Forums of the Megaverse®

If nobody likes it, the technique could drive people away.
But it's perfectly valid, and I've seen it done for skills and saves in a number of games.

It sounds like extra work that achieves little. There shouldn't be any reason not to just let people roll when they need to use their skill and use the percentage rolled. Is it really such a game breaking mechanic if players KNOW they rolled under the successful percentage? The better idea is to just use situational modifiers to the skill percentage. Prowling in daylight without some kind of aid is probably deserving of a penalty, while doing so at night in the dark while wearing a night suit probably deserves a boost. Just be sure to tell the player he might have a harder time or an easier time using his skill under said conditions.

I actually like the idea, but it is a bit heavy on the book keeping, especially if you have a large group. This also makes it harder for someone to attempt to fudge the roll in their favor. Granted they could roll and just tell you that they "happened" to have rolled all five numbers low. Of course most groups probably sit around a table in such a way that the GM can see their rolls (but even that isn't a guarantee that the GM will be able to read the die rolls due to die size and/or color), but I normally don't have the room to even sit around a table to game.

Not a rule I would like at all. This is more an issue of a player using OOC knowledge.

True, but as a GM I think you should explain why you are doing this, and if there are any serious or strong resistance still, ask them to come up with an alternative that still has the goals in mind.

Colt47 wrote:It sounds extra work that achieves little. There shouldn't be any reason not to just let people roll when they need to use their skill and use the percentage rolled. Is it really such a game breaking mechanic if players KNOW they rolled under the successful percentage? The better idea is to just use situational modifiers to the skill percentage. Prowling in daylight without some kind of aid is probably deserving of a penalty, while doing so at night in the dark while wearing a night suit probably deserves a boost. Just be sure to tell the player he might have a harder time or an easier time using his skill under said conditions.

I don't think that's exactly the issue.

Scenario:
You and the other players have just sent the party into a new room/chamber/whatever. None of you are wearing environmental armor.
The GM says, "Everybody make a save vs. lethal poison."

Now, even if the poison gas that fills the room is completely undetectable, all the players now know what they're up against, and it will take a good deal of role-playing NOT to use this out-of-character knowledge in some way or another.
The players are less likely to have their characters act as they normally would, and instead try to find ways (even if only subconsciously) to get their characters the hell out of there, or to put on gas masks, or to whip out their poison-gas-detection gear that would have otherwise gone unused.
Really good players can overcome OOC knowledge in such circumstances, but most players are not really good at roleplaying. Even for those who can overcome their OOC knowledge, it's a heck of a lot easier to stay in character the less OOC knowledge you have.
And sometimes, it's more exciting and more fun.

Now picture the same scenario, except the GM instead says:
"Mike, your character slumps to the floor, unmoving."

Mechanically, it nets out the same as if he had them roll the dice for their saves, and the one guy failed. The only difference is that the die rolls are set up beforehand, so the players don't gain OOC knowledge of what's going on.
With no indication of what's happening other than one guy falling to the floor (because his pre-rolled number doesn't make the save), the players and their characters both have the same information to go on, and it's a lot less work to actually roleplay.
One guy might think it's gas. Another might think it's a psychic attack. Somebody else might think that it's the back-street cybernetics that the fallen character had recently installed.
Suddenly, things are a lot more interesting than before, and more intense.

In this case, he's doing the same thing with skills.
Scenario:
Mike falls down a well and needs to climb out.
He rolls the percentile dice, and gets a 100.
"Crap," he laughs. "I'll try again and hopefully not roll so high."

Same scenario with the pre-rolled numbers:
Mike doesn't know what number he rolled, so he doesn't know whether his character simply screwed up an easy challenge, or if the well is really THAT hard to climb.
He might still try again, but he might instead try to find another way out, assuming that it's too hard of a climb for him.
Or he might try again, but this time put more thought into the specifics of the situation, so as to get as many modifiers as possible on his side.

