D&D 5E Modeling Uncertainty

[iserith]

That's rather a kludge to fix a problem that could be fixed "upstream," wouldn't you say?

The upstream solution in my view is asking for a reasonably stated goal and approach. "Can I roll a Knowledge check?" or "Do I know X?" is not a goal and approach. "I try to recall X..." is a goal, but lacks an approach. "I try to recall X by drawing upon my background as a sage in the world's greatest library..." is a goal and approach. When you do this, in my experience, you'll have the "right" amount of attempts to recall lore instead of everyone at the table hoping to make a roll and get lucky.

Of course, in D&D 4e, I would handle this differently since it straight up says for the DM to be receptive for the players asking to make checks if I recall correctly.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "how" is clear. Inspection. Some combination of handling and visual inspection.

Then we get into setting a DC. If I don't know the outcome of the inspection (I don't), it's not going to matter whether the player knows more than I do. The check against the DC determines how the action resolves. And dice are difficult to lie to.

It's like "I check for traps." Ok, well how? If you just stand in one place and look around, you're less likely to find one but less likely to set one off. The "how" matters. The confidence of the person taking the action isn't a factor.


-Brad

The issue I have with this approach is that it relies on player skill, to some extent.

Let's say the DM has decided there's a trap that requires zigging, but when you ask the player what his 18th level Rogue does, he zags.

Here's how I'd like it to unfold:

"Um, I try to guess where a trap is mostly like to be."
"Roll Perception"
"23"
"It's most likely going to be in front of you"
"Ok I back up"

Now, my issue with that is that the player knows he rolled a 23, so figures that unless the DM is a douche the trap is going to be in front of him.

So let's add my proposed mechanic:

"Um, I try to guess where a trap is mostly like to be."
"Roll Perception"
"23"
(DM rolls secret die.)
"It's most likely going to be in front of you"
"Hmmm....ungh...arghhh...ok, I cautiously back up."
"Ok, nothing happens."
"Phew!"

Because, every once in a blue moon, the rogue's instincts are wrong, and because that frequency is determined stochastically, not through improv acting, he's always nervous about the decision.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The upstream solution in my view is asking for a reasonably stated goal and approach. "Can I roll a Knowledge check?" or "Do I know X?" is not a goal and approach. "I try to recall X..." is a goal, but lacks an approach. "I try to recall X by drawing upon my background as a sage in the world's greatest library..." is a goal and approach. When you do this, in my experience, you'll have the "right" amount of attempts to recall lore instead of everyone at the table hoping to make a roll and get lucky.

Of course, in D&D 4e, I would handle this differently since it straight up says for the DM to be receptive for the players asking to make checks if I recall correctly.

The "lore check pig pile" is exactly why I'd like to figure out a way to incorporate false negatives. Everybody starts rolling Lore, and pretty soon you have six different answers to choose from. So what do you do? Trust the guy with the high Lore skill.

 

[Bawylie]

The issue I have with this approach is that it relies on player skill, to some extent.

Let's say the DM has decided there's a trap that requires zigging, but when you ask the player what his 18th level Rogue does, he zags.

Here's how I'd like it to unfold:

"Um, I try to guess where a trap is mostly like to be."
"Roll Perception"
"23"
"It's most likely going to be in front of you"
"Ok I back up"

Now, my issue with that is that the player knows he rolled a 23, so figures that unless the DM is a douche the trap is going to be in front of him.

So let's add my proposed mechanic:

"Um, I try to guess where a trap is mostly like to be."
"Roll Perception"
"23"
(DM rolls secret die.)
"It's most likely going to be in front of you"
"Hmmm....ungh...arghhh...ok, I cautiously back up."
"Ok, nothing happens."
"Phew!"

Because, every once in a blue moon, the rogue's instincts are wrong, and because that frequency is determined stochastically, not through improv acting, he's always nervous about the decision.

Right, so let's address that.

If the player zigs when they should zag, there's no roll. Because they took an action guaranteed to fail. If they zag when they should zag, there's no roll because they're guaranteed to succeed.

So we have 3 or 4 potential outcomes. Guaranteed success, guaranteed failure, and "I don't know, let's roll for it and find out," (likely and unlikely).

So our tension's place belongs after an action is taken but before it is resolved. The DM (or the die roll) will determine a result, at which point, the anticipation gives way to actuality.

It seems like you want the anticipation to continue for the duration of the roll. 1.) Why? 2.) Easiest fix (and the traditional way) is to roll it yourself behind the screen, then describe/resolve. 3.) or I don't quite understand what you want.


-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

The "lore check pig pile" is exactly why I'd like to figure out a way to incorporate false negatives. Everybody starts rolling Lore, and pretty soon you have six different answers to choose from. So what do you do? Trust the guy with the high Lore skill.

