Game Systems that Allow Skill Resolution with No Roleplaying

[Mark CMG]

At this point, I think I've been clear - a change in timescale (rounds to minutes, minutes to hours, hours to day, and so on) or more information can probably get you a re-roll. Not just try each round until you succeed. This keeps us close to the spirit of the "no retry" rules without completely stymieing the players forever, and giving them some clear directions about what's required.

Fair enough. It doesn't answer the actual question but I understand why you disagree. I would find it too inflexible / unreasonable to deny a retry under the circumstances as described if a player made that argument.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To me, if a player put forth that once the pressure (mild though it is) was gone when the person turned to go and the player wanted to make another knowledge check to recall the name, I'd be inclined to call such a request as common sense since it is something that can happen every day to always anyone in reality.

Common sense doesn't always apply to an RPG, though. I mean, most adventurers never suffer from broken bones, either. I would posit "doesn't freeze up and forget things in the heat of the moment" as a basic characteristic for most hero-types.

It comes down to what you're trying to model it, though. You could say that most people tend to forget stuff, on the spot, so your initial knowledge check would be made with a penalty unless you have plenty of time to stand there and study it. Or you could say that your initial knowledge check covers what you know on the spot, and you get some sort of bonus (like a re-roll) if you actually do have time to study it. If you're going with the latter choice, then you'll probably want to make the check more difficult, since you're not assigning a penalty to the initial check.

Figure out what you're trying to model, and let your players know what you're doing so they know what's expected of them.

 

[Mark CMG]

Common sense doesn't always apply to an RPG, though. I mean, most adventurers never suffer from broken bones, either. I would posit "doesn't freeze up and forget things in the heat of the moment" as a basic characteristic for most hero-types.

It comes down to what you're trying to model it, though. You could say that most people tend to forget stuff, on the spot, so your initial knowledge check would be made with a penalty unless you have plenty of time to stand there and study it. Or you could say that your initial knowledge check covers what you know on the spot, and you get some sort of bonus (like a re-roll) if you actually do have time to study it. If you're going with the latter choice, then you'll probably want to make the check more difficult, since you're not assigning a penalty to the initial check.

Figure out what you're trying to model, and let your players know what you're doing so they know what's expected of them.

I think it is also about what the players are trying to model. If a player suggested that scenario and potential resolution to me, I'd allow for the retry roll. However, because I have an odd sense of humor, I'd also start making the remembering of names more of a feature during play for that character. I might also have a particularly troublesome NPC take umbrage if they noticed their name being forgotten. As a GM, I feel introducing conflict into a campaign is one of my top priorities. I try to stay out of the way when players suggest ways to resolve the problems of PCs and let the dice fall where they may but I also try to find more situations in which dice need to be rolled.

 

[Umbran]

I would find it too inflexible / unreasonable to deny a retry under the circumstances as described if a player made that argument.

*shrug*. In my version, the player can get it minutes later, instead of instantly. Yeah, boo hoo, so inflexible and unreasonable.

 

[Mark CMG]

*shrug*. In my version, the player can get it minutes later, instead of instantly. Yeah, boo hoo, so inflexible and unreasonable.

Okay. Well, unless you have more to add, I think we've got plenty of info from you. Thanks. Let's let others share their own GMing experiences now. Hopefully, folks won't mind still joining into the original conversation before it devolved.

 

[Riley37]

***
'Err, hmm. Know: religion!' *rolls high*
"You haven't heard of whatever this is"
'Oh. Arcana?' *rolls*
***

One addition: I *hate* when players start with what game mechanic they're using, without saying what their PC is doing, *in terms their PC could understand* (without knowing that they're a PC in a TRPG).

"I quickly review my knowledge of the supernatural for anything like this" would get a slightly more merciful answer.

The player still gets best results by asking "Do I know of anything which looks like this?".

Of the two of us, in that scenario, the player and the DM, the one better positioned to decide which mechanic best expresses the task, is the DM. I don't want players to back-seat-drive my DMing. I want them to JUST run their PC, and occasionally *offer* suggestions about story content ("hey, could this village include a tannery?"). For the rest, *leave the machinery of the world to me*.

