Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 23:30:47 GMT -8
I have a bone to pick with Stork (surprise surprise, huh?). A player should never ask, “Can I roll for X?”. As a player, it’s your job to play the character. Asking to roll is not doing something or asking for clarification. Those are the two things players should be doing, acting in character or clarifying out of character.
“Can I roll perception?” “Sure.” “I got a 20.” “Cool”. “...so what do I see?” “I already told you what you see. You haven’t done anything to change that, so you aren’t going to see anything different.” “..But I rolled a 20?” “Good for you. I never asked you to.” “But you said I could?” “I said you could roll, not that there was a reason to or that I wanted you to.”
If the player instead asked, “Should I roll for perception?”, than we’d be back on track as that is a clarifying statement. The GM might respond with, “Why? You haven’t done anything that would merit a check yet.” Or “Yeah, since you are taking a second look.”
In truth though, a player should almost never have to ask if they should roll for something. The GM will tell you when they want you to roll. That’s part of their job.
In short, players should engage the game instead of the game’s mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Nov 13, 2017 8:09:47 GMT -8
I can see exceptions to this -- like if a player possesses a relevant skill and I've forgotten about it.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Nov 13, 2017 9:16:09 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with engaging with the game, after all, we are playing a game. We're not doing an improv exercise, sometimes the right answer is to engage with the game. If I say in character, "I want to watch that fat courtier to see if something is amiss," it's entirely up to the gm to decide what the relevant mechanics if any are, but I may have something about my character that gives them some special insight. Let's take the perception question out of it for a minute, what if I'm a courtier who has particular knowledge of the intricacies of court behavior and that could give me a different way to look at the situation. The gm shouldn't have to just remember that and decide that it applies, I'm playing a fucking game, it's my job to know what I can do with the game.
As always, just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
|
HJRP 20-13
Nov 13, 2017 11:13:29 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by uncommonman on Nov 13, 2017 11:13:29 GMT -8
D&D 4:th edition used passive and active perception rolls.
I really like that method.
That way you can have the "fat man" roll to deceive the players and still have the option of letting suspicious players roll to see through the deception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 11:55:00 GMT -8
I also like the passive/active rolls from 4e. I can see how at some tables, players might get upset if they 'failed a roll' they didn't roll. But also, there's the metagaming - again, in a neutral sense used here - that if you ask for a roll, it's hard for a lot of players to go back to not thinking there's something to be detected.
For L5R, one option for a secret roll is to just have Fat Suit Guy make his disguise roll against a TN of a PC's Perception X 5, or possibly Awareness. Awareness isn't just the charisma, it's also the sense that there's something amiss, something you can't put your finger on. I do also like the idea of a character or NPC presenting false weaknesses in L5R - it really fits with warfare and how everything is war/deadly serious. And not just a fat suit, but a courtier who in clearly inferior at their job (but it's just an act), etc.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Nov 13, 2017 12:26:01 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with engaging with the game, after all, we are playing a game. We're not doing an improv exercise, sometimes the right answer is to engage with the game... I'm playing a fucking game, it's my job to know what I can do with the game. This. So much this. Of course if everybody want to improv. That’s cool too.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on Nov 13, 2017 12:39:25 GMT -8
Asking "can I roll X" is the beginning of a conversation about why they want to roll that thing specifically and what the player is wanting out of the roll. If they're asking they usually have a reason. If they don't have a reason, then no reason to roll.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Nov 13, 2017 13:22:20 GMT -8
Asking "can I roll X" is the beginning of a conversation about why they want to roll that thing specifically and what the player is wanting out of the roll. If they're asking they usually have a reason. If they don't have a reason, then no reason to roll. When a player asks something like, "Can I roll (x)?" my next question is to delve deeper, what are you wanting to accomplish with (X)? Of course that's often the same question I ask when someone asks, "I want to look at/search/investigate the thing." Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by vyrrk on Nov 13, 2017 14:16:04 GMT -8
D&D 4:th edition used passive and active perception rolls. I really like that method. That way you can have the "fat man" roll to deceive the players and still have the option of letting suspicious players roll to see through the deception. I feel like perception should be EITHER passive or active. I don't like that it is both. If its both players end up rolling crappy and then saying... "Why didn't I see that? My Passive is 18." If a game has only one or the other, then players understand that either they are already getting passively all the info they should, OR they need to always actively roll for better understanding what is happening around them.
|
|
|
Post by yojimbohawkins on Nov 14, 2017 5:06:32 GMT -8
Personally, I like the way some PbtA games do it; Spirit of 77's 'scope out the scene' move springs to mind. In that move, a roll of 10+ allows the player to ask the DJ 3 questions, & a roll of 7-9 allows one question. Admittedly it's from a list of questions, but I've quite easily adapted it to L5R. Succeeding in your Investigation/Perception roll allows you to ask two questions which I will answer honestly, and raises can be called for extra questions. The questions have to relate to what the player can observe, based on the situation. TN is based on the opposed roll I make beforehand, which I tell the player so he can make a decision about his raises (I've had one player treat this like an iaijutsu duel; the TN she needed to hit was so high, she demurred to an obvious master of Etiquette). If the player fails the roll, they can still ask two questions but the information may not be accurate. This allows me to obfuscate if required, or at least give the player some info that may or may not help them.
