Legends & Lore: Skills

[KidSnide]

In contrast, when the PCs are trying to persuade a fully developed NPC, that character's motivations, loyalties are quirks are things that the players actually have information about. Reducing interaction with that character to a die roll seems like it loses a great opportunity. Instead, I want the players to think about what sorts of arguments that NPC would find persuasive, and I want to provide major adjustments (or auto-successes) to reflect that player consideration of the game world...

Sure, but note that this isn't exclusive with roll first, narrate second. There is nothing prohibited in roll first with setting the scene, being clever, etc. The players are free to eke out as much advantage as they can, using whatever information they have, up to the limits of what the table will tolerate. As you say, in the middle of the swamp, that might be very little. With the long-running NPC, it might be a lot. Then they roll. Then they narrate the result.

So what are you envisioning? The players tell the GM what argument they are trying to make, then they roll the dice, and then they role-play out making the argument? That seems strange to me. It's also a little weird having PCs tell me which places they want to look, then roll the dice, and then describe how they looked around.

Or is that not what you had in mind?

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but note that this isn't exclusive with roll first, narrate second. There is nothing prohibited in roll first with setting the scene, being clever, etc. The players are free to eke out as much advantage as they can, using whatever information they have, up to the limits of what the table will tolerate. As you say, in the middle of the swamp, that might be very little. With the long-running NPC, it might be a lot. Then they roll. Then they narrate the result.

About the only time this can easily break down is in some variant of a negotiation scene. The method depends on the DM having a clear understanding of the differences between roleplaying that happens leading up to a mechanical decision point, versus the narration that may follow that decision point. And of course, in smooth play, the narration seems to bleed into the roleplaying for the next decision point.

Which is why "roll first, roleplay after" is correct, but probably a bit of a sloppy way of putting it. But even when roleplay for advantage (or mere color or otherwise) is tightly mixed in with roleplay via narration, they are still separate activities in my mind.

Yeah, I think it is possible to deal with any situation using 'roll first' (suggest a better name if you want, lol). There can potentially be some situations where it kind of degenerates to the same thing as describing first perhaps, I'm not sure.

I'd envisage a 'detailed' situation like KS is describing something like the player knows certain things about, for example, the Duke. He knows the guy has a problem with revenue and needs more cash to provide his daughter with all the goodies she likes to have. The player thus knows that a viable approach is to Bluff and claim that he's SURE the goblin's have lots of loot, so sending along some guards to help defeat them will surely result in some cash (the player suspects there must be SOME treasure, but doesn't actually know factually how much there is, so this is a Bluff). Now, we know that the Duke COULD respond well to this, but the results are still not guaranteed. This can be explained as a more or less convincing lie by the PC. So we have the ingredients to describe any result that could happen. Maybe the player rolls well and describes a believable story about how he heard from a miner that lost a bunch of gold to the goblins. Maybe the player rolls badly and he could describe it as the PC overselling the tale or just bad luck ("I know that miner, you're full of it, he's been striking out for the last 3 years" says the advisor). Overall though this strategy is straightforward and plays to a strong advantage, so the DC is medium or even easy. If the player instead tried to appeal to the Duke's sense of duty (and he knows the guy is pretty self-centered, so this is not a strong trait for the Duke) then he can give Diplomacy a try, but it will be a hard roll. If he's elegant enough or maybe catches the Duke in the right moment he might succeed, but it is a tough sell (hard DC). Again, you could do roll first here. Notice that I am rewarding PC cleverness by the difficulty of the check, you could use bonuses as well if you want, it mostly amounts to the same thing. I'd also allow players to make some checks that give some initial feedback in some cases, like using Insight to read the Duke's mood would probably mean I'd explain these choices and the relative DCs. That would give the player a chance to pick the better strategy. If less details are present then that action could give a bonus to a check or just reduce a DC, letting the player describe how he has an optimum strategy AFTER the check (So he could use Bluff on a random guard, preceeded by Insight, which makes the Bluff check easy, the player then describes how he sussed out the guard and told the most effective lie, the DM could also provide input on this if he wants, or just let the player effectively map out the guard's personality, as a minor NPC it won't matter).

 

[Greg K]

Well in the 3e DMG, if you search

1. You get a bonus if you are more specific about the area your character is searching
2. Finding the secret door not tell you where the mechanism is. That is a separate roll
3. If you search the wrong area, you find nothing And search was a 5'x'5 area. Floors, Walls, and Ceilings are covered separately.
4. You can require the players to find figure out the correct sequence of levers to open the door. By extension, you can just let the character have an automatic success if they say they pull the sconce or remove the book to open the secret door or find the item in the bedpost if they state they are opening it.

So, requiring description of actions was there even if some or many DMs ignored it.

 

[renau1g]

There are some skills that could rely on player skill (mainly the social skills, Perception, Insight) but most would have to be tied to character skill, I think (Thievery, Endurance, Athletics, etc.). The game could use two different systems to represent these, but 4e feels like a game that wants unified mechanics wherever possible (though this is changing somewhat with certain Essentials classes). I'm not sure what would be best, frankly, but it's clear that there are different ways one could handle this.

Wait...what? You don't design and build intricate traps in your basement/attic/garage/living room for your players to get bonuses to for their Thievery checks? And you don't put your players through the rigors of a fitness test to determine their endurance or athletics skills?

Bah! Kids these days. Back in my days.... blah blah blah.

