples where players making checks in sequence makes sense.
Kefra: "I check for the magic. hmm. Nothing."
Me: "What? Look at the runes on that thing. Let me try you amature!"
Or why in real life you sometimes call in friends to search the room for the little widget you dropped and cant seem to find despite turning the place upside down.
Whereas if we are walking down the hall and the ranger on point fails to spot the trap or secret door then its unlikely the rest of us will even know to check since its been tunnel after tunnel of nada. As noted, the DM might allow the dwarf or elf to casually spot something. But might not.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;827382What 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.
Yes.
I am a computer programmer in real life. If we have a problem that I cannot fix (failed my Computing roll), then I get some other people in the team to have a look at it. Eventually, one of them succeeds. That's what happens in real life.
Treat magic items like antiques. If there are several antique experts in a group, then it makes no sense for one of them to have a look and say "I don't know what this is", then leave it, rather it gets passed around until someone recognises it.
If your car breaks down and you open the bonnet/hood and look in, but can't see what the problem is, do you leave it and walk to the nearest garage, or do the other people in the car have a look as well, to see if they know what the problem is?
Quote from: soltakss;828162Yes.
I am a computer programmer in real life. If we have a problem that I cannot fix (failed my Computing roll), then I get some other people in the team to have a look at it. Eventually, one of them succeeds. That's what happens in real life.
Treat magic items like antiques. If there are several antique experts in a group, then it makes no sense for one of them to have a look and say "I don't know what this is", then leave it, rather it gets passed around until someone recognises it.
If your car breaks down and you open the bonnet/hood and look in, but can't see what the problem is, do you leave it and walk to the nearest garage, or do the other people in the car have a look as well, to see if they know what the problem is?
Yes, but from a game perspective, it kind of makes skills like History or Nature pointless, because with the entire group rolling for it, it is almost gauranteed to succeed either way.
Quote from: soltakss;828162Yes.
I am a computer programmer in real life. If we have a problem that I cannot fix (failed my Computing roll), then I get some other people in the team to have a look at it. Eventually, one of them succeeds. That's what happens in real life.
But do you have everyone on the team look at it? That's the real question.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828165Yes, but from a game perspective, it kind of makes skills like History or Nature pointless, because with the entire group rolling for it, it is almost gauranteed to succeed either way.
Actually it makes sense from a game perspective and makes those skills more important to have because if one fails another can try. And even with more than one rolling, theres no good guarantee its going to succeed on the next try. Usually you'll have overlap of only like two characters with the same skill for any given task.
But only when it makes sense for there to be multiple tries.
An item is a static object. You do not need to be focused on it for the duration as it were. Its not going anywhere. Its not (usually) going to metamorphose and be totally different for the next person.
A conversation is not. If you are not paying attention then it has passed you by. I am made brutally aware of this fact every day of my life.
Figuring out where multiple checks is ok and where it is not is the DMs call.
Quote from: Omega;828195Actually it makes sense from a game perspective and makes those skills more important to have because if one fails another can try.
Actually, it makes sense from a meta-gaming perspective.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;828197Actually, it makes sense from a meta-gaming perspective.
That too. But in game or even in the real world see the examples above for why it can happen and why it cant.
If Kef fails a check on IDing the magic item. I might take a crack at it. Jan or Dev with no ID skills cant and dont even bother asking to unless its something that also happens to fall into their fields like say the item was a bow or had some sort of heraldric emblem on it.
We are walking down the hall with Jan on point searching for traps and secret doors. She fails to find a trap then the rest of us arent likely to know or have a chance because there is no way the characters could have known she failed a check because the rest of us dont have any applicable skills. But if say we had a dwarf in the group. He might get a try. Or not.
We are negotiating with a NPC. Said NPC tries a deception. I botch my detection check. Jans paying attention to the conversation and can try to check too. Kefra and Dev werent and thus dont. But if everyone was paying attention then maybee it makes sens for them to check too of the situation is suspicious. Otherwise they take my word that this guy is fine.
As said. Situational.
Quote from: Omega;828201That too. But in game or even in the real world see the examples above for why it can happen and why it cant.
