Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6676662" data-attributes="member: 1879">I'm coming late to this discussion and I haven't read through 8 pages of discussion to make sure I'm not repeating already offered thoughts, so apologies if I'm stepping on any toes.I would question the &quot;have no penalty for failure&quot; examples you offer, many GMs I've seen will give bad information on a failed knowledge roll, in fact I often see players invent their own wild goose chase ideas when they get a bad roll. Similarly a failed investigation check might lead to bad data or tip off the person you are investigating.The problem is that with public rolls everyone knows who succeeded and who failed so only the right answer is heeded, in spite of the fact that this is technically meta-gaming. But you don't want to take agency/dice karma away from the players.My solution to this is that when I GM I hand out 3x5 cards to all the players and have them write down their characters name and the stats of interest to me, as well as a series of 10 d20 rolls. Then through the gaming session when a hidden roll is called for I simply use the next number on the list and cross it off. So if everyone wanted to make a Knowledge Plot test to ID the Macguffin I would give them all answers based on how well they failed or succeeded, what I would not do is tell them who failed or succeeded. Same thing for perception tests. Occasionally if the game is getting slow I'll go through the motions of crossing off a number from each card while looking around the table and making &quot;Mmm-Hmm&quot; noises, then say nothing. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 6676662, member: 1879"] I'm coming late to this discussion and I haven't read through 8 pages of discussion to make sure I'm not repeating already offered thoughts, so apologies if I'm stepping on any toes. I would question the "have no penalty for failure" examples you offer, many GMs I've seen will give bad information on a failed knowledge roll, in fact I often see players invent their own wild goose chase ideas when they get a bad roll. Similarly a failed investigation check might lead to bad data or tip off the person you are investigating. The problem is that with public rolls everyone knows who succeeded and who failed so only the right answer is heeded, in spite of the fact that this is technically meta-gaming. But you don't want to take agency/dice karma away from the players. My solution to this is that when I GM I hand out 3x5 cards to all the players and have them write down their characters name and the stats of interest to me, as well as a series of 10 d20 rolls. Then through the gaming session when a hidden roll is called for I simply use the next number on the list and cross it off. So if everyone wanted to make a Knowledge Plot test to ID the Macguffin I would give them all answers based on how well they failed or succeeded, what I would not do is tell them who failed or succeeded. Same thing for perception tests. Occasionally if the game is getting slow I'll go through the motions of crossing off a number from each card while looking around the table and making "Mmm-Hmm" noises, then say nothing. :heh: [/QUOTE]

Verification