 

[renau1g]

Well in the 3e DMG, if you search

1. You get a bonus if you are more specific about the area your character is searching
2. Finding the secret door not tell you where the mechanism is. That is a separate roll
3. If you search the wrong area, you find nothing And search was a 5'x'5 area. Floors, Walls, and Ceilings are covered separately.
4. You can require the players to find figure out the correct sequence of levers to open the door. By extension, you can just let the character have an automatic success if they say they pull the sconce or remove the book to open the secret door or find the item in the bedpost if they state they are opening it.

So, requiring description of actions was there even if some or many DMs ignored it.

Ugh! This was the worst part of old editions for me. With take 20 on every 5 ft section of the dungeon it had eveything swap to a crawl. Nothing kills the mood faster IMO than that....I love passive perception for that.

 

[Greg K]

Ugh! This was the worst part of old editions for me. With take 20 on every 5 ft section of the dungeon it had eveything swap to a crawl. Nothing kills the mood faster IMO than that....I love passive perception for that.

I agree passive perception is good, but I think actively seeking is also good. Passive is like the elves in 1e and 2e having a chance to notice secret doors by passing them
As for players taking up time taking 20 for each 5'x5' section, that starts to add up in terms of time, but that extra time should often have logical consequences. Intelligent enemies regroup, plan traps, or abandon the area. Patrols come upon them. Wandering monsters if it makes sense. For time sensitive adventures, well, they screw themselves if they take too much time.

And, you could, always, just figure out how long it would take and just say that much time has passed.

They are tools and it is how you use them that is important.

 

[Imaro]

Ugh! This was the worst part of old editions for me. With take 20 on every 5 ft section of the dungeon it had eveything swap to a crawl. Nothing kills the mood faster IMO than that....I love passive perception for that.

Wait, what? Below is, generally speaking how I thought everyone handled it...

And, you could, always, just figure out how long it would take and just say that much time has passed.

If it's taking 20, a static number, what exactly was slowing the game down. Yes, in-game more time passed... but how did that slow down real time?

Edit: My problem with passive perception is twofold...

1. Players begin to rely on it and often, unless there is proding, forget to actively search for things.

2. I as DM, effectively know what my PC's perception scores are... so really I might as well either right auto-find... or not auto-find next to the "hidden" things as opposed to assigning a DC.

 

[Greg K]

If it's taking 20, a static number, what exactly was slowing the game down. Yes, in-game more time passed... but how did that slow down real time?

I was thinking, for his group, perhaps, players would specify a 5'x5' and state they are taking 20. He tells them that that they find nothing. Repeat. Other than that, I have no idea.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wait, what? Below is, generally speaking how I thought everyone handled it...



If it's taking 20, a static number, what exactly was slowing the game down. Yes, in-game more time passed... but how did that slow down real time?

Edit: My problem with passive perception is twofold...

1. Players begin to rely on it and often, unless there is proding, forget to actively search for things.

2. I as DM, effectively know what my PC's perception scores are... so really I might as well either right auto-find... or not auto-find next to the "hidden" things as opposed to assigning a DC.

I was thinking, for his group, perhaps, players would specify a 5'x5' and state they are taking 20. He tells them that that they find nothing. Repeat. Other than that, I have no idea.

Well, DMG1 certainly stated that you had to search each square, and it did give the 'take 20' hint for times when the party can simply hang around and keep searching for an extended period.

Personally I find take 10's determinacy to be an advantage. I KNOW there are basically 3 categories of DCs, automatically found passively, may be found by active searching, and impossible to find. You can also break that up by character. Hawk Eye thus gets to spot most of the unusual features, though other less perceptive characters may see them as well or instead (if Hawk Eye isn't around at that moment). This shows up Hawk Eye as being highly skilled in this area, which is a good thing narratively even if it doesn't really matter mechanically. There are reasons to have things fall into any of these categories. Easily found things can be used to lampshade or establish tone, unfindable things can also be useful lampshades. Things that may or may not be found can simply reward players in a substantive way for upping their Perception and make for interesting situations, like PCs looking out for traps in a combat or just risking it.

 

[renau1g]

I was thinking, for his group, perhaps, players would specify a 5'x5' and state they are taking 20. He tells them that that they find nothing. Repeat. Other than that, I have no idea.

Yes this is what it was. I could have just said, ok I'll assume you're taking 20 and just tell them what they find but this is exactly the same (except with a +10 bonus) as passive perception

If it's taking 20, a static number, what exactly was slowing the game down. Yes, in-game more time passed... but how did that slow down real time?

Edit: My problem with passive perception is twofold...

1. Players begin to rely on it and often, unless there is proding, forget to actively search for things.

2. I as DM, effectively know what my PC's perception scores are... so really I might as well either right auto-find... or not auto-find next to the "hidden" things as opposed to assigning a DC.

Taking 20 effectively does the same. So if I place a trap on the roof with a DC of their Search score+20 or their Perception score+10 in 4e, the results are the same.

So essentially it was either just assume taking 20 all the time (which is what you seem to be doing), or force them to announce where they're searching. Either way seems stupid to me. I can tell you I far prefer that PC's are less "Ok, I search the ceiling. Nothing? Ok, I search under the bed, then in the desk, then under the desk, then around the painting, then behind the painting." or they could say "I'm taking 20 seraching the whole room" Maybe I'm different, but to me that is not adding anything as you should likely have just say "you enter the bedroom of the BBEG, you find the enchanted X under his bed" and just move on. The whole "searching" for me was always more of a PITA than anything. Again, my perspective if obviously my own, I prefer my players to find the rewards I plan, rather than hide them away in some obscure nook that they'll likely miss. I would rather just keep the game moving and focus on the story, or the character development or combat over that aspect of the game. I'm not a "gotcha" DM so I've never sprung those kind of traps on PC's.