If Kef fails a check on IDing the magic item. I might take a crack at it. Jan or Dev with no ID skills cant and dont even bother asking to unless its something that also happens to fall into their fields like say the item was a bow or had some sort of heraldric emblem on it.
We are walking down the hall with Jan on point searching for traps and secret doors. She fails to find a trap then the rest of us arent likely to know or have a chance because there is no way the characters could have known she failed a check because the rest of us dont have any applicable skills. But if say we had a dwarf in the group. He might get a try. Or not.
We are negotiating with a NPC. Said NPC tries a deception. I botch my detection check. Jans paying attention to the conversation and can try to check too. Kefra and Dev werent and thus dont. But if everyone was paying attention then maybee it makes sens for them to check too of the situation is suspicious. Otherwise they take my word that this guy is fine.
As said. Situational.
But how do you determine who is paying attention? It's not like the other characters all announce ahead of time "I'm paying attention to this convo."
Usually they're just standing around while the party face talks to the NPC. Then when the party face flubs a roll they all step in.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828223But how do you determine who is paying attention? It's not like the other characters all announce ahead of time "I'm paying attention to this convo."
Usually they're just standing around while the party face talks to the NPC. Then when the party face flubs a roll they all step in.
Actually when I am the DM I ask them what they are doing during conversations. Before said conversations start. If they dont declare it themselves.
Exception being when more than one character is talking with the NPCs. Even then its rare to get a cascade effect for checks.
They do though have some procedures for a few things. Like they have the dragonborn whos good at lock-picking try the locks first before the wizard wastes a spell. The Sorcerer and the Wizard sometimes both go over the odder items to see if they can learn something from different angles of learning. Usually instead one will try like arcana while the other tries history to pick up possible lore.
As a player I had one guy in a group that the moment NPC negotiations started up. He would scamper off if, he could, into town. Usually to do shopping. If he couldnt then he was watching the back and pretty much never participated in talks unless someone was directly talking to him.
It's so easy for them to just say "we're all listening" though. It doesn't solve that main problematic situation.
Especially since my players rarely do other stuff separately.
You break things up piecemeal, according to where their attention currently is. Searching a room by simple, immediate observation doesn't open drawers, looks behind objects, or under covers (etc.). Similarly, someone mentioning an offhand comment and dropping a twitch (a possible 'tell') doesn't explain what is being hidden, let alone why, or its ramifications.
Now some players can't process all this IC, let alone live up to their PC's stats, and for them you switch out to accommodate their capacity.
Passive checks are there to provide varying amounts of description, and at times baseline competency, but are no substitute for active usage. And it is bad form to publicly discuss en masse the details observed as a team about someone while they themselves are present. That sheer level of rudeness would likely shut down the conversation in full.
This really is not that hard, though players throwing dice at the problem over the years has atrophied many a GM's skills here. Any examples you'd like to work on right now?
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;828168But do you have everyone on the team look at it? That's the real question.
Yes.
Quote from: Omega;828195Actually it makes sense from a game perspective and makes those skills more important to have because if one fails another can try. And even with more than one rolling, theres no good guarantee its going to succeed on the next try. Usually you'll have overlap of only like two characters with the same skill for any given task.
But it doesn't matter whether it succeeds on
the next try, only that it succeeds on
any try. And if everyone can try, then the math quickly starts to favor them.
Say you have a Nature skill in your game, since that was mentioned previously. It's not something highly-specialized, so all characters should be able to make a default roll on it, with, say, a 25% chance of success. Low enough that they'll never pass a Nature check unless a ranger-type invests in it, right?
Wrong.
If you've got a group of four PCs and all of them get to roll Nature, then there's a 68% chance that at least one will succeed. Add a fifth PC and it's 76%. Or maybe it's four PCs with two henchmen each... 12 rolls? 97%. All without anyone knowing anything about Nature beyond the default roll they receive just for having a pulse.
So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less? (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here. Characterization is a good reason, but outside the scope of this discussion.)
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828223But how do you determine who is paying attention? It's not like the other characters all announce ahead of time "I'm paying attention to this convo."
Usually they're just standing around while the party face talks to the NPC. Then when the party face flubs a roll they all step in.
It depends on the circumstances.
