Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?


log in or register to remove this ad


The people who lived in the internet were often compared to those legendary experiment rats who kept hitting a button over and over to get a pellet. But at least the rats were getting a pellet, or the hope of a pellet, or the memory of a pellet. When we hit the button, all we were getting was to be more of a rat.
-Abraham Lincoln
 

The people who lived in the internet were often compared to those legendary experiment rats who kept hitting a button over and over to get a pellet. But at least the rats were getting a pellet, or the hope of a pellet, or the memory of a pellet. When we hit the button, all we were getting was to be more of a rat.
-Abraham Lincoln

Enjoy your pellet.
 


The people who lived in the internet were often compared to those legendary experiment rats who kept hitting a button over and over to get a pellet. But at least the rats were getting a pellet, or the hope of a pellet, or the memory of a pellet. When we hit the button, all we were getting was to be more of a rat.
-Abraham Lincoln
There was another experiment in which rats were given a lever that would give them either food, or a drug like morphine. Without fail once the rats figured out the lever, they would take the drugs until they died.

That is the internet.
 

There was another experiment in which rats were given a lever that would give them either food, or a drug like morphine. Without fail once the rats figured out the lever, they would take the drugs until they died.

That is the internet.
My recollection is that later experiments found that this was true specifically for rats which were isolated in individual cages, and that when tried in an environment where the rats had other activities and social interaction available, they preferred plain water to water with morphine, cocaine, or methamphetamine. So, yeah. Parallel to internet still pretty stronk.

Volitional social interaction prevents drug addiction in rat models

 

Anyone else use skill checks to give hints and info to the players?

This happens at least once every battle in my home games.

Me: "The skeletons shamble closer toward you, and you notice they have runes carved into their bones. These runes begin to smolder with a dirty orange light. Doug, you have the initiative."

Doug: "Well that's creepy. Have we encountered this sort of creature before? This sounds familiar."

Me: (knowing they haven't) "Let's find out. Make an Intelligence (Religion) check."

Doug: (rolls) "Woot, 21!"

Me: (mentally calculating, 10 + the monster's CR = 13, that's a pass. I give them one free bit of info.) "You haven't seen this kind of skeleton before, but it's definitely an undead monster. You recognize the runes from some of your spell scrolls--you suspect these skeletons can use magic."

Doug: "Oh great."

Me: (doing more mental math. The check passed by 8, and 8 divided by 4 is 2.) "With a roll of 21, I can tell you two more things about it. What would you like to know?"

Doug: "Um, what spells can cast, and how many hit points does it have?"

Me: "The skeleton closest to you can cast several spells, but the one you immediately recognize is Magic Missile. It has 22 hit points."
This is something I'm going to try and start doing. In a previous session my players mentioned that I don't let them roll enough dice. I think it's a problem that has come from trying to solve another problem, mainly that I don't make them roll for simple things.

Player: "Can I climb over this chest height wall?"

Me: "Sure, totally.."

Player: "Cool, what do I roll, athletics?"

Me: "Nah.. You're good. You can just climb over it."

My reasoning is that in that moment, if they're not under duress, and there's no time-crunch.. There's really no penalty for failure. I think that if the character could attempt a task, fail it, but then be able to reasonably attempt it again... There's no point in rolling.

I stand by this reasoning still, but I think it's causing another issue, and that's simply that players like rolling dice. So I think I might start trying to do this. I can ask for history/arcana/religion checks and give them information for them, and then maybe that'll encourage them to start asking for more.

The math does seem weird and arbitrary, but this is something else I've already begun to try and implement in my own way. Just varied degrees of success/failure.

Example, if I decide that a check requires a DC 14 to pass, and the player rolls a 14-16.. They just pass. If they roll a 17 or 18+ I might try and find a way to add a little extra juice to their success. Conversely, if they roll a 12 or a 13, I might still let them succeed, but at a cost. I've found that offering them a 'devil's bargain' tends to be fun too.

Player: "I want to pry this door open as discreetly as possible."

Me: "Cool, roll a dexterity check, you're looking for a DC16."

Player: "Crap.. I only got a 14."

Me: "You can feel the door start to give, but you can also see and hear the long neglected, and dry rotted wood start to splinter.. You can keep pushing, and you'll definitely get the door open.. But it'll be pretty obvious that the building was broken into, and the noise could alert someone near-by."

Player: "Ugh.. Maybe we should try and find another way in"
 

The people who lived in the internet were often compared to those legendary experiment rats who kept hitting a button over and over to get a pellet. But at least the rats were getting a pellet, or the hope of a pellet, or the memory of a pellet. When we hit the button, all we were getting was to be more of a rat.
-Abraham Lincoln
I'm pretty sure this one was Michael Scott.
 


Remove ads

Top