Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7292049" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Let me tackle your example of the search - nah i think you are wrong.When any most any skilled individual does some work they generally get an idea of whether or not it went like they wanted. How many times do you see a kicker in the NFL cringe as soon as they kick a ball, well before it goes offline or even if it hangs in and makes it? how many times do your hear folks writing code or cooking a meal fretting over... its not going right but...So, as i see it, the ROLL is not some "mystery unknown element" but that character's impression of how well they did - (EDIT - and possibly other's assessment if seeing the effort), how well their effort turned out, was it a good kick or a bad kick... were the ingredients as fresh... did the routines fit elegantly or was I kludging it all day... was my dialog scene flowing and fresh or....Now, none of these are "failure/success" determining on their own, just like "stepped on a twig" is not either... but they do represent the character's sense of how well they performed right then and there at that task. Why do you presume to decide the thoughts of your PCs as a default part of your job as GM... "However, if your failure in the same situation is due to your concealment simply not being as good as you think it is" Sure, if there is an NPC compulsion thing at work... that could be the case... that their thoughts are not their own.But beyond that, where did they sign in on "and i determine what your character thinks"... huh?They key is this... you do not need to strip away from the player and their character the ability to make an assessment of how well they did. A roll which i rolled a 20 and still failed... "Man, i was dead spot on, had him dead to rights, saw all his tells and he still bluffed me." that is a case where that player rolled high, and the character thought they were good but comes away with a sense of competence for the other guy. On the other hand, roll low and fail leads to "i really shouldn't have been flirting with the waitress with the three..." and leads to the character not making assumptions about the other guy.Meanwhile, if its all a mystery roll behind the screen all that concept goes away (or is taken by the GM) cuz for some reason nobody knows why they ever fail. So lets take your example:Rolled a 20 on searchCharacter thinks "Easy to see cracks, solid density, water washing by so none of this or that... easy call " I didn't find anything. There's nothing there. lets go on!"...said with high degree of confidence.Rolls a 3 on search: "Hard to tell. No good way to sound because of the material. Water drip test inconclusive. Cant see one but wouldn't want to stake my life on it. Lets lay down some caltrops or squeakers behind us as we go forward."Since there are not guaranteed 1 and 20 succeed fail in skill checks, there is no way the roll alone tells you sucess or failure and so there is no reason for the Gm to seize that "how good do i think i did" mental control from the player.But let me ask... do you do the same in combat?Players rolls a 19 on a bow shot and fails? They get an idea the difficulty on hitting is quite high or that something else is amiss and so they decide to not keep doing that.Player rolls a 3 on a bow shot and fails? They get an idea that their shot just sucked. They may or may not keep trying but they did not gain any significant insight from that attempt. they likely do not change efforts on account of it.or do you conclude "you dont know why you failed. But you failed" and make those rolls behind the screen too?KEY thing is this... since the roll is only part of the succeed/fail and since the character has in almost every case the ability to perceive "how well did that go" the roll and "what you think about that effort" does not need to be handed over to or taken over by the GM in order for success/fail to be as robust as that GM seems to want them to be. a LOT more can be gained, IMO, from leaving that in the hands of the player to assess, letting the roll remain what it actually is - "game-side expression" of the character's effort/skill/performance at that moment at that task - and let BOTH the player and the character take that and use it as part of their narrative process.GMs who want dice behind the screen and fall back on putting thoughts in their players PC characters heads make me seek the door.BTW, as a GM, I flop the rolling around - i roll no dice. Not one. When a monster attacks, the player rolls a "evasion save" which is "roll D20 plus Ac" to see if that attack hurts them. When a player throws a spell that requires a save by an NPC, they roll a "power check" which is "roll D20 and add your save DC" to see if the target saved or not. When opposed checks are needed, i either use a static value for the NPC or have a second player roll the opposing die (in cases where the other person's performance is a detectable thing - like say grappling.)it has not weakened my GMing or hurt my game or caused any harm to the "mystery factors". It has added a lot in play... not the least of which is even more a sense of trust showing through the play.</blockquote>

Verification