If the party have gone to a tavern and are questioning the innkeeper, then the GM can assume that everyone is paying attention, with the possible exception of anyone drinking or flirting with the barmaids.
If the party have met a caravan in the middle of the wilderness, then some of the party might be keeping watch, others might be checking out the caravan, or counting guards.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828229It's so easy for them to just say "we're all listening" though. It doesn't solve that main problematic situation.
It's only a problem if you think it's a problem. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828229Especially since my players rarely do other stuff separately.
If the party needs to get through a locked door, they would try in turn, until one succeeds or fumbles. The GM could apply a penalty for subsequent attempts due to the previous clumsy attempts.
However, for something like perception or insight, the party could argue that they are attempting the roll at the same time, but are simply rolling in sequence for game purposes.
Quote from: nDervish;828234But it doesn't matter whether it succeeds on the next try, only that it succeeds on any try. And if everyone can try, then the math quickly starts to favor them.
Say you have a Nature skill in your game, since that was mentioned previously. It's not something highly-specialized, so all characters should be able to make a default roll on it, with, say, a 25% chance of success. Low enough that they'll never pass a Nature check unless a ranger-type invests in it, right?
Wrong.
If you've got a group of four PCs and all of them get to roll Nature, then there's a 68% chance that at least one will succeed. Add a fifth PC and it's 76%. Or maybe it's four PCs with two henchmen each... 12 rolls? 97%. All without anyone knowing anything about Nature beyond the default roll they receive just for having a pulse.
So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less? (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here. Characterization is a good reason, but outside the scope of this discussion.)
Which is likely the genesis of the Group Check roll in 5e where failures > success halts progress and goes straight to consequences. Well, that and hammering out *something* retainable from 4e's Skill Challenges. Could be a useful tool to keep people from dog piling tasks waiting for that 5% chance for a Nat 20.
"Hey everybody! If all us illiterate peasants tried our hand at the calculus word problem one of us is bound to solve it!"
:p
Quote from: nDervish;828234So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less? (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here.
Agreed that can be a problem. Here are some things I've used.
A) Tier the available information and just give Very Easy information to anyone with a Nature Lore skill level of 30%, Easy information to anyone with a 40%, Moderate information to anyone with a 50% etc. This provides an incentive to increasing the basic skill and avoids rolling for stuff that everyone should know or be able to do. The roll is then used to determine if information above the automatic threshold is obtained.
B) Only allow the character with the highest skill to make a roll.
C) Allow helpers to give a bonus to the character with the highest roll. One way to do that is they add a bonus if they make their roll, double bonus if they critical, subtract if they fumble (or even subtract if they fail, though the subtraction should probably be less than the bonus for success).
D) Make successive tries more difficult, e.g. first try roll normally. Second try -20%, third try -40%, etc. Once the chance to succeed is 0% or less don't allow a roll. This provides diminishing returns for 'me too' attempts.
E) Roll for the PCs so that players does not know if the die roll was good or bad. They only know what the GM tells them they learned.
Quote from: Opaopajr;828240Which is likely the genesis of the Group Check roll in 5e where failures > success halts progress and goes straight to consequences. Well, that and hammering out *something* retainable from 4e's Skill Challenges. Could be a useful tool to keep people from dog piling tasks waiting for that 5% chance for a Nat 20.
"Hey everybody! If all us illiterate peasants tried our hand at the calculus word problem one of us is bound to solve it!"
:p
Good point. This is an example where multiple helpers are going to subtract from the chance to succeed since dealing with their ignorant input is a time waster and a distraction.
These are some awesome suggestions that I will definitely be using in the next game!
IMO, there should always be a potential consequence for an unsuccessful roll. For example, if a character wants to try picking a lock, rule that they will break a pick and jam the lock if they fail the roll by more than a certain threshold. If they're trying to sense whether an NPC is lying, and fail by a certain threshold, they will piss the NPC off or draw unwanted attention to themselves as they stare rudely or say something impolitic.
The consequence doesn't have to be harsh, necessarily - if everyone wants to search the same section of wall to find the secret door that must be there, it might just take a long time, which gives wandering monsters or guards more chances to show up.
