To Roll, Or Not To Roll
-
This topic was brought to me by one of our readers here at RoleplayingPro. He posed a set of questions on the D&D forums and received over 200 replies. He then posed the idea to me about throwing it up on the blog. I thought it was a great idea because, as most of you probably know, you get a different quality of answer on a forum versus on a blog (in my humble opinion). Here is the question he brought up. “Players rolling for skills such as Perception, Search, and Bluff, might allow for a bit of meta-gaming – giving the player a bit of information his character might miss. As a player and/or GM, what is your take on this? Do you prefer players make all of their rolls, or should the GM make a couple of them to help with suspense?”Now, there may be more to this question but overall I see it as, should the player or the game master make the roll in situations where success, or more importantly failure, may alert the player to something in a situation? To understand this more, I’ll give an example that happened in the last Spycraft adventure I ran.
An Example Of Search Rolls By Players
Two of the player characters entered a small bedroom aboard a cruise ship. They were attempting to locate a small container about the size of a shoe box that contained a virulent toxin. This toxin was going to be used to kill everyone aboard the ship. The players weren’t positive, but they had a strong feeling that the container may be located in this room. Both players picked up their dice and attempted to make their search roll to look for the container. Both failed miserably.
Knowing that they failed, one player used a power his character had that allowed him to get a hint from the game master. I told him that he didn’t feel comfortable with their search of the room and that I would allow them to search it a second time, but it would take over double the amount of time for another thorough search. Both players picked up their dice again and both failed miserably again.
Since the night was winding down and the adventure was close to over, I allowed them one final try. So the players picked up their dice and attempted their third search roll. Finally, they succeeded in finding the container of toxins.
Should The Player Or Game Master Roll?
Now, the above scenario is a short but sweet part of an overall adventure. With my gaming style, I like to put the dice in the hands of the players. I think it is more fun and enjoyable for them to roll the dice. However, in the case of skills such as Perception, Search, Notice, Listen, and Bluff (whatever your game has) it may make more sense for you as the game master to make the roll. For example, maybe you want to see if a player notices that his pocket has been picked. You could have the player make a check, but if he fails the check and sees nothing he is now going to be wondering, “Why did the game master make me do that roll? I obviously missed it, so what is going on?” If you silently made the roll as the game master and the player missed, he would be none the wiser till later on when he finds the item missing.
In the past, I’ve done it both ways. I’ve made the rolls and I’ve also had the players make the rolls. Right now, I have the players do the vast majority of the rolls because I think it is more fun for them. But there are definitely situations where they know they’ve missed something and that have to roleplay that their character is none the wiser. So, I’m placing the questions in the hands of our readers.
Do you prefer that skill rolls, such as Perception, Search, Bluff, etc, be rolled by the player or the game master?
Why do you prefer it be done that way?
And, which way does your group complete these types of rolls (by the player or game master)?
Leave a Comment
April 12, 2009 at 9:18 am
I prefer that the GM make those rolls. I don’t like knowing things my character wouldn’t. I think the GM is cheating the players if he doesn’t make those ’secret’ rolls.
April 12, 2009 at 9:19 am
Well, cheating may not be the right word, ‘not getting the full experience’ would be better.
April 12, 2009 at 9:27 am
4e’s passive perception can be useful for some of this. Players may not notice the pickpocket attempt, but they may be curious about the guy with all the knives that seemed to be in such a hurry. I try to drop a hint where appropriate to get my players to ask about stuff.
In your box of toxin scenario, did you have a storyline in mind if/when they failed? An heroic rescue perhaps? A creative solution by the players when the toxin is released? For example, burning off the cloud as it jets from the box?
If they had to find the box, maybe you add a disable trap check on the fly to give them something different to roll.
April 12, 2009 at 9:52 am
Passive checks are cool, but I’ve found them to be a little off. If you don’t want the player to notice the ambush, set the DC higher than their passive checks. I try no to use those.
Now that I think about it, there are times when the GM has a lot on his plate. Having to make rolls for the players, in addition to everything else he does, might be a bit much.
Bah! I’m tired! I can’t make up my mind!
April 12, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Like I said, I’ve done it both ways before. I currently have the players do most of those rolls, because:
(A) It puts the dice in their hands more times
(B) As Tourq said, sometimes I have a lot on my plate
(C) It still provides great moments even if they know
However, if you want more realism you can start rolling the checks yourself (as the GM). Then if the players miss something, they REALLY miss something.
April 12, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I have never used a hard and fast rule for this situation. Sometimes making the players role is good, sometimes not so good. I hate the night watch situation specifically for that reason. Once you ask a player to make a spot check its obvious that something is happening. Now there are some good mechanics for this; 3.5 allows for differing states of readiness in the party.
