A Merc's Life [OOC 01]
- Thread starter Maidhc O Casain
- Start date
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
judging by what is seen through the ax-hole I am glad we did not just go falling through the suddenly opening door!
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
That was just a funny mental image I had - the amount of mold piled up against the door would have forced it to open slowly even if you'd succeeded on your STR checks.
Which, BTW, what are the odds that one out of four rolls would break 10? You guys should do well in your next fight, now that you've gotten those crappy rolls out of the way . . .
Which, BTW, what are the odds that one out of four rolls would break 10? You guys should do well in your next fight, now that you've gotten those crappy rolls out of the way . . .
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
I don't think I've mentioned this before - in fact I'm certain there are occasions I've asked you to do the rolling - but I think I'd like to make the Knowledge/Perception/etc. checks. It's not a trust thing at all; it's that old idea that asking for perception checks tips the players off that there's something to be perceived, when if they don't perceive it they wouldn't know they needed to . . . um . . . you get what I'm saying?
For example, three of the party members have innate abilities to recognize things when passing within a certain distance: unusual stonework, secret doors, and traps. If I ask you for a perception check the players know something is there even if you fail the check. You're then stuck: you have to metagame and have your characters focus on the area and try again, or you have to deliberately NOT try again even though you know something's there - very frustrating.
So here's what we'll do:
If a check requires active effort (a STR check, a Climb check) you do the rolling. If it's something that happens in the background (Knowledge checks) or something where knowing the results of the roll might tip you off (e.g. if you're aware that you rolled a 30 on your perception check and I tell you there's nothing there, you'll know there's nothing there; if you don't know what you rolled there's still some uncertainty) I'll take care of it. On these occasions, I likely won't even tell you I've rolled - I'll just describe the results. So if Tsadok is about to open a trapped door, I'll roll a perception check for him and notify him if he notices the trap; Mike doesn't even have to tell me he's looking. If he tells me he's looking I'll still roll the check - the difference will be in Tsadok's awareness that he's actively searching.
Does that all make sense? Is everyone OK with this? It just seems like it will make the game a little more immersive. It may also move things along a little more quickly, since I won't have to wait for stated actions and then die rolls quite as often.
One more thing - I'm a HUGE fan of 4E's passive perception. So, I would like to assume that the characters are always taking 10 on a perception check when moving through hostile territory. If you tell me you're looking/listening or otherwise trying to perceive something I'll roll it; if you don't tell me you'll automatically get a (10 plus your Perception skill) chance to notice anything out of the ordinary.
Cool?
For example, three of the party members have innate abilities to recognize things when passing within a certain distance: unusual stonework, secret doors, and traps. If I ask you for a perception check the players know something is there even if you fail the check. You're then stuck: you have to metagame and have your characters focus on the area and try again, or you have to deliberately NOT try again even though you know something's there - very frustrating.
So here's what we'll do:
If a check requires active effort (a STR check, a Climb check) you do the rolling. If it's something that happens in the background (Knowledge checks) or something where knowing the results of the roll might tip you off (e.g. if you're aware that you rolled a 30 on your perception check and I tell you there's nothing there, you'll know there's nothing there; if you don't know what you rolled there's still some uncertainty) I'll take care of it. On these occasions, I likely won't even tell you I've rolled - I'll just describe the results. So if Tsadok is about to open a trapped door, I'll roll a perception check for him and notify him if he notices the trap; Mike doesn't even have to tell me he's looking. If he tells me he's looking I'll still roll the check - the difference will be in Tsadok's awareness that he's actively searching.
Does that all make sense? Is everyone OK with this? It just seems like it will make the game a little more immersive. It may also move things along a little more quickly, since I won't have to wait for stated actions and then die rolls quite as often.
One more thing - I'm a HUGE fan of 4E's passive perception. So, I would like to assume that the characters are always taking 10 on a perception check when moving through hostile territory. If you tell me you're looking/listening or otherwise trying to perceive something I'll roll it; if you don't tell me you'll automatically get a (10 plus your Perception skill) chance to notice anything out of the ordinary.
Cool?
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
So in the future, You just want me to mention that i have +9 Knowledge dungeoneering and let you roll in the future? cool with me!
Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
Merry Christmas, guys!
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
Ho Ho Ho!
signed, Kris Kringle
signed, Kris Kringle
Similar Threads