If there is no negative consequence for failing at something, you probably shouldn't bother rolling. This is why I dislike skills such as Sense Motive - it either becomes a must-have skill that everyone wants to roll all the time, or it becomes nigh-useless as the DM never gives any good information through it.
Quote from: Ddogwood;828375IMO, there should always be a potential consequence for an unsuccessful roll. For example, if a character wants to try picking a lock, rule that they will break a pick and jam the lock if they fail the roll by more than a certain threshold.
I use that. Lockpick tools break. The PC totally believes the villains story, etc. Usually only on a really bad roll.
Flubbed lockpicking attempts also leave marks, make noise, and might even mess up the lock, making it even harder to open.
Having every fool try to be a naturalist can have all sorts of bad effects, and is a great time to not warn your players before letting them try, as it can lead to an entire series of adventures all by itself. Watch them ruin the tracks the actual naturalist would have been able to read, scare off all the prey animals, leave obvious tracks everywhere for others to track the party with, disturb wasps and snakes, leave their food out at night, fall into mud, ravines, get their clothes wet, touch nettles, etc etc etc.
Amateur interrogators can end up revealing information themselves without realizing it, and/or alienating their own party by seeming like sadist scumbags or fools.
You don't want Grubnir the Filthy attempting to stop your bleeding, or cooking your food, or using any social skills other than "learn to bathe".
"Everyone check for traps - we're sure to find them that way!" Yes, you are...
This is why there is a need for good rules which take probability and statistics into account and provide the GM with a good realistic system for determining what happens when X people with various skill levels attempt various things.
Quote from: nDervish;828234Say you have a Nature skill in your game, since that was mentioned previously. It's not something highly-specialized, so all characters should be able to make a default roll on it, with, say, a 25% chance of success. Low enough that they'll never pass a Nature check unless a ranger-type invests in it, right?
Wrong.
If you've got a group of four PCs and all of them get to roll Nature, then there's a 68% chance that at least one will succeed. Add a fifth PC and it's 76%. Or maybe it's four PCs with two henchmen each... 12 rolls? 97%. All without anyone knowing anything about Nature beyond the default roll they receive just for having a pulse.
So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less? (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here. Characterization is a good reason, but outside the scope of this discussion.)
As I mentioned earlier, I consider this fundamentally a system problem. From real life, specialized training ought to make a big difference in success chance. If someone is a trained tracker, they should have a much better chance than someone who is untrained - like a city-born tradesman.
However, most system have training make only a mild difference in the roll. For example, in 5e D&D, training in a low-level character adds 15% to the chance of success (+3 on 1d20). So if a city-born tradesman has a 25% chance, then a trained tracker has a 40% chance. That's just not a big difference.
For my tastes, I would prefer to have training make much more of a difference. If something is a subtle problem that even a trained expert has only a 50-50 shot at noticing, then an untrained person should have almost no chance at noticing it (5% or even 0%). The way to make investment in skill worthwhile is to have skill make a serious difference.
Quote from: Skarg;828403Having every fool try to be a naturalist can have all sorts of bad effects, and is a great time to not warn your players before letting them try, as it can lead to an entire series of adventures all by itself. Watch them ruin the tracks the actual naturalist would have been able to read, scare off all the prey animals, leave obvious tracks everywhere for others to track the party with, disturb wasps and snakes, leave their food out at night, fall into mud, ravines, get their clothes wet, touch nettles, etc etc etc.
There are two big problems I have with this.
1) There is a tendency of GMs to have characters act like utter idiots if they roll even a regular failure. I find this both unrealistic and annoying as a player. Competent people don't suddenly turn into bumbling fools from one minute to the next.
2) Acting as if a trained naturalist is much better than an untrained character is dumb if it isn't reflected in the system. If the naturalist only has a 15% higher chance, then don't act like there is a world of difference between a naturalist and an untrained character.
The choices are either: (a) Stick with the system as written, and marked skill only represents a minor difference in expertise; or (b) Modify the system to give the trained naturalist a much higher chance.
Quote from: jhkim;828421As I mentioned earlier, I consider this fundamentally a system problem. From real life, specialized training ought to make a big difference in success chance. If someone is a trained tracker, they should have a much better chance than someone who is untrained - like a city-born tradesman.