One of the biggest rolls I make as a DM is Sense Motive. Once you ask for a roll, they likely being lied to. I try to take it on a case by case basis if possible.
April 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Sense Motive is one of those skills that I think is still okay to let them roll. For example, if thy ask me, “Hm… does this guy seem like he’s not telling the truth?” Okay, roll Sense Motive. Obviously if the player sees the results of the dice he’ll know how well he did, but that becomes part of the suspension of disbelief. If your players can’t do that, then yeah, you as the GM need to be making those rolls.
My players have no problem roleplaying situations that they may be aware of, but their characters aren’t. If I wanted to ‘assist’ them in roleplaying, I could make it to where they didn’t know (by rolling for them).
April 12, 2009 at 5:20 pm
If the DM is making the rolls, they have the option of fudging the roll if needed. If you are going to need to fudge the roll to keep the story on track, why make the roll? Why not just decide ahead of time that the characters will or will not succeed for the interests of the story.
One of the new mechanics in 4E that I love (as player and DM) when executed properly is the skills challenge. If you want your players to find the box of gas and deal with it properly and allow them the rolls AND maintain suspense maybe it goes something like this:
Task #1. Players search the room to find box of poison gas. (succeed or fail they find box, tally result)
Task #2. Players defuse explosives trapping box (succeed or fail, they defuse box tally result)
Task #3. Players either race to deck or try to disable poison dispersion unit (failures are tallied until characters succeed)
Task #4. Players get rid of poison
If the players tally up a pre-determined number of failures, they fail to protect the passangers. Or you could have a table:
Failure number 3: poison gas starts hissing out – affects character holding dispersal unit
Failure number 4: greater effect on party, initial affect on passengers
Failure number 5: “Okay, everyone, that was great! Who’s up for some Shadowrun?”
Of course, your table may vary…
The main thing is the players don’t know how many failures is too many.
April 12, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Sam.
Something else you could have done is used the [spot/search/perception] check to determine how long it would take instead of “if” they found it. That way they find the container regardless but a high check result means they find it faster than a low one. This could in turn affect disabling the device in some manner.
John Lewis’s last blog post..To Roll, Or Not To Roll
April 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I make ample use of the Passive scores when I write up room and area descriptions so I don’t have to look up the numbers mid game and make the roll myself or ask the player to do it. When I think about an area, I’ll decide how hard it is to spot the relevant details and compare that to the best passive perception. Often, at least one player will be able to see anything there is to be seen with a casual glance. I limit what can be found or seen with just a passive look, though. Example – the PCs enter a room which has a number of features, some somewhat hidden or odd. I might decide that this room has a hidden compartment that is accessed by pulling a false book on the bookshelf. It won’t matter what the elf’s passive perception is, he’s not going to pick out that Dissertations on Gnome Gladiators is a false book opening a secret door from 30′ across the room. That bit of information requires an active search.
April 13, 2009 at 4:33 am
“Roll perception to notice the goblin sneaking up on you.” – it doesn’t matter who rolls the dice. Success means noticing the goblin, failure means not noticing.
“Roll perception to see if you find the hidden documents.” – it, again, doesn’t matter who rolls the dice. The documents are found or they are not. (Though I’d probably prefer doing this the old school way.) Alternatively: “Roll to see if you find the hidden documents before you are interrupted.”
There is no need to roll for something more than once, unless circumstances change radically.
Also: “Roll to see who finds the documents.” If one is running a game so scripted that some roll must not be failed, there’s still no need for rerolls or fudging.
April 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Part of me says this: If I rarely roll certain skills, I’ll probably be less inclined to improve them.
The other part of me says this: If I know that I rolled crappy trying to find a hidden ’something’, I’m going to try my hardest to make it look like I’m not meta-gaming when I try to find a reason to roll again.
Nope, I’ve decided. It is better to have the GM make rolls that the players shouldn’t be privy to. It is better and more fun to portray a real emotion as opposed to having your character act it. I don’t know if that makes any sense, but I’m going with it.
April 15, 2009 at 7:43 am
Once again it’s sad to me that 4e is making such an impact on gaming. Passive checks take out the possibility of noticing things better than you normally would, even if you were looking for them. Example: I was driving down the freeway the other day at about 90 and not really paying attention listening to music when out of the corner of my eye I caught a Highway Patrol sitting on the side of the road. I was able to slow down in time to avoid a nice hefty ticket. Was I purposefully looking for cops to make sure I didn’t get a ticket? No. Was he well hidden? Hell yes. Moral: I happened to notice a well hidden cop when I might not have normally.
