Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP => Topic started by: Old Man on April 06, 2013, 02:55:41 PM
-
Hi all,
Have been running HARP (by email) for several months now and combats seem to be a long draw-out slugfest where you finally knock out the opponent by weight of critical damage ... Having run many years of Rolemaster, it seems (amazingly) slow in comparison. The Rolemaster crit tables generate lots of kills and the weapon tables generate lots of bulk damage. HARP seems to have neither.
We've only had one "death in X" critical on PC (from a Power Strike) but the PCs (most of whose attacks top off at medium - swords/maces/bows) have generated none (well maybe one from an over-loaded bolt). So aside from big weapons, Power Strikes, Sniping, Ambush and over-loading spells, have we missed ways of exceeding the Medium (100) max?
Inquiring minds ...
-
Exactly what we experienced during our first sessions and that was the reason we switched to Hack & Slash, which was absolute perfect!
-
Exactly what we experienced during our first sessions and that was the reason we switched to Hack & Slash, which was absolute perfect!
Hack & Slash?
-
Hack & Slash?
H&S is/was an alternative combat system for HARP which AFAIK is no longer available. We had similar issues with the HARP combat system but also did not like H&S. Therefore I created a RM-like combat system for HARP which was published on TGC here (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2012/nov/rolemastercombatforharp.html). Perhaps it is of some use for you.
-
Hack & Slash?
H&S is/was an alternative combat system for HARP which AFAIK is no longer available. We had similar issues with the HARP combat system but also did not like H&S. Therefore I created a RM-like combat system for HARP which was published on TGC here (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2012/nov/rolemastercombatforharp.html). Perhaps it is of some use for you.
If we end up starting a campaign or doing another adventure, I will give that a look. (Or we'll graft RM 2nd or MERP onto HARP :) )
-
My recent experience with HARP (with players totally new to the game) both differs and is in-line with the OP:
The first session, the PCs caught a bunch of goblins sleeping - literally. So, the "combat" wasn't long, drawn-out affairs. Dead goblins everywhere.
The next session saw them dealing with a ghoul, and the ghoul was totally aware of their presence. For the first few rounds, the fighter was forced to fight the creature single-handedly, because a doorway blocked the others from helping out. (I even ruled that the mage had to make a 'to hit' roll to touch the warrior in order to cast Haste on him, not an extremely difficult roll - but the fighter was swinging a broadsword around, one should be careful in such situations - though the mage managed to fail it anyway.)
The fighter, being a smart guy, used most of his OB to defend with (making the ghoul need a roll in the 80s in order to hit at all), so his attacks were appropriately limited in success. For a while it almost seemed like we were playing D&D, a few hits here, a couple there. But, then the ghoul got a lucky roll (96+67 = YIKES!) and the warrior was stunned, bleeding, and at negative mods to do anything. Of course, this made him fall back through the doorway, thusly exposing the ghoul to everyone else. Well, it still took them 4 or 5 more rounds (for a total of 9 to 10 rounds) to finish off the ghoul. A good fight for young adventurers.
Overall, I think the fight went well, and pretty realistic. One of my issues with RM (like Shadowrun) is that it is entirely more deadly than real life, like a lot. Yeah, one aspect of that is the all-or-nothing methodology used by both Players and GMs (through their NPCs - something I am going to try and get away from), but a big part of it was/is the deadliness of the crits. I do think there should be results that end in unconsciousness, so that players cannot "fight to the last" EVERY TIME. (Come on, people! I get it. CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL. But sometimes you don't have that. What is the difference between a spell taking control of your character or an extreme injury?!? I think none. Plus, there could be a cool, dramatic storyline with your character dealing with his bout of "cowardlyness".)
BTW: for the first session I used the crit tables right out from the main HARP book, but I switched to H&S for the second session - and I will be using H&S for the remainder of the campaign.
-
We tried HARP out, but it just wasn't for us. The limited spell pool which multiple professions learn from was a negative and the combat was a bit flat for us. In regards to the spell selection, having unique base spell lists for the various professions in RM is a huge pro over HARP imo. As for combat, we found that we were hitting attack 'caps' far too often, ending up with the same attack results over and over. That may be due to our playstyle, but even so that still means it's just not our system.
Now, the way you learn and can scale spells I really like, but it needs to be combined with the uniqueness of RMs lists.
-
We tried HARP out, but it just wasn't for us. The limited spell pool which multiple professions learn from was a negative and the combat was a bit flat for us. In regards to the spell selection, having unique base spell lists for the various professions in RM is a huge pro over HARP imo. As for combat, we found that we were hitting attack 'caps' far too often, ending up with the same attack results over and over. That may be due to our playstyle, but even so that still means it's just not our system.
