Topic: Keep your players guessing

[vroomfogle]

The Problem:
Some skills that convey information have an inherent problem when the player makes the skill roll.  The result of their roll, combined with the information from the GM, can indicate that there may be information they missed or convince them totally that they are correct.

Examples:
1) Player A detects traps and rolls a 94 + 70 bonus = 164.  GM says "No Traps" and group opens chest without any worries, absolutely convinced there are no traps.
2) Same Player A detects traps and rolls a 3-50 + 70 bonus = 17.  GM says "No Traps" and group is not so sure if there are traps or not.  So they have another player check for traps.

How it should be:
Player A is a master thief and known to the group as the best there is for detecting traps.  When Player A says there are No Traps, they believe him - no second guessing.

The same situation can apply to any information gathering skill.  Low rolls can often convey misleading information, but if they player rolls low they know it's misleading!   There can be problems with other skills too.  Disarm Traps.  A low roll may indicate the trap has been disarmed when in fact it has not been.

The Solutions:
1) The best solution is simply to have the GM make the rolls.  The players will then rely on how good they are at the skill to determine the reliability of the information.  This works very well and should still be used in some cases.

But I personally don't like having to make all those rolls all the time, and players like rolling dice so....

2) Randomly change the direction of Success and Failure.   Thus sometimes a roll of 95 will really be a 95, but sometimes it will actually be a 6.  A roll of a 10 could be a 10 or a 91.      A "low" open ended roll of 3 - 50 could be a -47 or a 148 while a "high" open ended roll of 100+76 could be a 176 or a -75.
Formula to reverse roll: 100-roll+1

Now this way when a player rolls roughly in the middle they will base their opinion more on their skill bonus.   But if they roll to the extremes, such as open-ended high or low they won't be entirely convinced of their success or failure.

On the other hand you don't want them thinking when they succeed that there's a 50/50 chance they actually succeeded either, so you need to tip the odds in favor of them.   I suggest that 75% of the time you use the roll as normal and the other 25% of the time you reverse it (so that low rolls are better).   This way when they roll high they may be fairly certain of their success (and the player should role-play that they are certain) but the player will have some doubt.  The same goes for rolling low.

Now this isn't necessarily ideal in all situations.  Sometimes you will just want to default to making the rolls yourself.   But this may be a good alternative some of the time.

[markc]

 I use a system that the guy and his wife who taught me RM. It is fairly simple and I am pritty sure that it is in the house rules section on my game notes.

Here goes;
 The player roll D100 as well as the GM rolls D100. The player says up or down and the GM adds to get his number, with the rule that the dice numbers roll over from ...98-99-100-01-02..... . The GM has the players skill for the task and uses the number generated for the random number part of the skill roll. Then the GM give the play the info based on the roll.

Example of over roll:
 The player wants to look for traps and rolls a 45 and says up, the GM rolls a 40. He does the math 45 up to 100 then 01 to 40. This means the random roll acieved a result of 95 so the GM asks the player for another roll and and do the process over again.

Example of down roll using the above example;
 The rolls are the same player 45 and GM 40, but the player says down. So now the GM counts down from 45 to 40 for a total of 5. The GM asks the player to roll again since now the random number is open end low.

Example of counting down:
 The player rolls 30 and says down and the GM rolls 90. The GM counts down to 1 from 30 which is 30 and then from 100 down to 90 for a result of 10 which is added to the 30 to get a total of skill roll of 40.

 Once you get the hanf of it it works very very well and the players can still roll the dice. Also as a Gm you can have then roll dice even if they do not open end low or high just to keep them off balance.
 Some times I have the players roll the numbers and say up or down on a piece of paper that I then use for their random rolls. It can save some time as the players just go I search I roll and use there recoreded numbers.

 The only problem I have had is when it has been a very long day sometimes simple math becomes a little harder. Or if there happens to be some consumption going on it can also be tough for the GM.

MDC 

[Justin]

conversely, what I do is this:
I have them all make 10 rolls at the beginning of the session and write them down. When they need a skill check such as Detect Traps or Sense Ambush or even General Perception, I roll a d10. Then I count to the d10'th roll on the list they gave me, add their skill bonus which I have on a seperate sheet and cross out the number I used.