My trick of using a group check if everyone piles on is maybe a bit simplistic, in that sort of instance, but it's easy: If they get more failures than successes, they don't know the right answer - they may have come up with several (including the right one), but have no confidence in one nor way to reconcile them all, and I thus feel no need to detail them.

Of course, in D&D 4e, I would handle this differently since it straight up says for the DM to be receptive for the players asking to make checks if I recall correctly.

I don't RC quite that advice, no. The 'first say yes' thing, vaguely. Though, of course, if you wanted to use your "goal & approach" er, approach to gate skill checks, you could, in any editions that had skill checks (and you could use it in others, too, just not to earn skill checks, obviously).

The reason I first used that trick in 4e was just because 4e introduced group skill checks.
5e still has 'em, so...

The upstream solution in my view is asking for a reasonably stated goal and approach. "Can I roll a Knowledge check?" or "Do I know X?" is not a goal and approach. "I try to recall X..." is a goal, but lacks an approach. "I try to recall X by drawing upon my background as a sage in the world's greatest library..." is a goal and approach.

I get the concept, but I think it's stretched a bit thin in that case. I mean, if you know something about X, you know it, whether you read it in a book while you were hanging out at the world's greatest library, or heard it from a bard who visited your town when you were 8.

I also don't see how it stop the pile-on effect. "I can't remember ever reading about this in a library." "OK, I try to remember if I ever heard about it in a story..." "I try to remember if I ever learned about it while I was training in the monastery..." "I try to remember if I ever heard about it from adventurers in a tavern..."

I mean, I can see it slowing things down - getting fewer actions, in general. :shrug:

 

[Guest 6801328]

Right, so let's address that.

If the player zigs when they should zag, there's no roll. Because they took an action guaranteed to fail. If they zag when they should zag, there's no roll because they're guaranteed to succeed.

So we have 3 or 4 potential outcomes. Guaranteed success, guaranteed failure, and "I don't know, let's roll for it and find out," (likely and unlikely).

So our tension's place belongs after an action is taken but before it is resolved. The DM (or the die roll) will determine a result, at which point, the anticipation gives way to actuality.

It seems like you want the anticipation to continue for the duration of the roll. 1.) Why? 2.) Easiest fix (and the traditional way) is to roll it yourself behind the screen, then describe/resolve. 3.) or I don't quite understand what you want.


-Brad

Well, this isn't the best example, as we'll see in a sec, but let's continue...

If the player chooses, it's effectively 50/50. But he's a master rogue! He should do better than 50/50.

So you use a skill to figure out the best option. If you fail, it's still 50/50. (It would be better if failing had some chance of producing the wrong answer instead of no answer, but we'll live with it.)

But if you succeed then your odds become 100%. You know which way to leap. At that point the actual leaping contains no suspense.

Under my system there's still some suspense...there's some chance, however small, that you're wrong.

The reason this isn't the best example is that the uncertainty gets resolved in the next moment. In other cases...taking the right tunnel, knowing whether the guard is lying, etc., the uncertainty can continue, potentially forever. I like that. It feels more immersive. "We never did find out whether we really had to go through the spider cave to get out."

As for rolling it behind the screen, as I tried to explain earlier (but perhaps failed to do well) it doesn't actually solve the problem. The only thing it provides is false negatives: "You don't see a trap" could mean there is no trap, or that you failed the roll. But a success is still a success, unless the DM wants to try to give hints rather than answers. But, as I think I explained, from the player's perspective those hints are almost always going to be obvious, which turns it into 100%, or non-obvious, in which case to them it's still a 50/50 proposition, in which case why bother rolling?

Plus I just don't like DMs rolling the dice for the players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I also don't see how it stop the pile-on effect. "I can't remember ever reading about this in a library." "OK, I try to remember if I ever heard about it in a story..." "I try to remember if I ever learned about it while I was training in the monastery..." "I try to remember if I ever heard about it from adventurers in a tavern..."

I mean, I can see it slowing things down - getting fewer actions, in general. :shrug:

I've thought a lot about the pile-on effect as well. Again, false negatives would help alleviate it.

But I'll suggest an inverse problem: the guy with the highest skill always making the roll. "Oh, it's an Arcana thing. Have Beelzebub check." I'd like to see knowledge checks become more participatory and cooperative. Sure, you don't want everybody to roll on every check, but I'd prefer the Wizard, the Warlock, and the Cleric all cooperate on solving the puzzle.

In my proposed system, even if Beelzebub makes his check, there's an incentive for the others to roll as backup. If they all succeed and they all get the same answer, great. But what if the other two succeed and get a different answer from Beelzebub. Was Beelzebub mistaken, or are the two with the lower skill? Seems to me that's what actually happens when smart people are trying to answer something, even if one of them is objectively "smarter" than the others. (Otherwise you'd all just be taking notes whenever I post and not giving me so much lip.)

 

[Bawylie]

Well, this isn't the best example, as we'll see in a sec, but let's continue...

If the player chooses, it's effectively 50/50. But he's a master rogue! He should do better than 50/50.