Now, the way you learn and can scale spells I really like, but it needs to be combined with the uniqueness of RMs lists.
Cory, as an RM2 GM, those are roughly my main take-aways as well. I like the scaling options with spells, but would like more spell group/list options (covered by 2nd Ed CoM??). I'd be interested in checking out H&S (is that coming back with 2nd Ed HARP at some point?) but likely remain (for my personal campaign) with RM2.
-
I think that would be interesting a new hack & slash book for H.A.R.P/H.A.R.P Sci-Fi with new content for both.
-
At this time the focus for HARP is getting HARP Fantasy Core redone (layout wise) and have the errata that was identified implemented. We've got CoM, ML and Loot following close behind.
More products are in development. Hack and Slash was looked at as a possible ML add-in, but we've decided to hold off until we can come up with the necessary fixes for it. There have been plenty of threads around that discussed the issues with it so I won't spin off this one.
-
More products are in development. Hack and Slash was looked at as a possible ML add-in, but we've decided to hold off until we can come up with the necessary fixes for it. There have been plenty of threads around that discussed the issues with it so I won't spin off this one.
Can I get H&S somewhere? ???
-
More products are in development. Hack and Slash was looked at as a possible ML add-in, but we've decided to hold off until we can come up with the necessary fixes for it. There have been plenty of threads around that discussed the issues with it so I won't spin off this one.
Can I get H&S somewhere? ???
You can try this one: http://www.ebay.de/itm/ICE-HARP-BAZAAR-ANNUAL-3006-NEW-FANTASY-RPG-BOOK-/281054082568?pt=Games_US&hash=item417020f608 (http://www.ebay.de/itm/ICE-HARP-BAZAAR-ANNUAL-3006-NEW-FANTASY-RPG-BOOK-/281054082568?pt=Games_US&hash=item417020f608) as the Bazaar Annual contains H&S.
But except of eBay and other second Hand Shops I doubt that you could get it somehwere..
-
too much shipping-costs to Hamburg ;-) but thanks anyway
-
24€ for book+shipping? I think this is still quite fair, if you compare it to the Prices of other RPG books.
-
Overall, I think the fight went well, and pretty realistic. One of my issues with RM (like Shadowrun) is that it is entirely more deadly than real life, like a lot. Yeah, one aspect of that is the all-or-nothing methodology used by both Players and GMs (through their NPCs - something I am going to try and get away from), but a big part of it was/is the deadliness of the crits. I do think there should be results that end in unconsciousness, so that players cannot "fight to the last" EVERY TIME. (Come on, people! I get it. CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL. But sometimes you don't have that. What is the difference between a spell taking control of your character or an extreme injury?!? I think none. Plus, there could be a cool, dramatic storyline with your character dealing with his bout of "cowardlyness".)
BTW: for the first session I used the crit tables right out from the main HARP book, but I switched to H&S for the second session - and I will be using H&S for the remainder of the campaign.
Firstly, I am not so certain that real Life isn't that deadly. Ever Spent time working in an ER?
But, that being said, since most of my Players Tend to take Ambush and Sniping, one thing I have instituted in my Game is to "Stretch out" the Crit charts so that Instant Killing Blows are a bit less common. I do this By Dividing the Crit Die roll Result By 2. (Depending on what you are looking for in your game, you could divide by 3 or 4) Thus requiring a High ambush or a Open Ended Roll to get to the "Deadly" Crits. To help Counter Balance this, I also Allow the Number of Ranks in your weapon skill To modify the Crit Die roll.
AS For Knocking Some one Unconscious. I have 2 methods one could go about this.
#1
Have a Max Stun point equal to 1/10th a Characters Constitution score. If you "accumulate" enough stun rounds to equal that number, you out.
#2
Stun Rounds Force an RR check. with the Total Number of Stun rounds accumulated = the attacker level. If you fail the RR check, your out for a Number of rounds equal to the failure.
-
Firstly, I am not so certain that real Life isn't that deadly. Ever Spent time working in an ER?
No, but I have done a little digging, and the vast majority of successful attacks don't end in death - even with firearms. The number of those that do in RM (& Shadowrun - even more so in SR) are significantly higher. Not sure I like the dividing the crit roll, I think my easiest fix would be to grant everything a basic bonus to DB (around 30 or so), but altering the crit roll is something to look into.
AS For Knocking Some one Unconscious. I have 2 methods one could go about this.
#1
Have a Max Stun point equal to 1/10th a Characters Constitution score. If you "accumulate" enough stun rounds to equal that number, you out.
#2
Stun Rounds Force an RR check. with the Total Number of Stun rounds accumulated = the attacker level. If you fail the RR check, your out for a Number of rounds equal to the failure.