And any time you're talking about opposed skills against another player or NPC, it matters just as much.
You don't know whether your character inadvertently made a blunder when trying to sneak past the guards, or whether the guards are just THAT perceptive.
For that matter, if you succeed in the check, but still don't know what the number is, you don't know if you're THAT good, or if the guards are THAT bad.
But if you know what you rolled, then you have a lot more information about the situation. You can tell that if you rolled well and were still seen, the guards have something impressive on their side.
If you rolled bad and weren't seen, then you know that they're probably inattentive chumps.
It's all about controlling OOC knowledge, for the sake of both players and GM.

It doesn't work for every group or every adventure/campaign, but it can be a useful tool that provides advantage to the group.

Kagatos wrote:While that seems like it would be a good idea when I first read it, now I'm not so sure...

If your players wanted to take advantage of it they could by jotting down the numbers themselves and saying oh I need to use this skill but I'd fail it...so I need to "burn" a roll on some stupid skill so I can get the result I want.

True, but that can be easily fixed any number of ways. Scramble the original 5 rolls, and add the next roll to either the top OR the bottom of the list, at random (or close to it).
And/or keep your eyes out for players taking notes every time they roll.

Abub wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kagatos wrote:While that seems like it would be a good idea when I first read it, now I'm not so sure...

If your players wanted to take advantage of it they could by jotting down the numbers themselves and saying oh I need to use this skill but I'd fail it...so I need to "burn" a roll on some stupid skill so I can get the result I want.

True, but that can be easily fixed any number of ways. Scramble the original 5 rolls, and add the next roll to either the top OR the bottom of the list, at random (or close to it).
And/or keep your eyes out for players taking notes every time they roll.

I have to vote AGAINST this idea. If you wanna take away their knowledge of how well they roll, roll it for them behind a screen. But ultimately isn't part of the fun getting to be a kick butt hero? Don't take that away from them.

How would that keep them from being a kick-butt hero?

Well then, how about this? You keep the player's character sheet and you give them a paper (or even a copy) that has a list of what skills that they have, but not the percentages, so they can still roll the dice themselves and still not automatically know whether or not they succeeded unless they rolled enough times to figure out roughly what their percentage probably is.

Depends on what your definition of too much trouble is versus who much you want to immerse your players into the game. There are most definitely skill checks that I don't want my players knowing right off the bat whether or not they succeeded, such as Prowl checks. If the player knows right off the bat that they failed their check, it kinda breaks the mood as they are mentally preparing for a confrontation of some sort. Granted they still can extrapolate roughly how well they did by what they rolled if they rolled really good or bad. But in the end it still builds tension if they can't see all of the puzzle.

Abub wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Abub wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kagatos wrote:While that seems like it would be a good idea when I first read it, now I'm not so sure...

If your players wanted to take advantage of it they could by jotting down the numbers themselves and saying oh I need to use this skill but I'd fail it...so I need to "burn" a roll on some stupid skill so I can get the result I want.

True, but that can be easily fixed any number of ways. Scramble the original 5 rolls, and add the next roll to either the top OR the bottom of the list, at random (or close to it).
And/or keep your eyes out for players taking notes every time they roll.

I have to vote AGAINST this idea. If you wanna take away their knowledge of how well they roll, roll it for them behind a screen. But ultimately isn't part of the fun getting to be a kick butt hero? Don't take that away from them.

How would that keep them from being a kick-butt hero?

Cause it robs them of the die roll omnesence that make them feel the kick-buttitude. It also disconnects them from the purely viseral connection between attempting the action and then executing on that action.

Still don't follow.

"You sever his head with one swipe of your axe" is pretty kick-butt no matter what the die roll was.
So is "You climb up the cliff face so fast you might as well have been walking," or "You are unfamiliar with this kind of lock, but it doesn't matter. You easily feel the tumblers fall into place, and the door clicks open."

Conversely, "You're standing point blank, with your gun to his head.... and roll a 1" doesn't seem any more kick-butt than "You're standing point blank, with your gun to his head.... but just as you're about to pull the trigger a distant explosion distracts you, and he twists out of the way."
And "You rolled too high on your Stealth Check" doesn't seem more kick-butt than "You're pretty sure you're concealed safely in the shadows... until the sirens go off. Somebody must have spotted you somehow."

dragonfett wrote:Depends on what your definition of too much trouble is versus who much you want to immerse your players into the game. There are most definitely skill checks that I don't want my players knowing right off the bat whether or not they succeeded, such as Prowl checks. If the player knows right off the bat that they failed their check, it kinda breaks the mood as they are mentally preparing for a confrontation of some sort. Granted they still can extrapolate roughly how well they did by what they rolled if they rolled really good or bad. But in the end it still builds tension if they can't see all of the puzzle.