So you use a skill to figure out the best option. If you fail, it's still 50/50. (It would be better if failing had some chance of producing the wrong answer instead of no answer, but we'll live with it.)

But if you succeed then your odds become 100%. You know which way to leap. At that point the actual leaping contains no suspense.

Under my system there's still some suspense...there's some chance, however small, that you're wrong.

The reason this isn't the best example is that the uncertainty gets resolved in the next moment. In other cases...taking the right tunnel, knowing whether the guard is lying, etc., the uncertainty can continue, potentially forever. I like that. It feels more immersive. "We never did find out whether we really had to go through the spider cave to get out."

As for rolling it behind the screen, as I tried to explain earlier (but perhaps failed to do well) it doesn't actually solve the problem. The only thing it provides is false negatives: "You don't see a trap" could mean there is no trap, or that you failed the roll. But a success is still a success, unless the DM wants to try to give hints rather than answers. But, as I think I explained, from the player's perspective those hints are almost always going to be obvious, which turns it into 100%, or non-obvious, in which case to them it's still a 50/50 proposition, in which case why bother rolling?

Plus I just don't like DMs rolling the dice for the players.

Ok, but it's not a 50/50. If we have an either/or, then sure. Zig or Zag.

But in a practical situation... "As you step forward, the floor beneath your foot sinks downward. It's a pressure plate! You hear a small click and have only a split second to act before whatever trap this is gets sprung on you. What do you do?"

Now we have way more options than zig or zag. You gonna jump? Duck? Leap left or right? Hunker down? Hold your breath? Move your leg? Stay perfectly still? Shout a warning?

And yeah, the player is a master rogue. Which comes into play whenever dice are rolled. That mastery will be reflected mechanically and in the game narrative when we roll dem bones.

---

So let's say our dice rolls bring certainty and we don't want that. We want a sort of sense that we aren't secure in doing the right thing. (For whatever reason, we're playing some paranoia or unreliable reality). Let's back it all the way up and figure out what a game without any checks or rolls at all looks like.

You're the DM, your arbitration alone determines success or failure. How do you keep the tension and unease? What do you do to reinforce the idea that nothing is sure?


-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've thought a lot about the pile-on effect as well. Again, false negatives would help alleviate it.

How does 'false negative' apply in a knowledge fest? Thinking you don't know the info when you actually do?
Wouldn't it just be a 'wrong answer?'

But I'll suggest an inverse problem: the guy with the highest skill always making the roll. "Oh, it's an Arcana thing. Have Beelzebub check." I'd like to see knowledge checks become more participatory and cooperative. Sure, you don't want everybody to roll on every check, but I'd prefer the Wizard, the Warlock, and the Cleric all cooperate on solving the puzzle.

What players may tend to do is trust the guy who made the highest roll, since they all saw the rolls, which gets back to applying your system to reduce player confidence in the roll he sees. Seems to address the issue, though you're still left coming up with multiple answers to the question.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're the DM, your arbitration alone determines success or failure. How do you keep the tension and unease? What do you do to reinforce the idea that nothing is sure?

-Brad

Well, that's not really my goal. I just want things that should be uncertain to be uncertain.

The reaction to the trap really isn't the best one. Again, I'm not talking about all or even most skill checks; I'm talking about ones where a skill is used to determine if a character "knows" something, but where in real life "know" really means "believes". And that there are consequences to being wrong.

But let's still look at the trap thing one more time. So let's say the DM says "click" and the player quickly responds, "I drop prone!"

There are, I think, exactly two possibilities here:

1) The DM has already decided how the trap works, and how the player responds will affect the subsequent die rolls. This is totally fine and fun and I probably wouldn't change this, but I'll point out that the player's choice is effectively completely random (unless he's using 'metagame' familiarity with his DM's habits) and has nothing to do with his character's skill and experience.

2) The DM has not decided what the trap is, and is waiting for the player's roll. If the roll succeeds the DM will say, "It was a scything blade and it passes over you" and the roll fails he will say "A pit trap opens before you even hit the floor. Laterz." In this case I'll point out that the player's decision doesn't actually matter; the only purpose of the mechanic is to draw out narrative. If the player understands the rules he knows that it doesn't matter what he says, just that he has to say something. Which is also perfectly fine.

Other options, such as "make a skill roll to see if it was the right thing to do, and that outcome will affect the saving throw" are really just variants of #2.

When you point out that there's more than one option, you still need to choose whether it's version #1 or #2. If it's #1 then more choices just means more chances the player will make the wrong random choice. If it's #2 then it just means the player has more options to tell a good story, and that none of it affects the outcome.

What I'm looking for is both at once: I want the player to worry about choosing the right option AND I want the probability of that choice being the right one to be linked to the character's skills. With a single die roll, whether the player makes it or the DM does, I believe it's not possible to have both at once. I believe that is only possible by combining one public and one secret roll.