If someone playing a paladin says "I activate Divine Sense", fine, because their paladin knows that they have a Divine Sense ability, and knows how often they can use it, and decides when to use it. And then, the player should *shut up and listen*. Asking "So, are there any Infernals with 60'?" is unnecessary and annoying. I will narrate the immediate results of the activation of that ability. If the player doesn't trust me to provide a narration which includes the results of Infernal presences, then I don't want that player at my table.

Do ya feel me, bro?

 

[MarkB]

If someone playing a paladin says "I activate Divine Sense", fine, because their paladin knows that they have a Divine Sense ability, and knows how often they can use it, and decides when to use it. And then, the player should *shut up and listen*. Asking "So, are there any Infernals with 60'?" is unnecessary and annoying. I will narrate the immediate results of the activation of that ability. If the player doesn't trust me to provide a narration which includes the results of Infernal presences, then I don't want that player at my table.

Do ya feel me, bro?

I trust my GM to be informative. I don't necessarily trust them to have memorised every single ability my character has, because it's not their job to do so. So, if I'm activating a particular class or racial ability, it would only be polite for me to mention why I'm activating it, and what I'm hoping to achieve.

 

[Jhaelen]

One addition: I *hate* when players start with what game mechanic they're using, without saying what their PC is doing, *in terms their PC could understand* (without knowing that they're a PC in a TRPG).

"I quickly review my knowledge of the supernatural for anything like this" would get a slightly more merciful answer.

To be honest, I'd hate it if my players did that. Monster Knowledge checks don't require any action, so I wouldn't expect or want my players to describe anything. In fact, as a DM, typically, I'd simply ask them to make those checks _before_ I'm starting to describe what they see!

P.S.: Gelatineous Cubes are stupid. I never use them in my games.

 

[Umbran]

To be honest, I'd hate it if my players did that. Monster Knowledge checks don't require any action, so I wouldn't expect or want my players to describe anything. In fact, as a DM, typically, I'd simply ask them to make those checks _before_ I'm starting to describe what they see!

Well, in D&D, that usually works, because D&D is pretty straightforward and simple about knowledge checks, and there are few player resources to be spent on the roll.

Edit to add: In a game like 5e, where the player could choose to spend a resource (I'm thinking Inspiration) on it, rolling without telling them could be a little problematic, especially if it turns out to be critical information they really, really would want to have.

If we go to something like FATE, then the equivalent check has another layer to it - does the player want to invoke an Aspect and spend a Fate point for a bonus on the roll? If so, then by the rules the player needs to tell the GM how they feel the Aspect is relevant. Not that this isn't generally describing character action - merely describing why something applies. Some folks feel like this is part of playing the role, but others don't. It seems to be in a fuzzy grey area.

"I was 'Raised by Shaolin Monks' (hands GM Fate Point) so I might know about the strange herbs in the necromancer's lab. Do they suggest what he was working on?"

 

[Riley37]

"as a DM, typically, I'd simply ask them to make those checks _before_ I'm starting to describe what they see!"

Then we agree on this much: the DM, not the player, is the one who decides when an Ability Check determines success/failure, decides which stat, and decides which skill proficiency, if any, modifies the stat check. (Wis +Arcana to check for a visible shadow, vs. Int + Arcana to be reminded that sometimes invisible things can move visible things...)

There are, of course, times when a player can reasonably offer a roll result. "I sneak up behind him. Stealth roll yields net 18." I might not *require* it - for example, when the player is actually sneaking up on an illusion or a statue, so their stealthiness doesn't matter - but I don't mind the *offer*, and if they rolled without need and got a 1, well, that's an opportunity to complicate the story, if it needs a bit of complication.

"if I'm activating a particular class or racial ability, it would only be polite for me to mention why I'm activating it, and what I'm hoping to achieve."
Okay, fair point. "I activate Divine Sense, scanning for any infernal presence", is a reminder if needed, a statement of intent, a nuance of your character's allocation of their attention, and *not* a back-seat-driver move. You know what you're hoping to achieve, and you've communicated that *intent*.

Umbran, interesting point re Inspiration when the DM makes a roll, such as a players (Wis + Per) Spot check. I think there's ways to allow player choice about Inspiration use, without the straw-man extreme of "I'm rolling to see whether you notice that you're being followed, so are you spending Inspiration?".