Checks rolled for the players

[El Mahdi]

[MENTION=6677945]SnowleopardVK[/MENTION] I think you're well within your rights to run it this way, I run it this way, and every DM/GM I've ever played with has done the same thing.

But, if you're group has a problem with this, then just revert to the rules. Both the 3.xE and 4E DM Guides describe using passive checks for the PC's when you don't want to ask for a skill check (because it might clue them in that something is going on, or you're trying to keep the action moving, etc.). A passive check is essentially the PC's "take 10" score for that skill (this rule is the same in 3E and 4E).

Personally, I'd prefer having you roll since in many situations, a "take 10" score may be an automatic failure...but I might have a chance with the dice. But if you're players don't see it this way, then it's their loss.

 

[LostSoul]

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 use this:

Multiple Characters Working Towards the Same Goal: If a number of characters are attempting to achieve the same goal with their action, only one rolls to resolve all character’s actions, while up to four others may roll to lend aid. The character who makes the roll which resolves the action depends on the action in question - the one who is most active, the one with the highest skill modifier (when trying to listen for something), or the one with the lowest skill modifier (when trying to move stealthily past a group of orcs).​

Reading it now I realize I have to tighten that up.

 

[Mark CMG]

The GM rolls whenever the player is not to be aware of the result, as in cases where the PC might fail but believe they succeed or succeed but not be sure if they failed or if they are not aware that there is even something to roll for like recognizing an accent. Ask a player how they would play it if they all failed a roll to recognize an accent. At least with your way, they were given the chance to assume it was the guy even if the PCs failed their checks with the GM rolling.

 

[Janx]

what exactly was this player's problem with your method anyway?

He wanted to manually declare the check himself? And run the risk of forgetting?

I never enjoyed the style of gaming where players have to play 20 questions in every room and tap every stone in order to satisfy the GM's requirements to reveal information. I suspect a lot of us have dropped that style.

it sounds like the Passive Checks already gives precedence for GM doing checks for players automatically.

I reckon, if the GM was really generous, he could consider it a Passive-autoactive check and give you the best of take10 vs 1d20 on the check.

Either way, I stand by the practice of streamlining game play to the decisions that really matter.

I would also assume, that this pre-check, if it fails, but the player for some reason does declare they specifically check, that you probably re-make the check. Especially if they take a specific action to test for something. Like "I start looking around for a secret door, because I saw him walk in here"

I don't actually keep a log of die rolls. I just look at the dungeon map and all the secret spots and make the rolls and note which ones are Found so that when the PCs show up, I can work the discovery into the description.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I reckon, if the GM was really generous, he could...

Ahem, *coughSHEcough*

Okay, now nitpicking aside...

I don't actually keep a log of die rolls. I just look at the dungeon map and all the secret spots and make the rolls and note which ones are Found so that when the PCs show up, I can work the discovery into the description.

Again an idea I really like. I'd probably combine it with keeping a set of pre-rolls myself; I think that would work really well.

what exactly was this player's problem with your method anyway?

...I suspect a lot of us have dropped that style.

I suspect his problem is that he has not dropped it.

[MENTION=6677945]Both the 3.xE and 4E DM Guides describe using passive checks for the PC's when you don't want to ask for a skill check (because it might clue them in that something is going on, or you're trying to keep the action moving, etc.). A passive check is essentially the PC's "take 10" score for that skill (this rule is the same in 3E and 4E).

This is pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. Anybody know if there's anything remotely similar written in the Pathfinder rules? (And if so which book/page?)

As I've said, just being able to point to an official rulebook is more likely to convince him than anything else.

 

[Is_907]

I usually go for take 10 or even take 20, when the situation calls for it. Sometimes players get caught up role playing actions that take time but forget to roll (happens more in PbP), so a take 10/20 makes sense.

I recently ran into a DM who actually expects us as players to ALWAYS tell him when we want to use a skill or ability. Every time.
He never says "make a perception check" or rolls things for us, like when we first walk into a room, or something like that. It's the opposite problem of what you have, and, quite frankly, it's what your problem player is arguing for.
It sucks.

I highly recommend you try the "take 10" or "Passive" skill approach. It's one of the things in 4e that really streamline gameplay and fill a void left in the 3.x/PF rules.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't actually keep a log of die rolls. I just look at the dungeon map and all the secret spots and make the rolls and note which ones are Found so that when the PCs show up, I can work the discovery into the description.

Wish I could XP this method. Gotta spread it around first . . .

 

[IronWolf]

I really don't see an issue with the rolls you were doing SnowleopardVK. Seems like you were just trying to keep things moving along and hiding some of the game mechanics to help things flow. Seems fine to me.

The assuming a "taking 10" perspective doesn't seem bad either for those things that someone is bound to notice anyways after some interaction with said event.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Anybody know if there's anything remotely similar written in the Pathfinder rules? (And if so which book/page?)

As I've said, just being able to point to an official rulebook is more likely to convince him than anything else.

Unfortunately there isn't. And it's not actually codified in the 3.5E rules either (it's just kind of hinted at in some skill descriptions). It didn't get actually written down until 4E. But it was written down because this is how everyone was playing it anyways.

But if your player still "needs" something official, then this will do:

Pathfinder, pg. 397

Judge​

: The Game Master must be the arbiter of
everything that occurs in the game. All rule books,
including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law.
He must not antagonize the players or work to impede
their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor
them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and​

consistent in his administration of the rules.

Pathfinder, pg. 402

...don’t feel bound to the predetermined plot

of an encounter or the rules as written. Feel free to adjust​

the results or interpret things creatively...

Pathfinder, pg. 402

GM Fiat​

​

​

​

​

: The GM is the law of the game. His reading​

of the rules should be respected and adhered to.

Other than that, tell your player it's a commonly accepted form of play that perhaps he isn't aware of due to his inexperience. Just like everyone in the thread said, I've seen this as a part of GM'ing in every edition of D&D and used by every GM I've ever played with (rolling secretly behind the screen, for npc's and pc's). I've never heard of anyone ever having a problem with this. Your player isn't just the odd-man-out in your group as concerns this, he's the odd-man-out in the entire roleplaying community.

 

[Pilgrim]

From my PoV, as a DM I would have to say in this particular instance, having them roll would have been OK and I probably would have had them do so; reason being, success or failure in this case would not have been an unknown.

If you would have had them make a skill check (whichever skill would have been most appropriate) then those that failed would not know why you asked for the roll. Those that succeeded, you would have told them in some manner, that they recognize the outcome (in this case the accent). This is a result that yields a observable outcome.

This is different, than say, checking for traps. In a situation of this sort, it is more viable that the DM roll because even with a success, there could be no trap found since there might not actually be one there in the first place, but by the same token even if there is a trap there, a failed roll means the PC doesn't find it. So, either way, the PC has no knowledge as to what is observed unless the only outcome is that there is in fact a trap AND the roll is successful.

My rule of thumb, it depends whether or not the outcome yields a similar result in both a success and a failure that I roll behind the screen.

Another thing to keep in mind is whether or not the roll is initiated by a PC or the DM. If the PC actively searches for trap, they would know I'm going to make the roll behind the screen. If, however, I decide to make a roll without any PC actively doing anything (as the OP originally described) I would do so behind the screen without even mentioning it to the players unless one or more of the rolls succeeded, at which point I would then inform them that they recognize the accent of the man they seek, otherwise they are none the wiser.