Exactly.

I personally don't like making perception checks vs. prowl checks because of the fact that it cheapens the skill in my opinion. The person with prowl gets a +1 bonus for every 10 points in his skill, rounding down! So the best you could ever have in a roll of is a +9 to the roll (remember, all skills are capped at 98%, and since it gets rounded down). I honestly felt that it should have been for every 5 points, rounding to the nearest number divisible by 5, or do something like this. You first roll on your prowl skill to see if you pass or fail before you roll the 20 sider. If you pass, then you get the bonus to the d20 roll, if you fail, then you get no bonuses.

dragonfett wrote:I personally don't like making perception checks vs. prowl checks because of the fact that it cheapens the skill in my opinion. The person with prowl gets a +1 bonus for every 10 points in his skill, rounding down! So the best you could ever have in a roll of is a +9 to the roll (remember, all skills are capped at 98%, and since it gets rounded down). I honestly felt that it should have been for every 5 points, rounding to the nearest number divisible by 5, or do something like this. You first roll on your prowl skill to see if you pass or fail before you roll the 20 sider. If you pass, then you get the bonus to the d20 roll, if you fail, then you get no bonuses.

WARNING: HOUSE RULE AHEAD I grant a bonus based on the level of success of the Prowl roll myself.

WARNING: HOUSE RULE AHEAD I grant a bonus based on the level of success of the Prowl roll myself.

How big of a bonus did you give?

dragonfett wrote:

WARNING: HOUSE RULE AHEAD I grant a bonus based on the level of success of the Prowl roll myself.

How big of a bonus did you give?

+1 for every 5% difference in the roll from the success score.
example: joe has a prowl of 65%, joe rolled a 21% on d100, 65 - 21 = 44 / 5 = 9 (I always round in the characters favor). so the bonus is +9. yes this has the potential to produce a 20+ bonus but the average rolls put the bonuses more in the the 4 to 7 range. (I apply mods to success rate, etc...)

dragonfett wrote:I personally don't like making perception checks vs. prowl checks because of the fact that it cheapens the skill in my opinion. The person with prowl gets a +1 bonus for every 10 points in his skill, rounding down! So the best you could ever have in a roll of is a +9 to the roll (remember, all skills are capped at 98%, and since it gets rounded down). I honestly felt that it should have been for every 5 points, rounding to the nearest number divisible by 5, or do something like this. You first roll on your prowl skill to see if you pass or fail before you roll the 20 sider. If you pass, then you get the bonus to the d20 roll, if you fail, then you get no bonuses.

Unless there's a rule worded oddly (not unlikely), if it's a direct compairson, it should be +1 per 5% when you convert something form D100 to D20, I get the feeling there was something in RUE I've since blanked out or stopped caring about.

I do like the ideal that Perception (an under used aspect of the game to me, more classes should interact with it, like Thief, Monk and similar) should be the counter to Prowl (otherwise it won't matter how sharp of senses you have, just how good a sneak the sneaker is, or if you have Sixth Sense / Presence Sense in corner cases). But if that conversion rate is accurate in print, that's just silly. I just penalize player skill on the Perception roll of the 'searcher' (Which I won't go into now, since it won't make a lick of sense with the rest, eye balled, like -2% per Perception total, half that for larger distances).

Cinos wrote:

dragonfett wrote:I personally don't like making perception checks vs. prowl checks because of the fact that it cheapens the skill in my opinion. The person with prowl gets a +1 bonus for every 10 points in his skill, rounding down! So the best you could ever have in a roll of is a +9 to the roll (remember, all skills are capped at 98%, and since it gets rounded down). I honestly felt that it should have been for every 5 points, rounding to the nearest number divisible by 5, or do something like this. You first roll on your prowl skill to see if you pass or fail before you roll the 20 sider. If you pass, then you get the bonus to the d20 roll, if you fail, then you get no bonuses.

