|
Post by Probie Tim on May 27, 2015 5:48:29 GMT -8
Ok, so, you're running a Savage Worlds fantasy game. The PCs start walking down a hallway in a dungeon. There's a pit trap a few feet in front of them. A Notice roll would reveal it to the characters, but you don't want all the players to be alerted that something is up via a failed roll. In d20 you'd just make the Perception roll for them (or use Passive Perception in 5E), but this is Savage Worlds.
In that situation, when you're rolling on behalf of your players, do you include the Wild Die? Or just roll using the base skill?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 27, 2015 9:00:56 GMT -8
You would use the wild die. Nothing about the Rules should change, just because the GM is rolling.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on May 27, 2015 9:11:40 GMT -8
I'm really torn on this issue. The only thing I hate more than GM's rolling dice for their players is the introduction of meta knowledge into the game. Rolling dice for players is such an agency denying move to me. Success or failure of a character is imposed upon them from the GM rather than left to be in the hands of a player. That just seems wrong to me, even if it's a superficial level of who rolls the dice.
Mr. OSR relying on dice mechanics to have players notice a trap? If they aren't using their 11 foot pole then they DESERVE to fall into the trap.
One problem of rolling for the players in SW is that you are denying them the possibility of using bennies to succeed. Depending on the flavor of game this might not matter but it really kills the pulpy vibe that emminates from SW by making the players less capable.
In my eyes, treat the trap as a narrative element. If they are looking for traps they find it. If they aren't then they don't and can spend bennies to not fall into it.
If you want to roll dice for you players take a cue from D&D 3.P vets and have the players preroll dice. Specifically, have them preroll 30d6 to represent every wild die needed on the hidden rolls. If you want to cut back on meta information take that output and randomly shift it. Roll a d6 for x. MOD(Roll+X,6)+1 to the entire list. Now maybe that 6 is a 2. Or that 1 is a 5. If the players don't know what value their rolls have shifted by, so now they can't metagame banking on the fact they know they have a six next on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 27, 2015 11:48:35 GMT -8
Rolling dice for players is such an agency denying move to me. So, here in Happy Jacks Land of Douche, I feel that it's OK for me to say this: I h-h-h-h-hate the term "player agency" or "agency" alone as it applies to "player agency". It makes me grit my teeth and want to break things. I don't know why, it just does. Not the concept of what the term "player agency" represents, mind you, but the actual terms themselves. And of course, that's not a comment to you, or about you, lowkeyoh. I'm just using your post to launch a minor rage-gasm. (And yes, I'm talking about ay-jen-cee, not ay-genn-cee, heh.) Back on to the subject at hand: Mr. OSR relying on dice mechanics to have players notice a trap? Really, it's not about a trap in and of itself, though, that was just an example. It could be about anything. Like... the age-old problem of asking one player to make a Notice roll and having every other player start throwing down their dice and announcing their Notice results. Or having players meta-game after you have them make a Notice roll and they fail. That's why certain rolls are often made by the GM on behalf of the players. Heck, two players at my Gamex games specifically requested that I make rolls like that for them. One problem of rolling for the players in SW is that you are denying them the possibility of using bennies to succeed. Yeah, that's an issue. I can totally make the roll on behalf of the player and include the Wild Die, but if they fail they should get the opportunity to use the bennie. That's the real problem I see with making rolls on behalf of the player in Savage Worlds. If you want to roll dice for you players take a cue from D&D 3.P vets and have the players preroll dice. That's a decent enough idea, it's still robbing the players of the opportunity to use a bennie. I think that's enough to make me scrap the whole idea of rolling on a player's behalf in Savage Worlds.
|
|
EssEmAech
Initiate Douchebag
Powered Armor Grunt
Posts: 23
|
Post by EssEmAech on May 28, 2015 10:22:49 GMT -8
I run it that there are Active and Passive forms of a skill. Actively sneaking around avoiding guards? Player rolls Stealth. Attempting to lay low in public by blending in, not sure if someone is watching or not? GM rolls Stealth.
Moving slowly, actively looking for traps? Player rolls Notice. Having a nice stroll through the dungeon and not being actively careful and scout-y? GM rolls Notice.
That kind of thing. It's situational. Passive rolls don't get the opportunity for a Benny. The character is not actively utilizing their skills, they are passively succeeding or failing to do something when they probably aren't aware they're in a situation that requires the use of that skill. If that makes sense.
