Checks rolled for the players

SnowleopardVK

First Post
I was running a game a few days ago, and the party was talking with an NPC. Now they didn't know it, but he was an NPC they'd been instructed to find, but the only description they'd been given of him was that he had a certain accent.

When he was first talking to them, I gave each PC a roll behind my screen to see if they recognized his accent as the one they were looking for.

One of the players was not happy. I roll occasionally when things happen so that the players don't know whether my rolls are actually doing anything or not, but when his character spotted the accent he concluded that I had been rolling for that and accused me of it.

He said that he should only get the roll to recognize this accent if he remembered to say that he was listening for it. Now I consider that ridiculous since they were face-to-face with and talking specifically to this NPC (and a thick accent isn't something you only hear if you're specifically listening for it), but normally I would say fine. If you want to only get these normally free rolls when you remember to ask for them, that's your choice and your loss.

The difficulty is that he's angry the other players are getting them too. He wants me to stop doing these rolls at all. Now that's where I refused because it would slow down the game if players had to roll sense motive every time an NPC talks "just to be safe", or roll knowledge every time they encountered anything new. Not to mention they'd probably get a great deal more paranoid, and one of the other players becomes very not-fun to play with when she gets overly paranoid.

He understands that it's the DM's call and has accepted my decision, but I keep hearing muted grumbling from him whenever my dice hit the table outside of combat. Does anyone know of anything that says where it's appropriate to roll for the players? If it says directly in any rules (we're playing Pathfinder by the way) then it'd be nice to just be able to point to the rulebook, because I'm quite sure that "this is how the rules say to do it" would stop his complaining. He's like that. Agrees with the rules without question even if he doesn't like them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rule 0:

These checks seem very fair to the players and if they keep things running smooth I think you are within your rights as a DM to keep doing them.

If your whole group or most of your group was unhappy with the practice then it would be a good idea to discuss it with them.
 

From your description it seems to me that the way you are doing it is making things easier for the players. I really don't see why he'd be complaining about that.
 

Yeah... This is a fairly mind-boggling complaint, to me.

Is the issue that he wants to do all rolls for his character?

Or that you're "making checks in secret"?

Or that you're "making checks for his character without his permission/knowledge"?

All of these reasons seem ridiculous to me, of course.

What about when an Elf gets the automatic Search roll for secret doors? Do you tell the Elf to make one every time he walks by a secret door, tipping the players off that there IS a secret door in the process and triggering Search checks by every one of the metagame-y bastards?

But it sounds like he's mad that you even let him recognize the accent after he forgot to ask... Which just seems eminently stupid and unreasonably pixel-bitchy on his part.
 


I do a similar practice. I roll (or even pre-roll) search and trap checks automatically as an assumption of player/PC desire to find these things if they can, so we can save time and skip continuous ongoing "I check for X" statements.

To do otherwise tends to make players have to be more paranoid, and leads to a screwya mentality.

By making these rolls ahead of time, it also helps me to better describe what happens by knowing what the PC knows BEFORE the important revelation is needed. If you fail the trap check, I can describe how you trigger it, because you didn't see it. If you succeed, I can describe how you discover it (possibly just before triggering it). it just makes things smoother.

Considering the decision is made in the PCs favor, he really needs to chill out.

I would however, make sure that policy is in your house rules document on GMing procedure. I find documenting this kind of stuff as a matter of good practice.

Also make sure you have Rule 0: the GM reserves the right to deviate from or adjust the rules as situations call for in order to expedite playing of the game.

I also have a rule about AoO, namely that the GM shall assume the most safest path for the PC using their declared/available movement rate, rather than nailing them on AoO because of a poorly declared path.

This minimized pixel bitching and worrying about the GM pulling a "gotcha" because the player didn't choose the best path available to them.

I also insist the GM has the right to make all rolls where failure does NOT
reveal itself to the player. This fits the situation for the OP. If the PC does not recognize the accent as the one he's looking for, that's the same information he has if he successfully rolls on the Wrong Suspect. The answer is still, "you don't think this accent is the one you are looking for"

if the player argues that he would know if he failed in this case, refer to rule 0

A house rules document need not be miles long and full of changes to the actual game rules. Mine is short, and the first section of it covers my procedural policies like this kind of stuff.


.
 

That is the absolute weirdest complaint I have ever heard.

Really that's the weirdest? It's weird sure, but I've had worse. Like a player complaining when I wouldn't let his alchemist wield jars of live bees.

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION]: Those are some good ideas, both the rolling in the advance and the actual creating a physical document detailing my rules.
 

If you want to avoid the visible rolling, one thing a GM of ours did was to pre-fill a spreadsheet with tracks of random d20 rolls for each PC, which he'd use and cross off in order.

This is also an area in which 4e-style Passive checks can be used (effectively having the PC take 10 on the check), but that does eliminate the element of chance, and I certainly think there's something to be said for a random roll in such cases - there are plenty of random factors that will affect the outcome.
 

You might want to consider going with 'take 10', as the randomness of the d20 has some odd effects, eg on "you only need 1 success" stuff it means that large groups almost always succeed.
 

I have to echo the "Take 10" idea.

It does feel somewhat unfair if you have a +15 to a skill and the DM rolls a 1. At least if you roll it, it feels like you own the result.
 

Remove ads

Top