However, most system have training make only a mild difference in the roll. For example, in 5e D&D, training in a low-level character adds 15% to the chance of success (+3 on 1d20). So if a city-born tradesman has a 25% chance, then a trained tracker has a 40% chance. That's just not a big difference.
That is not how skills necessarily work in Runequest/CoC/BRP. Depending on how difficult a task is no roll may be required or there should even be a multiplier for the skill. (And if the multiplier is > 1 this magnifies the effective difference in skills.)
One way to handle this is:
Quote from: Bren;828265A) Tier the available information and just give Very Easy information to anyone with a Nature Lore skill level of 30%, Easy information to anyone with a 40%, Moderate information to anyone with a 50% etc. This provides an incentive to increasing the basic skill and avoids rolling for stuff that everyone should know or be able to do. The roll is then used to determine if information above the automatic threshold is obtained.
I have seen this used in BRP style scenarios/rule sets so it isn't like this is changing the rules.
Exactly. Which is why I let the specialists do their thing and when its my spotlight I do mine. If chance should arise.
Quote from: jhkim;828421...
There are two big problems I have with this.
1) There is a tendency of GMs to have characters act like utter idiots if they roll even a regular failure. I find this both unrealistic and annoying as a player. Competent people don't suddenly turn into bumbling fools from one minute to the next.
2) Acting as if a trained naturalist is much better than an untrained character is dumb if it isn't reflected in the system. If the naturalist only has a 15% higher chance, then don't act like there is a world of difference between a naturalist and an untrained character.
The choices are either: (a) Stick with the system as written, and marked skill only represents a minor difference in expertise; or (b) Modify the system to give the trained naturalist a much higher chance.
Right. Weak systems and inexpert GM's can and do mess this up a lot. I wrote those failure ideas as a counterpoint to the comment from someone who didn't seem to realize that failures could have consequences, concluding that having multiple characters try things would make skills meaningless.
A system or GM who unconsciously make the game into random keystone kops is worse than the GM who doesn't realize they've made the expert naturalist useless by using a system that makes his skills effectively pointless.
Even good simulationist systems tend to have various rules holes which can lead to big problems. It can take a very good/experienced GM to be able to spot these and intervene either with GM discretion, or by making up good detailed house rules to fix the problems. For example, I had several years experience when I realized only after a few good characters had died from falling, that there's a severe problem with making a single climbing roll failure result in an automatic fall with no saving chance.
As I said, that's why there's a need for reasonable cause and effect, preferably designed by someone who knows about the real skill (naturalism in this case) and understands both the RPG (how skill levels map to real-world people) and probability (how to design die rolls that actually represent these understandings well). And, it's hard to do with a limited die roll, particularly 1d20 where 1 is always a crit fail. I tend to use 3d6, where consequences depend on what you're doing, what your skill level is, and really bad results need to be confirmed by further rolls on other multi-die tables (or GM discretion) which in turn have savings rolls involved.
For example: Everyone trying to forage for food in the forest rolls 3d6 versus Naturalist(Forest). Success means you get a meal. Crit success (you roll 10 less than skill, or a 3 or 4) means you find 2d6 meals worth of something. Failure means you find nothing. If you miss by more than 3, you're leaving tracks, making noise, and if people later attempt hunting, they'll be at -2. Failure by 6 or more means roll on a lesser mishap table, which gives an IQ or DX save to avoid some further inconvenience. Failure by 9 or more, or a raw 17 or 18, means roll on the forest survival crit fail table, which is 3d6 where the usual result is get wet and/or muddy and/or waste time and make noise, spook animals and leave spectacular tracks, but the outliers on *that* table are potentially dangerous, such as make a spot roll or step on a dangerous snake's tail, or roll vs DX or twist your ankle, or attract a bear while wandering off alone...
One way I handle this is by having a progressive penalty to any check done by any player character after the first who has a worse bonus than the anyone who rolled earlier. A case of "too many cooks spoil the broth".
In some systems, I require that only one PC roll, while others can add a bonus to that check IF they have a sufficiently high bonus/skill in the same area.