Hidden die rolls and hidden player decisions
fodazd:
Quote from: David Berg on May 28, 2012, 12:51:40 AM
The key is the GM communicating that there is in fact a fictional reason for the surprising roll outcome. If the GM gets in the habit of always doing this, then fears of cheating the rules tend to fade, in my experience. (Cheating the spirit of play by randomly reinforcing all your wooden doors with adamantite is another issue.)
Well, in situations where the player knows the cause of the surprising outcome immediately after the roll, this is a pretty good and straightforward way of doing it. However, on a research or investigation roll, the causes for unusual target numbers will have to stay hidden until the validity of the information is confirmed. Otherwise, the players would immediatly know that their information is faulty. The basic problem is this:
-> If a player rolls very good on his research roll, then the given information is much more likely to be believed. There is just no uncertainty there... And if the GM gives faulty information on such a roll, the players will understandably not think this is particularly fair. Except of course when the subject of the information is really, really obscure.
-> If a player rolls very bad on his research roll, then everyone immediately knows that the information will be faulty. Also no uncertainty. Here, the GM could just randomly give out some pieces of correct information, but that doesn't change the basic problem: If correct information on bad rolls becomes commonplace, then the players could wonder why they even bother with learning these skills or doing these rolls.
I just see no way of eliminating this without hiding the dice.
Quote from: way on May 28, 2012, 11:52:11 PM
If it's investigation or research you have to be a bit more creative. But then again, what's the point in a research roll that either lets the story to continue or blocks that path entirely? You can try to set the situation up so that the roll is needed later, in a heated situation. Or: make those rolls in the open, give them false information and be explicit that it is false information. But give them XP if they choose to pursue that path anyway. Tempt them!
Ok, some more things about our group: We usually don't make research rolls to further the plot, and therefore a failed research roll doesn't usually block the path. Instead, we do reasearch rolls that are of the form "Hmm... We know that we are going to fight this type of monster soon. I try to find out its weaknesses!" or "We currently plan to move to area xy. What kinds of dangers can I expect there and how do I prepare against them?". So a successful roll increases our chances of succeding, but is not strictly required to solve the plot.
Also, I doubt that XP-rewards for willingly following the wrong leads is the right thing for our group. We like it if we as players are uncertain, not just the characters. And within this uncertainty, we can then try our best with the information we have. I don't know if I like the concept of a reward for deliberately not trying your best...
David Berg:
Yeah, rolling for things where you have no idea how well you did is awkward. Hiding it certainly sounds better than what you described. Better still might be to scrap Research rolls entirely. It sounds like you are getting exactly zero bang for your buck on those. If it must be determined whether or not the characters turn up correct info, you could instead:
a) Just let the GM decide. It ain't cheating if you agree to it. Agree on some constraints for what's fun, to help guide the GM's decisions. If the GM is stumped, they can secretly flip a coin.
b) Roleplay it out. Show us what you're doing to find the info, step by step. The GM will respond step by step. At the end, you'll have some info, and a very good idea of why it might or might not be correct.
These approaches lose the difficulty-modeling simulation of "how likely is this character to be able to research this topic?" Is that okay? Even if it's not perfect, is it worth it, considering the current costs of the simulation?
fodazd:
Quote from: David Berg on May 29, 2012, 10:16:25 AM
Better still might be to scrap Research rolls entirely. It sounds like you are getting exactly zero bang for your buck on those.
Hmm... Yes, actually we could do that. The GM could just give us the commonplace info for free, and everything beyond that would be resolved through roleplaying it out, so we could use your method b. The primary problem with that would likely be that we as players (including the GM) don't know a thing about researching unusual topics reliably, but if we consistently stick to playing it out, maybe that obstacle would go away after a while.
Another problem that might arise is that the roleplaying would slowly gravitate back to the short version over time. So, in the first session we do this, we would play it out in a very detailed way. Talking to all the NPCs who might know something about it, looking for the right books to consult, including checking the right cross-references, etc. However, this procedure could get boring after a few times. Then, the players would likely just say "Ok, I want to research about that topic. I will go about that the same way as last time.". Then, we would effectively just have method a, without a random element to spice it up. However, if our characters have no explicit research-skills anymore, that might in fact not be such a bad thing.