It's not perfect, of course. But I haven't gotten any arguments about what I've considered Active and what I've considered Passive.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on May 31, 2015 17:20:52 GMT -8
Ok, so, you're running a Savage Worlds fantasy game. The PCs start walking down a hallway in a dungeon. There's a pit trap a few feet in front of them. A Notice roll would reveal it to the characters, but you don't want all the players to be alerted that something is up via a failed roll. In d20 you'd just make the Perception roll for them (or use Passive Perception in 5E), but this is Savage Worlds. In that situation, when you're rolling on behalf of your players, do you include the Wild Die? Or just roll using the base skill? I've said before that my answer to this depends on what they tell me they're doing. If they say they're walking down the corridor it's a passive check, I roll the dice with all of their bonuses and their wild die. If they tell me they're being careful and searching as they go down the hallway they make the roll. Easy and quick. JiB
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Jun 15, 2015 20:19:29 GMT -8
Ok, so, you're running a Savage Worlds fantasy game. The PCs start walking down a hallway in a dungeon. There's a pit trap a few feet in front of them. A Notice roll would reveal it to the characters, but you don't want all the players to be alerted that something is up via a failed roll. In d20 you'd just make the Perception roll for them (or use Passive Perception in 5E), but this is Savage Worlds. In that situation, when you're rolling on behalf of your players, do you include the Wild Die? Or just roll using the base skill? Okay I'm going to throw my hat in the ring on this one. Savage Worlds works best when the GM lets go of habits from other systems. Don't fudge dice, roll in the open. Don't make secret rolls for the characters. Bennies are such a huge part of the game. Let players burn them unnecessarily. Think about it for a minute. What is the intent of the trap? It's basically a surprise attack. Why not treat the trap as a character with Stealth, Fighting, and Strength d6? Detecting the trap ahead of time is a Notice roll opposed by the trap's Stealth. Otherwise, the trap is on hold and attacks the first player to step on it with a +4 to Fighting and Damage rolls. In addition, you could have the trap perform a Grapple. The trap and victim make opposed Fighting rolls (+4 for the Trap if it got the Drop). It doesn't do any damage the first round. But, it does alert the party of Goblins at the end of the hall. On the second round, the trap does strength damage if the character doesn't win an opposed Agility or Strength roll to break free. One of my favorite things to do is literally say, "Give me a Notice roll to detect the five ninjas waiting for you around the corner". You don't have to hide or obfuscate things as a Savage GM. Watch the Bennies fly and the tension at the table amp up.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Sept 5, 2015 20:01:32 GMT -8
here is an idea. instead of rolling for the player, you don't ask for the notice check, you just have them fall into it unless they hint or state they are searching for traps, hazards and the like and if they state they are searching, you have them roll notice rolls if they are actively searching. just like you don't keep track of notice rolls unless the player in question is actively keeping watch. and have them roll a general one for each room if they do this. otherwise, they are treated as keeping passive watch instead of active watch. meaning no roll. and notice rolls shouldn't be needed for obvious things you intend for them to find.
you could easily say, "you feel something collapse beneath your feet" and when the player asks "why didn't i get to make a notice check?" you tell them "you didn't state that you were keeping active watch for hazards."
when there is an enemy sneaking, you don't tell them to roll notice unless they are actively keeping watch for ambushes, and can potentially give an enemy the drop. but the reverse of both of these should apply to the players' favor too. allowing them to get the drop on the guards playing cards in the barracks because they weren't actively searching
by not asking for free reactive checks, you keep the surprise until players learn to have somebody keep active watch. and remember the penalty for distance. -1 to notice for every 5 pace of distance i beleive. when the sneaky assassin gets the sneak attack on one of the players, that is when the people in the area get to roll the reactive notice roll. it isn't to notice a trap before it is too late, search a drawer, read a count's facial expressions, or to prevent an ambush, those are active uses of notice.
