Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Modeling Uncertainty
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7000681" data-attributes="member: 5890"><p>The problem here is that</p><p>1. 5e characters are already clowns when it comes to their specializations, let alone things they are not proficient at. Having good stats and an easy DC, you already fail 20% of the time. Now you're saying that an additional ~20% of their successes will be failures, only worse, because they now don't know they failed. At this point I'd just be giving up on skills as a player.</p><p></p><p>2. Somehow characters who are poor at skills get less bad information.</p><p></p><p>Might I suggest instead doing the following:</p><p>1. Rolling the check in secret</p><p>2. If the check succeeds, give the player the correct information and an impression of how sure they are, based on how much the check succeeded by.</p><p>2. If the check fails but the d20 roll is below 5, give no information.</p><p>3. If the check fails and the d20 roll is above 5, give out incorrect information and base the confidence on the roll of the d20, with 20 being absolutely certain and 6 being just a hunch.</p><p>4. If the players have advantage, pick whichever roll succeeds OR the lowest roll. If they have disadvantage, pick whichever roll fails OR the highest roll.</p><p></p><p>The end result of this will be:</p><p>Experts will tend to have correct information, and will tend to be confident in it's correctness. They will be more confident when the correct information is something easy for them. When they are wrong, they will tend to have no information. They will almost never have incorrect information for an easy task, but they may still fail. They will only ever be totally wrong and absolutely confident in their answer at extremely difficult to impossible checks.</p><p></p><p>Those not suited to a task and with no training will often be wrong, but for easy information will be uncertain of it. As the difficulty of a task more outpaces their expertise, they will be more and more certain that wrong answers are correct.</p><p></p><p>Those completely unsuited to a task and with no training will often be wrong, and are more likely to think they are right.</p><p></p><p>Now, this might all look like a lot of mechanics to deal with, but honestly I think that the hardest part of any system like this is coming up with incorrect but believable information to hand out to each player in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 7000681, member: 5890"] The problem here is that 1. 5e characters are already clowns when it comes to their specializations, let alone things they are not proficient at. Having good stats and an easy DC, you already fail 20% of the time. Now you're saying that an additional ~20% of their successes will be failures, only worse, because they now don't know they failed. At this point I'd just be giving up on skills as a player. 2. Somehow characters who are poor at skills get less bad information. Might I suggest instead doing the following: 1. Rolling the check in secret 2. If the check succeeds, give the player the correct information and an impression of how sure they are, based on how much the check succeeded by. 2. If the check fails but the d20 roll is below 5, give no information. 3. If the check fails and the d20 roll is above 5, give out incorrect information and base the confidence on the roll of the d20, with 20 being absolutely certain and 6 being just a hunch. 4. If the players have advantage, pick whichever roll succeeds OR the lowest roll. If they have disadvantage, pick whichever roll fails OR the highest roll. The end result of this will be: Experts will tend to have correct information, and will tend to be confident in it's correctness. They will be more confident when the correct information is something easy for them. When they are wrong, they will tend to have no information. They will almost never have incorrect information for an easy task, but they may still fail. They will only ever be totally wrong and absolutely confident in their answer at extremely difficult to impossible checks. Those not suited to a task and with no training will often be wrong, but for easy information will be uncertain of it. As the difficulty of a task more outpaces their expertise, they will be more and more certain that wrong answers are correct. Those completely unsuited to a task and with no training will often be wrong, and are more likely to think they are right. Now, this might all look like a lot of mechanics to deal with, but honestly I think that the hardest part of any system like this is coming up with incorrect but believable information to hand out to each player in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Modeling Uncertainty
Top