The players rolled their own results, so no accusations as to my bad luck screwing them over. 
My d10 roll keeps them from knowing whether it was a good or bad roll if htey have their list memorized. ("Well, my fourth roll was 17, and this is the 4th behind-gm-screen roll he has made, I'd better not trust it.")
Having their skill bonuses makes it so I don't have to ask them for it, giving away what I rolled for, even if they don't know the result. ("He asked for Poison Perception, I'd better take this opportunity to say I'm observing a religious fast.")

[yammahoper]

I think expecting the players to react and have their characters behave as if they think they succeeded is the only good answer if you want the players to make their own rolls.

I am blessed with experienced players who have no problem suffering some failure.  If that level of play cannot be achieved due to personalities, then hide the rolls.

lynn

[Nejira]

It seems to me a rather convoluted way of doing this. Why not simply say that the dice shows 55? Yes the chance of a fumble/high roll is removed but isn?t it better to leave such moments in the hands of the players anyway?

I got a chart with the PC?s mainstats (hits, OB/DB, RRs, Perception, etc) then just check their bonus and add 55.

[Justin]

It seems to me a rather convoluted way of doing this. Why not simply say that the dice shows 55? Yes the chance of a fumble/high roll is removed but isn?t it better to leave such moments in the hands of the players anyway?

I got a chart with the PC?s mainstats (hits, OB/DB, RRs, Perception, etc) then just check their bonus and add 55.

So, middle-of-the-road every result? No thanks, that's not my style.

[Justin]

I think expecting the players to react and have their characters behave as if they think they succeeded is the only good answer if you want the players to make their own rolls.
I am blessed with experienced players who have no problem suffering some failure.  If that level of play cannot be achieved due to personalities, then hide the rolls.

I think some people, including myself, would challenge you that you can never be sure that the players are controlling their PC's with 0% player-knowledge about dice rolls. It's impossible to know for sure, because we can't measure brain waves in that way nor can we relive the same experience twice to see the different tactics.
I have some really good roleplayers, the kind that don't always make decisions that are best for their characters, but I *know* they'll be truer to their character when they know the same things.

[markc]

I think expecting the players to react and have their characters behave as if they think they succeeded is the only good answer if you want the players to make their own rolls.
I am blessed with experienced players who have no problem suffering some failure.  If that level of play cannot be achieved due to personalities, then hide the rolls.

I think some people, including myself, would challenge you that you can never be sure that the players are controlling their PC's with 0% player-knowledge about dice rolls. It's impossible to know for sure, because we can't measure brain waves in that way nor can we relive the same experience twice to see the different tactics.
I have some really good roleplayers, the kind that don't always make decisions that are best for their characters, but I *know* they'll be truer to their character when they know the same things.

 You forgot that Yamma has mastered all the Psi powers in the world and only focuses them upon his players when they are gaming.

 Joke aside you are 100% right. I find my self doing that in another game and have to back track because IMO he would do X instead of Y because I knwo the rules and he is just a character. And IMO it is sometimes tough for a GM to say to a player no you would do this and not that.


MDC

[Justin]

Joke aside you are 100% right. I find my self doing that in another game and have to back track because IMO he would do X instead of Y because I knwo the rules and he is just a character. And IMO it is sometimes tough for a GM to say to a player no you would do this and not that.

Yes, I do the "no you wouldn't" thing a few times, usually once or twice in each of my campaigns, but that's only for cultural things. Usually this one: In my world setting, the Orcs and Goblins are just as sentient as the Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflins, but the 'civilized races' don't see it that way, and refuse to. Grunts and barks don't make a language! And who would live in such squaller(sp?)! They are below savage.  No, they are a plague which needs to be removed.
But some player always has some crafty idea to spy on them, capture one, etc., and I always have to put it in perspective: One out of every 500,000 people may not think that is the craziest idea, and even if you do feel that way, chances are your teammates would be horribly appauled by your plan and kill the Orc/Goblin anyway."
anyways....that's a bit of a sidetrack...

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think expecting the players to react and have their characters behave as if they think they succeeded is the only good answer if you want the players to make their own rolls.

Sure. I like to think I'm pretty good at putting myself into the character and acting as the character would. But from a player rather than GM standpoint part of me says, "Yeah but why should I have to put up with something *trying* to pull me out of the scene, so to speak?"

I am blessed with experienced players who have no problem suffering some failure.  If that level of play cannot be achieved due to personalities, then hide the rolls.

