D&D 5E New Rule of Three is up for 31 Jan. 2014

[Derren]

Thoughts?

Silly.

What happens when the group fails a "stealth group check"? Who is spotted and who can get a surprise round/ambush? "The Group" is not some hive mind being which consists out of the PCs.

 

[Quickleaf]

I have toyed around with the idea of using a hack of DW's perceive realities move. So, for example, each party member that rolls high enough on their perception checks can ask one of the following questions:

1) What, if anything, is watching me right now? (closest observer only)
2) What, if anything, did the original architect of this constructed, indoor location wish to keep secret?
3) What recent modifications to this indoor location have been made to keep something secret?
4) What is the most suspicious non-architectural item visible within 30' of my location?
5) What, if anything, are the signs or markings indicating recent passage? (pinpoints tracks but does not permit tracks to be followed)
6) What is the exact location of a hiding OR invisible creature (not both) within my field of vision, of whom I am already aware?

etc.

My hope would be that a well-designed list of specific options would leverage the perception skill to ramp up tension, rather than defuse it. But I'm still very much in the 'toying around with the idea' stage.

I really like this, and think you're on to so something! Dungeon World really is a great game. Actually there are a lot of great indie games out there! One thing I liked about the later cycle of 4e was how Robin Laws wrote part of the DMG2 and they really seemed to be embracing some pretty forward-thinking design. I'd say after Gary's original 1e DMG, the 4e DMG2 was my favorite.

And on the topic of group stealth, I'd like to quote my nephew...

"I'm hiding, uncle!"

I think they (WotC) and we (D&D players) need to reframe it a bit. When the group all wants to snaeak, the question to ask may not be "do they sneak?" but "what happens when they sneak?" For example, if the PCs are trying to sneak past bugbears guarding prisoners in a dungeon...one or two bugbears might hear something and go to check it out, the bugbear gaoler might threaten the prisoners taking a head count thinking some have escaped, a prisoner might hear the PCs and begin pleading for help eventually becoming too loud unless satisfied or otherwise silenced, one PC might be taking longer and be caught by some bugbears who demand the "prisoner" come back with them (and turn over the loot they mysteriously scavenged), etc.

Group Stealth is really about the whole group saying "We want to engage a different set of challenges than combat here". To do that the Stealth system (and maybe the greater ruleset) has to embrace fail forward design & non-binary success/failure.

The group Stealth check (if half or more succeed, then party succeeds) is more of an "in retrospect" solution than a really well designed one. At the bare minimum 5e should include that, but I'd hope for a more progressive design that takes into account 40 years of dealing with PCs wanting to sneak past bugbears

 

[Derren]

To do that the Stealth system (and maybe the greater ruleset) has to embrace fail forward design & non-binary success/failure.

Please not. Fail Forward is an abomination and needs to die painfully.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Silly.

Cheers.

What happens when the group fails a "stealth group check"?

The party is heard/seen.

Who is spotted

The character whose player made the roll.

and who can get a surprise round/ambush?

The group that has had the successful perception check (in this case, the monsters).

"The Group" is not some hive mind being which consists out of the PCs.

Didn't say it was, as you know. The party does operate as a unit, however, interacting with the world at the same time, and (possibly) supporting one another. My solution addresses that, and it does so within the existing rules so that teamwork is rewarded.

 

[Derren]

Didn't say it was, as you know.

Except that is the conclusion of group checks. Why should one party member being bad at stealth mean that all party members get spotted? No, just because the clumsy knight gets seen or heard by the enemy it doesn't mean that they automatically know were StealthyMcHalfling is, or that he is even there, giving him the chance of ambushing them or fleeing without much trouble. All this is impossible with group checks as there the group in indeed one big hive being.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Except that is the conclusion of group checks. Why should one party member being bad at stealth mean that all party members get spotted? No, just because the clumsy knight gets seen or heard by the enemy it doesn't mean that they automatically know were StealthyMcHalfling is, or that he is even there, giving him the chance of ambushing them or fleeing without much trouble. All this is impossible with group checks as there the group in indeed one big hive being.

Now who's being silly?

 

[Blackwarder]

The way I see it the main problem isn't about group checks or stealth checks it's about what the character is actually doing. Stealth can be either hide or move silently or both.

It it stand to reason than a character that wears heavy and noisy armor won't be able to move around without being heard unless there is some external source that can mask the sound of her moving, such as a rushing waterfall, a silence spell and so on. On the other hand, the same character trying to hide behind something without moving is doing something completely different.

I don't think that the game should permit heavily armed and armored group of characters to become ninjas because one character got a good stealth bonus, if you want to play a heavily armed and armored fighter with low Dex score than most of the time you should fail your move silently checks and your hide checks. If you do want to be able to creep unseen and unheard than you should get the proper gear, training and equipment.

I don't have a problem with rangers and rogues who can give some sort of a bonus to hide other characters, but I don't see how the same can be true to simply moving silently down a corridor.

Warder

 

[Warbringer]

I guess this assumes you only have one roll result, but then apply each PC's modifier to it separately, thus you still have one result per PC. In case of Listen, this pretty much equates to simply using the best modifier. Same would be for Spot, but the opposite would be used for Stealth.

That might be a good approach (takes away the variability of the role).

On the other hand, the extra success route of someone helping (ala the stealth) is fairly ubiquitous in scenes (tv, book)

"Shssh, they'll hear you" .. imparting knowledge that the other may not realize
"Watch that twig","Be careful of the floorboard, it creaks" .. imparting knowledge from greater awareness (knowing what to look for)..

YMMV

 

[Quickleaf]

Please not. Fail Forward is an abomination and needs to die painfully.

Haha, oddly enough you focused on our difference of opinion and not the overlap in our arguments.

What happens when the group fails a "stealth group check"? Who is spotted and who can get a surprise round/ambush? "The Group" is not some hive mind being which consists out of the PCs.

I think that's a good point, and is in the same vein as my thinking about the need for more interesting choices and non-binary success/failure. With a group check, there is greater cognitive burden for the DM to figure out what the hell that means in the narrative. And I don't think it needs to be that way, it's just a product of the system chosen (group skill check). What I'm arguing is that we misunderstand what it means when players say "we are sneaking in" and we need to rethink what a Stealth resolution system means.

Same goes for Perception.

Same goes for Knowledge Skills.

In 4e the system assumed PCs had a baseline of competence in all skills. Maybe that was going to far, but given how popular the "sneak in" tactic is, at least for Stealth it makes sense. I'm saying separate the idea of a Stealth Challenge from the stealth skill check. The challenge can encompass a whole lot of things, and assumes that the PCs get *somewhere* with their stealth mission and not just "sorry, you fail."

When I say "Fail Forward" I am not saying that *success* at the Stealth Challenge has to happen. On the contrary. I'm saying whatever happens has to be engaging what the PCs' are trying. So the consequences for a bad decision or a failed check should reflect what they're doing (and can be really really nasty! and, I'd argue, should be!). But they shouldn't be so fragile that a single skill check blows the whole thing, nor should they ever have the DM reply "you fail, nothing happens."

 

[GX.Sigma]

When I say "Fail Forward" I am not saying that *success* at the Stealth Challenge has to happen. On the contrary. I'm saying whatever happens has to be engaging what the PCs' are trying. So the consequences for a bad decision or a failed check should reflect what they're doing (and can be really really nasty! and, I'd argue, should be!). But they shouldn't be so fragile that a single skill check blows the whole thing, nor should they ever have the DM reply "you fail, nothing happens."

I'm not sure what you mean by "fail forward," then. It's obvious what happens when you fail the stealth challenge: you get caught. Why do we need a term for that?