Grim Tales: Action Points and secret skill checks

Fenris · Jun 15, 2005

In Grim Tales it mentions that you may use an action point to improve a d20 roll, for a skill check in this case. The decision to use an action point is made after the d20 roll, but before the DM announces the result.

My question is what to do about secret skill checks, ie those made by the DM. And with two different cases. When the character is actively attempting a skill but the DM rolls (forgery, disguise etc) so the player knows a d20 roll is going on. The second would be a pasisve skill such as sense motive, listen and spot, where the DM may not even be telling the player a check is being made.

I know there are different styles out there, and everybody has their own subset of what a player rolls and a DM rolls. But I am addressing this very generally, not trying to get bogged down in house rules of "well, I do things thusly...."

Thanks all.

Rodrigo Istalindir · Jun 15, 2005

Case 1 - the player knows he is using a skill, so he has to declare whether or not he's using an action point. He makes his disgiuse (or sneak or whatever) roll and immediately states he is using an action point. Opposed rolls will be against that modified roll. It's insurance.

Case 2 - no action points can be used unless the player specifically states that he will do so, and the event triggering the roll is both forseeable by the character and discreet in nature. Saying 'I use action points on my Listen check while standing an 8 hour watch' isn't kosher. Saying 'I ask the bishop if he knows about the missing children and use an action point on my Sense Motive' is ok.

Using action points has to be a conscious decision on the part of the player in response to a specific situation. Otherwise, you'll get too many arguments about whether or not he'd have used one in such and such a circumstance. (Or, alternatively, that he'd never have used one and wants it back).

The spirit of the action point is that the character doesn't know the outcome. While the player can intuit through metagaming such things as to-hit rolls, there is no reasonable way a character will know how sneaky he is, whether or not the fake eyebrow is askew, etc. The exception is the case of critical failures, and only then if the GM awards an action point, rendering the question of whether the character will use one moot.

Templeton580 · Jun 15, 2005

Fenris · Jun 15, 2005

Thanks guys, you have both made good points. If the situation arises, the player must decide, essentially before the roll how important this roll is and decide whether or not to use an AP. In these rare cases he can't see the roll result first, but can weight the consequences of success and failure and decide on some insurance and assurance. I think in these cases I would ask for the decision on the AP before I rolled to prevent them from reading my face and infering anything of the roll.

HeapThaumaturgist · Jun 15, 2005

I'm going to be an sob and do the "IN MY GAME".

But in my game, they generally get to do all of their rolling anyway. I do my "sly face" and perhaps hum some sneaky music and whisper "Sense Motive" ... mostly because if they hear clattering dice behind the screen while they're interrogating the Bishop ... they know what's up. And when I don't mention that they think he's a lying schemer they know they've failed their Sense Motive roll.

So it saves time. It's that or roll dice at random moments and cackle softly to myself. I tried that, but it seems to actually creep my players out more to call for a Will save for one PC and smile lovingly at the rest of the party instead of, say, doing it incognito.

And it lets them use their APs on almost all of their rolls. Which I think is important. The AP is what we like to call a Non-Determinant Mojo Bonus. You've got your Mojo even if you don't know you need it.

Action Points have become such a vital component of our games, my personal group of players are visibly and audibly crabby if we're playing a game that doesn't have them. They REALLY dislike the Force Point mechanic in StarWars and I've gotten several requests to change over to Action Points ... and here's why:

They make a roll. The PLAYER knows his bonuses and knows what he's rolled. He's not sure of the DC, but he knows that the most common DC in the game is 15. If his total is 7, well, blah. But when they roll a total of 14 ... they KNOW that if they fail, they've either failed big or they've failed by ONE. So they use an AP. I think this is cool. It keeps the game moving. Nothing frustrates ME, the GM, more than having to work the party through the back-end of the mystery because they failed the roll by 1. If they blew it by 3 or 4 or 10 ... well, that's why I installed a back-end. But 1 is such an annoying number. It's "almost, but not quite". And I can't just go around letting them succeed when they miss by one ... that's what mojo is for. Mojo is when by luck and circumstance and opposition they should fail, but they're the main characters and their "Juice" lets them keep keeping on.

For my own part, I also strong-arm the players all of the time via the AP mechanic. I think that's a great idea from Grim Tales. If I need a moment to railroad, I'll say: "Action Points all around, you've been captured." And if there's something I want them to succeed at but nobody particularly has the skill for I'll say: "Brian, give me an Action Point." and let them succeed.

So far everybody at the table has really liked it. YMMV of course, but I figured I'd stick my finger in the soup.

--fje

Fenris · Jun 15, 2005

Heap,
I agree completely. APs should represent those fortunes of providence that serve our heroes to perform extraordinary things. What I don't want is further probability issues of when to use them. I do want a sense of uncertainty to exist. That a hero may spend an AP out of the sense that "this HAS to succeed" not well I came close, but I won't spend the AP since I probably beat his roll. There in lies my conundrum.