I feel that this puts the emphasis on the player to ask the questions they are interested in, rather than the GM having to judge what the character is capable of perceiving, and it works pretty well in my games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 23:02:59 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with engaging with the game, after all, we are playing a game. We're not doing an improv exercise, sometimes the right answer is to engage with the game. If I say in character, "I want to watch that fat courtier to see if something is amiss," it's entirely up to the gm to decide what the relevant mechanics if any are, but I may have something about my character that gives them some special insight. Let's take the perception question out of it for a minute, what if I'm a courtier who has particular knowledge of the intricacies of court behavior and that could give me a different way to look at the situation. The gm shouldn't have to just remember that and decide that it applies, I'm playing a fucking game, it's my job to know what I can do with the game. As always, just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB Ok. If this isn’t an improv session, what is it? I mean, seriously, what do players do in your own words? It’s not like we are issuing an essay prompt for them to take home. Maybe try something like this: “Has the fat courtier done anything outside of the norms of courtly behavior? How is everyone else reacting?” I strongly refute that it isn’t the GM’s job to know about my character. Should he have to know the rules for all my spells? No. But he should probably know enough to know that I have special insights into this court. The only place where that is not true, is organized play (where it would be straight up impossible). It’s a straight up bad sign when the GM decides to not give a crap about the characters in the game. In fact, I’d say its a key indicator to look for railroad tracks. It’s like a big sign that reads, “Does not give a crap about you. GMPC’s and other annoyances ahead!” In my mind, asking to roll with no context is right up there with asking for treasure with no context. Sure, I could ask why you deserve it, but I’m much more likely just to tell you no after the first time. Getting to roll is a reward for playing the game, and I only have to so much patience for explaining to people they actually have to play the game. Which leaves my responses to ‘No’ or ‘passive aggressive hints that your rolls don’t mean shit without context!’ Imagine for a moment that a player asked you while walking through a marketplace, “Can I have 2 gold?” Now, you might be confused, so you ask why. The player then responds, “Oh, because I’m picking pockets as we walk.” (Which I might add is more than most people asking for percepion rolls are doing. They never had an action in mind, they just wanted more info). Of course, you would probably then tell the player they should roll their sleight of hand. You see the issue here though? The player is asking for an outcome with nothing to create said outcome in sight. It creates a lot of wasted time and confusion when the player could have told you from the start what they were attempting (and perhaps even the desired outcome). You need them to put the horse before the cart.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Nov 16, 2017 1:39:07 GMT -8
One-true-wayism much?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 2:39:39 GMT -8
Yes, it is my one true way that outcomes must be predicated on some kind of action or reflection (as is the case with rolling to determine if you already know something). There is no something from nothing. I’ll call it the conservation of roleplaying, which is a wonderful double entendre. On the one hand its a play on the conservation of energy. On the other its a play on outdoor conservation (you know, saving the roleplayers who care to actually play the game). It’s like anyone who proposes any kind of theory or thought about gaming is a ‘one true wayist’. It very much reminds me of the problem of calling everyone a Nazi(racist, insert whatever slur you want here). All of a sudden, that word has no more power left. In short, call me whatever names you want, they don’t mean anything anymore.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Nov 16, 2017 3:49:17 GMT -8
Look, I can agree that narrating your action should be a more satisfying experience for the player, although I’d argue that is normally used as shorthand for “I’m looking around”. More than that, it’s a perfectly acceptable shorthand for the action, because as jazzisblues points out we’re “playing a fucking game” which by the way, uses dice to simulate action. Now if i’m feeling a generous GM, I might try and improve the player’s experience of the game by trying to get them more into the role playing side of things, maybe by asking an open question like “where are you looking?”. But if time is short it’s perfectly acceptable to just say yes. What is not acceptable is saying something like “Sure.” “I got a 20.” “Cool”. “...so what do I see?” “I already told you what you see. You haven’t done anything to change that, so you aren’t going to see anything different.” “..But I rolled a 20?” “Good for you. I never asked you to.” “But you said I could?” “I said you could roll, not that there was a reason to or that I wanted you to.” Why is that not acceptable? Because is isn’t as you claim, “conservation of roleplaying” it’s just being a dick. And if there is one true way, it’s “don’t a be a dick”
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on Nov 16, 2017 9:57:45 GMT -8
Yeah, that's pretty douchey to do.
|
|