Unless there's a rule worded oddly (not unlikely), if it's a direct compairson, it should be +1 per 5% when you convert something form D100 to D20, I get the feeling there was something in RUE I've since blanked out or stopped caring about.

I do like the ideal that Perception (an under used aspect of the game to me, more classes should interact with it, like Thief, Monk and similar) should be the counter to Prowl (otherwise it won't matter how sharp of senses you have, just how good a sneak the sneaker is, or if you have Sixth Sense / Presence Sense in corner cases). But if that conversion rate is accurate in print, that's just silly. I just penalize player skill on the Perception roll of the 'searcher' (Which I won't go into now, since it won't make a lick of sense with the rest, eye balled, like -2% per Perception total, half that for larger distances).

RUE page 368 states it as +1 for every 10 points in the skill for perception checks
which is better than the original version of that rule published in the NightBane setting (+1 for every 15 points of skill.)

Egads man, that is horrendous! Thanks for making me feel a little better about the +1/10%. Doesn't mean that I like it, but now I realize just how much worse it could be.

Saidin wrote:I'm GMing a game and at the start of the game I informed the group that I'm going to be doing their skill checks a diferent way. I had everyone roll 5 percentages and whenever someone uses a skill I have them roll me a new percent, I put the new one at the bottom of their list and apply the one on top to their skill.

Too much paperwork for you. Even if it's not, that's still one more thing you have to be aware of.

Saidin wrote:My theory to this is to take some of the omnicence out of their checks, like if someone is trying to sneak in somewhere they don't necessarily know their being quiet until they actually start sneaking in, or checking the quality of something they don't know right away if they are appraising it correctly or not.

If you want to take the omnipotence out of their checks, then I suggest you simply roll the skills for them. You don't need to roll every skill for them, just the ones where knowledge on success or fail wouldn't otherwise be readily apparent.
Like the other posters' previously mentioned prowl.
Or research-type skills. Or read sensory equipment.

You don't need to keep all the skills blind, just the ones that should be.

Also, if it were me in your game, I would cycle through the bad rolls and stack only good rolls in my favor for relevant checks because there is no difference between you writing it down and me writing it down. And if you tried to claim that you were picking which result I got, then you'd have a full-scale player revolt on your hands

Keep in-mind that the above is a very real possibility your players have yet to explore.

Saidin wrote:I met some resistance from a player who's argument was they felt like rolling skills was useless at that point because they didn't know if their rolls were what would work or not and as a player they should know if their rolls are succeeding.

Tell that player that under no circumstances should he be aware of success or failure; there is no list of GM situational modifiers for him to see, so as far as he's concerned, it's just a damn number.

Saidin wrote:I assured him that no matter what their rolls I would not change the game or use my knowledge of a success or failure to my advantage.

You're the GM; don't be so subservient to the players. Under all circumstances you should be using your knowledge of a success or failure to your advantage, and they should know it. This isn't from some kind of vindictive point of view either; you're the GAME MASTER, you're supposed to be omnipotent as far as the game is concerned. You're the one person who does know what kind of a trap they walk into; who knows the woods are full of CS troops on a training mission; who determines that the 03 buddy just rolled on his ECM skill didn't work because in fact his own radio was jammed a literal half-second before.

Am I the only Gm that has a copy of hisplayers characters and makes unseen rolls on thier behalf when the situation calls for it but lets the players roll everything else otherwise?

jaymz wrote:Am I the only Gm that has a copy of hisplayers characters and makes unseen rolls on thier behalf when the situation calls for it but lets the players roll everything else otherwise?

No you are not the only one.
That is an "old school" method of play.
Most older hobbyists I have encountered do this.
It is also used to curtail that one player whose character invariably has new gear that was never purchased or rewarded in game.

jaymz wrote:Am I the only Gm that has a copy of hisplayers characters and makes unseen rolls on thier behalf when the situation calls for it but lets the players roll everything else otherwise?