As am I. But it's easier to keep them immersed in the game if they're pretty confident when they succeed, but often unaware of when they fail.

At least, unaware at first.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

One of the things that I like doing is having a summary sheet that has all of the important information about the characters (OB/DB, hits, PP, spell lists, primary skills, etc...). Basically enough information so that I could run (or have somebody else run) a character if the player isn't there for a session.

Then during play, I will occasionally ask for a dice roll. Sometimes I will have a purpose in doing that, other times I won't. In all cases, I will always jot something down on my clipboard (I always keep a clipboard for making notes and for having important data on, with a blank sheet on top to hide any adventure notes underneath). When I don't have a specific purpose, I track the rolls and use them for later rolls that I need done in secret.

I have also used the same mechanism as Justin has - a list of pregenerated rolls for those times when the player shouldn't know actual success or failure.

I also have a tendency to ask a player to roll and add skill bonus xx, and then I will add in all the pertinent modifiers myself and tell him the results. That means that even with relatively good rolls, the player won't be absolutely positive about the actual result since they have no idea of the modifiers involved.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Then during play, I will occasionally ask for a dice roll. Sometimes I will have a purpose in doing that, other times I won't.

Well I do that as well, but primarily I do that so making perception checks doesn't automatically mean there's anything to be perceived. That and because looking innocent and saying "Oh nothing" when they ask "What was that for?" makes me seem more smart aleck and evil, which is always helpful.

I like the idea of saving them for later though. Do you keep track of who rolled which number, or just pull this action's number from the top of the list of those you've saved?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Of who rolled which. Like I said, I usually use a summary sheet with all of the PCs on it, this let's me record the numbers rolled next to their summary (in the margins), and I can print out a new summary sheet each week.... 

[GrumpyOldFart]

Of who rolled which. Like I said, I usually use a summary sheet with all of the PCs on it, this let's me record the numbers rolled next to their summary (in the margins), and I can print out a new summary sheet each week.... 

Well, yes. But it occurred to me that if you have a problem with someone who is just consistently far too lucky with dice rolls, you can level the field a little by using your saved rolls just in the order you get them, without any reference to who rolled which number.
Please understand, this player isn't cheating, she's just that lucky with dice. She makes a point to let anyone who wants watch her roll, and has a long-standing reputation for being honest to a fault. And yes, sometimes I think we'd all benefit by inflicting on her *just a little* of other people's luck with dice.

[Dreven1]

I let players roll skill checks where their characters would "know" the result.  I (GM) rolls the skill checks that could be misleading or provide "false positive" information behind the screen.

E.g. Most perceptions like Detect traps = GM and Lie perception = GM but for skills that have a "instant" effect I usually USUALLY let the players roll for: Technical/Trade = Player, Lore?s = Player, Influence = Player (with the reactions rolled by the GM), Crafts = player.  It really comes down to the quesiton that you can ask yourself as the GM, would the player know instantly success/failure? or not... if so, player roll, if not, GM should roll.

Side Note: I actually like the Positive/Negative 50/50 split idea above (where the GM rolls a die and the players result is either true or flipped according to the GMs number.  I will ask my players if they would like to try that and to let them roll ALL skill checks.  They might like it!

[Dark Schneider]

The best solution is simply to have the GM make the rolls.

For all information rolls GM should make the rolls, that includes the spells too, GM can roll more than once for confuse players, so they will think, "is that a fumble or an open-ended roll?".

Randomly change the direction of Success and Failure.

As you should change it for every roll (if not players finally will know your new 'scale') that is more work for GM than making rolls by himself.

[RandalThor]

As far as "keeping your players guessing" my big dream right now is to run a game where the players have NO numbers in front of them, only descriptions. I have all the numbers, they make decisions on the situation and not the odds. (OK, OK to a degree everyone makes decisions on the odds that they calculate in their own heads, but we all are just guessing at them - even the parts of the odds that originate from us!)

It would be sweet.........if I had anyone here to play it with.........*sigh*  :'(

[Dreven1]

I find that if you take away ALL of the ability of the players to roll... they become very very bored.
Plot, storyline and direction are all great but take away the rolling randomness of dice and you are left with just reading a ?pick your own? direction fantasy book.
My players demand to roll some.  It?s the element of chance that is so addictive and why Vegas was born!  LOL!