Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7000173" data-attributes="member: 996">The classic way to do that - which works well, again, in 5e - is to simply take the roll behind the screen.&nbsp; Another thing you could do back in the day is not tell the player whether he wanted high or low (since there were variants that went either way).If your players really like the feel of rolling dice themselves, an alternate little trick is to roll a d20 behind the screen as a 'seed.'&nbsp;&nbsp; You add it to the player's natural roll, subtracting 20 if the result is higher than 20 - thus you get the flat 1-20 range of a normal roll, but the player has no idea if he actually rolled 'well' or not.Perhaps a modest fence.That's getting into using the player to resolve the task.&nbsp; In the above example, it makes little difference if the PC is a callow farm boy or an experienced inquisitor.Nod.&nbsp; Improv is panacea on the DM side of the screen, too, one that's contingent not only on experience/talent/creativity but mood and interpersonal relationships.&nbsp; Some nights you're just 'on.'&nbsp;That's the player-as-resolution-system pet peeve I keep bringing up.&nbsp; You can do it in broad strokes.&nbsp; When I put a pre-gen Holmesian detective in a set of pregens, I know I'll describe crime scenes and the results of perception checks to him differently than to everyone else.&nbsp; The subtler the difference, and the less familiar you are with the PCs, the less well that trick works.&nbsp; I think I'm with you on that detail.&nbsp; If a player declares an action, the uncertainty of whether he can succeed is resolved by the die roll.&nbsp; If he wants information, you may need the uncertainty to remain after resolution.&nbsp; A system like you want could also address part of the 'DM may I' problem, at the price of adding another step to resolution.&nbsp; Players could ask the DM whether their PCs believe they can do something, make a check, and have some idea, but some remaining uncertainty as to whether they're able or not.&nbsp; :shrug:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7000173, member: 996"] The classic way to do that - which works well, again, in 5e - is to simply take the roll behind the screen. Another thing you could do back in the day is not tell the player whether he wanted high or low (since there were variants that went either way). If your players really like the feel of rolling dice themselves, an alternate little trick is to roll a d20 behind the screen as a 'seed.' You add it to the player's natural roll, subtracting 20 if the result is higher than 20 - thus you get the flat 1-20 range of a normal roll, but the player has no idea if he actually rolled 'well' or not. Perhaps a modest fence. That's getting into using the player to resolve the task. In the above example, it makes little difference if the PC is a callow farm boy or an experienced inquisitor. Nod. Improv is panacea on the DM side of the screen, too, one that's contingent not only on experience/talent/creativity but mood and interpersonal relationships. Some nights you're just 'on.' That's the player-as-resolution-system pet peeve I keep bringing up. You can do it in broad strokes. When I put a pre-gen Holmesian detective in a set of pregens, I know I'll describe crime scenes and the results of perception checks to him differently than to everyone else. The subtler the difference, and the less familiar you are with the PCs, the less well that trick works. I think I'm with you on that detail. If a player declares an action, the uncertainty of whether he can succeed is resolved by the die roll. If he wants information, you may need the uncertainty to remain after resolution. A system like you want could also address part of the 'DM may I' problem, at the price of adding another step to resolution. Players could ask the DM whether their PCs believe they can do something, make a check, and have some idea, but some remaining uncertainty as to whether they're able or not. :shrug: [/QUOTE]

Verification