once you figure out what uses can be done passively and which ones require active effort. you can foil a bit of metagaming, and develop some highly paranoid players.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Sept 11, 2015 6:45:40 GMT -8
here is an idea. instead of rolling for the player, you don't ask for the notice check, you just have them fall into it unless they hint or state they are searching for traps, hazards and the like and if they state they are searching, you have them roll notice rolls if they are actively searching. just like you don't keep track of notice rolls unless the player in question is actively keeping watch. and have them roll a general one for each room if they do this. otherwise, they are treated as keeping passive watch instead of active watch. meaning no roll. and notice rolls shouldn't be needed for obvious things you intend for them to find. you could easily say, "you feel something collapse beneath your feet" and when the player asks "why didn't i get to make a notice check?" you tell them "you didn't state that you were keeping active watch for hazards." With the important caveat that so long as you had warned the player that the Notice skill had change drastically in it's implementation... You don't do this, because it's an asshole move. Your player invested in being able to use the mechanics of the Notice skill. If you didn't want someone noticing things right left and centre, then you should have spoken up before the game got running... Or at least, well before you dumped them into a pit trap, all because they didn't understand the game had changed... Also, do you really, really want the game to turn into, "I check the area ten feet in front of me, " rolls dice, "I check the next ten feet." ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Sept 11, 2015 7:41:19 GMT -8
I think that's enough to make me scrap the whole idea of rolling on a player's behalf in Savage Worlds. I agree with this. Also, maybe we treat the trap/room/hallway as a monster/challenge (of sorts). The better the trap is made, the better it works. Give the trap a stealth skill. No different in concept from a kobold ambush.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Sept 11, 2015 8:51:43 GMT -8
One option, that doesn't always apply, is have the players roll when it's appropriate. I mean, you want to know if they'll detect the trap, but only do it when it's time. E.g. roll notice... SUCCESS = "you barely avoid stepping on the trap, what do you do?", FAIL = "you feel the trap give way underneath you." They rolled when it was time. I really like savagedaddy's example of the ninjas, but another alternative is, again, to make the roll when it's appropriate. If they aren't checking around they don't need to notice things until those things run out. -or- I think there is a temptation, as the GM, that you know what the dice will say prior to the situation, and hence there is a temptation to get the players to roll dice early. Atleast that seems like part of it. Also, I often give players with the correct edges and skills auto-detect of some things. You have someone with the Alertness edge, or a d8 Notice, just give them some of the clues that you would have otherwise had non-Notice players roll (but make them roll for significant things, like sneaky enemies sneaking, or combat Drops).
|
|
thegrimace
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 45
Preferred Game Systems: Anything
Currently Playing: D&D 5.0, Pathfinder, L5R
Currently Running: L5R
Favorite Species of Monkey: Evil
|
Post by thegrimace on Sept 11, 2015 11:48:49 GMT -8
While I'm fine with GM's rolling for passive notice and the like (frankly I think that approach in D20 systems makes sense and maintains suspense/mystery) I'd actually propose the following:
Have the players roll their notice checks, but make sure to ask for this fairly frequently. Basically as they go down every second corridor (or something like that) have one or more roll notice. If they succeed, then you give them some minor detail about the area: "The thick dust in the hallway has been recently disturbed" "The painting on the wall looks oddly familiar, and you eventually place it as a well known piece of art, supposedly safe in the Louvre... perhaps the house is owned by a forger or art smuggler." Other random information such as the wind blowing strongly, or a faint smell or whatever... Some of this could be directly relevant to the plot, and some of this could just be random flavor text. Even the flavor text could eventually spark player actions (i.e. oh, you mentioned a fancy painting on the wall, I'll grab that and use it as a shield)
This way, when that notice check ends up being for a trap, they will be surprised, but won't feel cheated.
Also, if you have any issues with all players trying to roll, just mention something up front that these checks will only be asked of players who meet certain criteria (i.e. the criminal thug archetype wouldn't be able to tell anything about the painting even if he's really observant, and the history professor isn't going to know a claymore from a fuse box...)