I'd really hate that myself, personal luck is a huge thing for me (and my group), we all know how the others roll very well. For example, a player all ways rolls awfully until he tries something REALLY stupid (like his borg trying to sneak, or trying to take a dragon head on), and he'll start rolling like he's got weighted dice. One almost always wiffs on clutch rolls, (ALWAYS gets insane PB though, rarely under 25), but rolls well for anything else. Taking that away really provides a huge degree of separation from player to character, and ruins much of the mood to me.

Then again, I'd also outright forbid any action I felt too far out of line for advanced knowledge, and none of my players change any of their actions knowing their rolls (they'll grimace and gripe when they fail that prowl check, but they'll keep trying to sneak into the gates of hell on that 100).

Lucky wrote:I DO keep a copy of player char sheets, and I DO hide results from them... but THEY are always the ones to roll the dice, even if they don't know what they are rolling for all the time...

Oh right, that's something I forgot to add (Great minds think alike, eh?) I'll just randomly tell players to roll D100 (or D20 depending on what's needed), without telling them what it's for. At times its a "Do I feel mean" psudo-encounter roll, other times they are for hidden skill checks (detect ambush, etc), other times they're just decoys.

Saidin wrote:I met some resistance from a player who's argument was they felt like rolling skills was useless at that point because they didn't know if their rolls were what would work or not and as a player they should know if their rolls are succeeding. I assured him that no matter what their rolls I would not change the game or use my knowledge of a success or failure to my advantage.

Operative phrase, "They *felt* like rolling skills was useless", when in actuality it wasn't. Feelings are like that sometimes... Zooey Deschanel is never going to return my calls, no matter how much I *feel* that we are soul-mates.... and we are.... we are so very much... IF ONLY SHE WOULD SEE THAT <breathes heavily>.

There's a lot of *feel* in game design, which is a subtle thing (It's why I have a weakness for games where the better at something you are, the more dice you grab. It just *feels* good to grab a bunch of dice, regardless of realism/balance/statistical results).

I'd vote to tell the player to give it some sessions to see how it works out. If he's such a pill that he's not willing to give it a *fair* shot, then he's not really a good player. Democracy in the party may be the answer.

Supergyro wrote:

Saidin wrote:I met some resistance from a player who's argument was they felt like rolling skills was useless at that point because they didn't know if their rolls were what would work or not and as a player they should know if their rolls are succeeding. I assured him that no matter what their rolls I would not change the game or use my knowledge of a success or failure to my advantage.

Operative phrase, "They *felt* like rolling skills was useless", when in actuality it wasn't. Feelings are like that sometimes... Zooey Deschanel is never going to return my calls, no matter how much I *feel* that we are soul-mates.... and we are.... we are so very much... IF ONLY SHE WOULD SEE THAT <breathes heavily>.

Dude, it's not cool to talk about obsessively stalking somebody. It objectifies them, and it might be offensive to somebody on the boards who has actually been stalked. It is a crime, after all, and one that's very serious.
Not cool to joke about.



Besides, she's mine!

Killer Cyborg wrote:Besides, she's mine!

I KNEW she had another stalker on the side, I KNEW IT!!!

I suppose to be genteel, we should think of something egalitarian. I'll hide in her bushes Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays while you take Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays?

Sundays we can share, I'll bring binoculars and chips, you bring drinks and the listening device, we can make it a pot luck!

Supergyro wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Besides, she's mine!

I KNEW she had another stalker on the side, I KNEW IT!!!

I suppose to be genteel, we should think of something egalitarian. I'll hide in her bushes Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays while you take Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays?

Sundays we can share, I'll bring binoculars and chips, you bring drinks and the listening device, we can make it a pot luck!

That's the only civilized solution.

Saidin wrote:My theory to this is to take some of the omnicence out of their checks

So an absence of omnicience is fun for you.

Are you thinking it'll be fun for other people as well? If so it probably would be for someone.

But if your just doing it for your own fun, well as is, it's just selfish.

It's not impossible to stick some purely selfish stuff into a game, it just counterbalances with other stuff the players find fun. If the selfish stuff is unfun, it simply subtracts from the fun. If you've got more fun than unfun, it'll work out. If you've got more unfun than fun, it wont work out. It's kind of a balance sheet.