Anyways, beyond the 4e rant. I completely agree that there are times when, for the story, you need to roll it yourself as the GM/DM. Even with very RP-conscious players you will find your actions swayed slightly by a bad roll. On top of that, whoever suggested that you should just decide whether the players are going to succeed or not before they get there…..please no GM should do this, it COMPLETELY ruins the point of playing a game for someone that enjoys ACHIEVING something. It would be like watching a movie unfold and trying to change the actions that the actors are going to take, you know it’s not possible and you know trying is pointless so why even show up?
I really think it would be interesting to see a campaign where all perception rolls were rolled by the GM and notes were made before hand that could be handed out to players as they went through certain parts. The players would then have to convey what they wanted to their group/team in their own words without showing the other players the notes. This could really emulate the idea of players seeing different things and you could even exclude information from certain rolls. IE: 15-20 sees a; 21-25 sees b; 26-30 sees c…etc.. This way even if your group is well rounded they might actually miss something based on rolling too high or too low.
April 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm
@ Bryan: Wow, what real-world logic you have there. Are you actually trying to bring real-world logic into a fanatsy RPG system, one that’s designed to make the game run more easily and faster?
I’d take it up with the GM as a group. As a group, ask him (or her) to get rid of passive checks, because those 90-MPH horses deserve a better chance of getting past the law – er… rules…
April 16, 2009 at 2:30 pm
*sigh* Again, I’ve changed my mind. I would do away with passive checks, myself. Just get rid of them. Maybe have a passive search skill that is rolled at a slight penalty, or something.
Going back to the orgininal topic, I think certain rolls need to make by the DM. As a player, I like not really knowing what is going on. It definately takes away some of the fun when I know wat is happening when my character doesn’t.
April 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Something you might consider as an alternative is having players make occasional perception checks; maybe one for each general area or setting they enter(such as an inn or a part of a dungeon). For the time they are there the roll serves as their “current passive” score.
@ Daily: In your speeding down the freeway scenario I’d say that’s the perfect example of a passive check. You weren’t actively looking (although at 90 mph you might want to)for anything. Your “success” on perception was not because you “rolled” well, it was because the active person in the scenario (the cop) failed to beat your passive perception with his active stealth roll.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Top 20 Gaming Tools & Accessories
April 16, 2009 at 5:42 pm
That’s definitely one way to look at it, John. If we really wanted to get into it, though, I would point out the flaw of taking “active” skills and applying them to all situations….stealth for instance would be vs a specific person or group since you could really only cover from that direction effectively so then other people from other directions or perspectives could easily view your position.
It isn’t too hard to really change the focus or the reasoning behind any skill. My GM doesn’t really use passive rolls so it’s honestly a moot point but I just never really agreed with them myself.
April 16, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I like passive rolls for passive situations. For example if a group of PC’s are at an inn drinking and eating and some rogue nearby tries to slip something into the drinks headed their way. That’s a stealth roll for the rogue vs. the characters’ passive perception. To me that’s a case where its a matter of how well the rogue pulls off his maneuver against the “standard awareness level” of the heroes.
I like Insight even more as a passive skill. I use it as a sort of “spidey sense” about people. Of course I let players use it actively when they ask to but it’s nice as a DM to know the general level of a character’s social saavy and interpersonal awareness. There are many situations (at least in my campaigns) where there is absolutley no reason for a PC to suspect something is amiss, that’s where passive insight comes in, kind of a sixth sense that something doesn’t quite jive with the situation. For a character who beats the passive check I allow an active check to determine more specific info.
I also like passive scores for knowledge skills like streetwise, nature, arcana etc. I don’t use them in encounters or anything but I like to use them as a general gauge of a character’s understanding and education within a certain field. Of course trying to recall something in the heat of combat should obviously call for a role.
Anyway I think they are a lot of applicable uses for passive scores but it’s also just as easy to do away with them if you don’t like them or if your players like making checks and rolling dice a lot.
John Lewis’s last blog post..Top 20 Gaming Tools & Accessories
April 28, 2009 at 11:28 am
Lately I (as DM) have been making these rolls (actively) for the players. It’s a bit of a pain, but it seems to produce a better game experience for the players.
In some cases, where I want the players to succeed for story reasons, I’ll write in my notes that the player with the highest Search score, let’s say, will spot something first. Then I notify that player secretly. This rewards the PC for having a high score, becomes a roleplaying opportunity between players, and my storyline doesn’t get derailed by a missed roll.
April 29, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I definitely think passive checks should be more difficult to make and in some cases impossible.
I think in 4e though the idea behind a passive defense is not that theres no roll. Its that the roll is like an attack from the monster/event against the players static skill. Kinda like attack vs defense. So if my perception is +13 then my static defense is 23 (10+13).. but if the DC would normally be 25 I instead roll a d20 +15. So its still got a random element. It just easier to always add to the roll against some defense if your conditioned that way.