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Sept 11, 2015 11:54:29 GMT -8
There are so many reasons why that approach is the absolute worst way to go that I can't give you a good run down on my phone. I'll type more once I have access to a keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Sept 11, 2015 20:53:51 GMT -8
here is an idea. instead of rolling for the player, you don't ask for the notice check, you just have them fall into it unless they hint or state they are searching for traps, hazards and the like and if they state they are searching, you have them roll notice rolls if they are actively searching. just like you don't keep track of notice rolls unless the player in question is actively keeping watch. and have them roll a general one for each room if they do this. otherwise, they are treated as keeping passive watch instead of active watch. meaning no roll. and notice rolls shouldn't be needed for obvious things you intend for them to find. you could easily say, "you feel something collapse beneath your feet" and when the player asks "why didn't i get to make a notice check?" you tell them "you didn't state that you were keeping active watch for hazards." With the important caveat that so long as you had warned the player that the Notice skill had change drastically in it's implementation... You don't do this, because it's an asshole move. Your player invested in being able to use the mechanics of the Notice skill. If you didn't want someone noticing things right left and centre, then you should have spoken up before the game got running... Or at least, well before you dumped them into a pit trap, all because they didn't understand the game had changed... Also, do you really, really want the game to turn into, "I check the area ten feet in front of me, " rolls dice, "I check the next ten feet." ad infinitum, ad nauseum. this is why i suggested a general roll for each room. it also encourages players to step out of their shell and be more pro active. investing in notice isn't sufficient at the table i play at. you have to actually state you are keeping watch for hazards and you get a general roll for each room, rather than having to roll for every 10 feet. so it isn't as assholish as it sounds. the things you were intended to find, you automatically find, if they are in plain sight, or in an easy to find location, however, trying to spot an ambush our scout ahead for hazards requires an active roll. i mean, if something is frequently done in a player's pattern, it can be assumed. and this actually encourages players with the notice skill to actually be pro active, just like the character with the persuasion skill is intended to explain what they intend for the persuaded individual to do. you don't simply say "i roll notice" or "i roll persuasion". you could say "i search the hallway for hazards" and get a single roll that applies to the entire hallway or you could say "i try to convince the paladin to sheathe his sword because the kobolds aren't a threat" and those are sufficient for a notice roll or persuasion roll. at the same time, i don't accept "i swing my sword". you could say "i thrust my sword into the berserker's abdomen and try to disembowel him with a horizontal slice that spills forth his intestines" and i would accept that, and maybe even offer a bonus based on the descriptive effort.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Sept 12, 2015 8:19:19 GMT -8
While I'm fine with GM's rolling for passive notice and the like (frankly I think that approach in D20 systems makes sense and maintains suspense/mystery) I'd actually propose the following: Have the players roll their notice checks, but make sure to ask for this fairly frequently. Basically as they go down every second corridor (or something like that) have one or more roll notice. If they succeed, then you give them some minor detail about the area: "The thick dust in the hallway has been recently disturbed" "The painting on the wall looks oddly familiar, and you eventually place it as a well known piece of art, supposedly safe in the Louvre... perhaps the house is owned by a forger or art smuggler." Other random information such as the wind blowing strongly, or a faint smell or whatever... Some of this could be directly relevant to the plot, and some of this could just be random flavor text. Even the flavor text could eventually spark player actions (i.e. oh, you mentioned a fancy painting on the wall, I'll grab that and use it as a shield) This way, when that notice check ends up being for a trap, they will be surprised, but won't feel cheated. Also, if you have any issues with all players trying to roll, just mention something up front that these checks will only be asked of players who meet certain criteria (i.e. the criminal thug archetype wouldn't be able to tell anything about the painting even if he's really observant, and the history professor isn't going to know a claymore from a fuse box...) Alright. I gots a proper keyboard now... Here's the gist of it. When you ask for this many, frankly trivial rolls, you set up for players for the perception that you are trying to get them to fail. It's annoying, and frustrating. And honestly, regardless of what you are or are not trying to do, it's irrelevant that you AREN'T trying to make them fail... You are guaranteed to run afoul of the Guy Who's Been Rolling Hot All Night for "BS" Rolls, Only to Fail When It Really Matters. Now, you and I and all our math-y buddies all know that we didn't REALLY skew the odds of his failing. We just "guaranteed" that he would eventually by having so many rolls. This is a variant of the open-ended, Just Keep Rolling style of contest, which engenders the exact same feelings. Stealth Checks are the biggest victim of this... Rather than just saying "Roll three successes before three failures", or laying out what each roll means "Roll to get up to the wall, again to get over it, third to get across the courtyard, fourth to get into the keep itself, and finally to get through the keep, to the Duke's bedchamber." Instead, you just keep saying, "Ok... Roll again." By leaving the number of rolls ambiguous, you seed doubt into the mind of the player that you're just trying to get them to fail. It doesn't matter that you had intended all along to have them make those same five rolls from above. By not articulating it, that ambiguity exists, the seed is sown, and If something does go wrong, you just reinforce the idea that you were "just waiting for them to fail."
|
|