Quote from: David Berg on May 29, 2012, 10:16:25 AM
These approaches lose the difficulty-modeling simulation of "how likely is this character to be able to research this topic?" Is that okay? Even if it's not perfect, is it worth it, considering the current costs of the simulation?
I like it when a player can decide to play a character who is good at finding information... And if a player wants this decision to have any meaning, then the system must provide a way to answer this question about "how likely is it for a particular character to get information through research?", dependent on some research-skill of that character. The issue here is less about the accuracy of the simulation (which is still important to us by the way), but about what character choices are open to the players.
...That being said, we currently have no characters in our group who specialize in just research. They all have other areas where they are good at too. If we decide to scrap research rolls, than we could just free up any points spent in research related skills and allow them to be spent somewhere else instead.
---
So, now for something different: I have in fact come up with a mechanical way to achive what I want, although it is still a bit complicated. Here is the procedure:
-> Both the GM and the player roll 3d6 and note the results of each die on a piece of paper (so if you get 3, 1, 4, you write down "3, 1, 4", not "8"). The player can't see the roll of the GM and the GM can't see the roll of the player.
-> The player then gives his note to the GM (after the GM has written his roll down), who does the following: For each die (first, second, third), the numbers from the GM and the player are added together. If the result is bigger than 6, 6 is subtracted. Then, these three numbers are added together to get the real result of the secret roll. Example: Player rolls "4, 1, 1", GM rolls "5, 5, 6". The actual roll would then be "3, 6, 1", which means a roll of 10.
-> The GM then compares the result of this "combined roll" with the research-skill of the character and gives out information based on that.
-> The two pieces of paper are now stored somewhere where no one can see them, until the accuracy of the information is revealed.
This achieves the following:
-> Neither the GM nor the player can manipulate the result in a particular direction, despite all the rolls being secret. For example, if the player wanted to achieve the best possible outcome ("1, 1, 1", a critical success) by lying about his roll, the result of the GM would be needed before writing down the result of the own roll. If a player just lies and says "1, 1, 1" was rolled, and the GM rolls "5, 5, 5", then the result is a critical failure instead of a critical success. "2, 2, 2" would be the result the player needed to have written down for the desired outcome. So the player can't gain any advantages by lying about the outcome of the roll, and since the GM also can't see the roll of the player before writing his own roll down, neither can the GM.
-> Since the player doesn't know the roll of the GM immediatly after the information is given, there is still uncertainty there. What did the GM roll? The player doesn't know that, and therefore can't draw any conclusions about the information the GM gives.
-> Once the accuracy of the information is clear, the two pieces of paper can be brought out again. The players can easily calculate the secret roll from that, and can then verify that that the validity of the information corresponded to that roll... And because the GM didn't know the exact result before receiving the note from the player, the players can be absolutely sure the GM didn't manipulate anything.
-> Note: This mechanic could easily be applied to other systems. In D&D for example, the player and GM would just roll 1d20, and the final result would be the sum of the two rolls, minus 20 if it is greater than 20.
So... The main disadvantage of this method seems to be that a lot of notes and some additional calculations are needed, as well as the fact that both the player and the GM need to roll instead of just one of them. It would have to be tested if this is a better solution than simply leaving research-rolls out completly.
way:
There is a method that is used in D&D 4E to speed up things: prerolling results. This might be used here as well: preroll a bunch of numbers with the usual dice setups (with 4E for example, only d20s). The GM writes down the results, but keeps the list away from the players. Any time a hidden roll is necessary, the GM just takes the next one in the list. He might also write the task next to the number, so everyone can see that after play. It's not perfect but very fast and does not disrupt play.
fodazd:
Quote from: way on May 30, 2012, 12:36:48 AM
There is a method that is used in D&D 4E to speed up things: prerolling results. This might be used here as well: preroll a bunch of numbers with the usual dice setups (with 4E for example, only d20s). The GM writes down the results, but keeps the list away from the players. Any time a hidden roll is necessary, the GM just takes the next one in the list. He might also write the task next to the number, so everyone can see that after play. It's not perfect but very fast and does not disrupt play.
Hmm... You still can't verify that the GM didn't manipulate anything with this method. If the GM knows when a particular secret roll will be made (which is usually the case), then the outcome could be statically determined without anyone noticing. Not really much better than just the basic method of hiding the rolls without the players being able to check.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page