Both of these are interesting options (I have thought of the first one before, though I think I was going with the attribute modifier as the # of stun rounds, that allows racial mods to come into play.) Option "b" could be done by averaging the character's level and Con or SD stat bonus.
Some cool things to work on here. Thanks.
-
2nd Ed RM had an overstun rule - let me dig a sec ... Option 15 in Classic Arms Law ... If Stun > 5 + HP/10, PC unconscious until Stun <= 5 + HP/10.
-
The big problem with all of these methods (including the ones I put together) is that the number of stun rounds required is way higher than any that will be acquired through a hit. Even the electric crit table, the one with the most stuns, only goes to 8 before killing the target. That means that it always takes 2+ hits to get into the possible unconscious scenario, and with the way stuns work, the next hit is much more likely* to kill the target than anything else. I think it is that interaction of the stuns and attacks that causes the most killing, and other than lessening the bonus for stun, I don't know what to do here.
*An attacker will usually go all-out, so their OB would be higher, and you combine that with the lowered defense of the target, and you get much more deadly attacks - understandably.
-
Another way to o with Option 2, if you don't think there are enough tun rounds available in one attack crit, is to have each Stun round compound on the next... So 1 round of stun is equal to attacker level 1, 2 rounds of stun is attacker level 3 (1+2=3), 3 rounds of stun is attacker level 6 then 10 then 15 and so forth.
or something to that effect.
Though if you watch Boxing, Most situations Don't end up in a 1 punch Knock out. Usually fights that end in a KO are usually the accumulation of Injuries, exhaustion and a Stunning hit. So KO isn't as common as all that either... movies tend to make it look like it is an easy thing to do.... which it isn't.
though in RM2/C there is a Subdual skill for doing just that with an attack.
-
While I agree that the combat results are not necessarily Real Life, this is HARP - High Adventure Role Playing, and we're looking for more of the cinematic result rather than the "real life" result.
That being said, I am looking at some other combat options and playtesting them. They would improve an individual's initial resistance to Stun, but with each stun critical received the target is weakened until the individual succumbs to the stun... and we all know what is likely to happen next.
-
Though if you watch Boxing, Most situations Don't end up in a 1 punch Knock out. Usually fights that end in a KO are usually the accumulation of Injuries, exhaustion and a Stunning hit. So KO isn't as common as all that either...
I would say that most of the hits in boxing - and other forms of sport-combat - do not result in a single round of stun, otherwise many more of the fights would over much faster than they are.
movies tend to make it look like it is an easy thing to do.... which it isn't.
Although, combining this comment with the following...
While I agree that the combat results are not necessarily Real Life, this is HARP - High Adventure Role Playing, and we're looking for more of the cinematic result rather than the "real life" result.
And what I am trying to do is not have it be quite so deadly, a more High-Fantasy concept, no?
That being said, I am looking at some other combat options and playtesting them. They would improve an individual's initial resistance to Stun, but with each stun critical received the target is weakened until the individual succumbs to the stun... and we all know what is likely to happen next.
I am very interested in what you have done here. [Steal, steal.]
-
Boxing is wearing padded gloves to prevent a stun with nearly every blow. Watch MMA and see what happens when they land a solid blow - almost every time it's a definite stun result. Now imagine it with a club, mace, or maul.
Cinematic combat needs to be impactful with sudden results, but not necessarily deadly. The # of actual death blow results on the crit charts are not that many... most of the time it requires a coup de grace to finish off the foe entirely - so when it happens to the player characters do you kill them? No, you have the overconfident villain capture them and put them in a sure death situation and leave them to die... and they escape and take out the villain.
As for the new ideas and playtesting.... I'll be happy to put you on my playtest list for once I'm ready to put it to some outside testing.
-
Consider me signed-up. :)
Boxing is wearing padded gloves to prevent a stun with nearly every blow. Watch MMA and see what happens when they land a solid blow - almost every time it's a definite stun result. Now imagine it with a club, mace, or maul.
I thought about that, and I think it boils down to the nature of the beast for gaming: the players are nice and safe sitting at the table (or wherever) while the characters are in the mix, so of course the player is able to act "perfectly" when things happen in combat. Example: In a real fight, the fighter might not immediately recognize the fact that their opponent is dazed, and give them an opportunity to recover, but in the game, with crits being read and all that, the players can immediately take advantage of the situation.
Of course, a fix for that is to have Combat Perception rolls, but that can get cumbersome. Also, I can always just make a judgment call as to whether they do or don't notice it in the heat of the battle. But certain players take issue with "GM fiat" and might raise a ruckus. So, while I am going to continue to play unabated (of course) I will be looking into some options on how to deal with this situation and more than happy to field some suggestions by others.
-
We had the player knowledge vs 'in game' knowledge discussion way way back (i.e. how would you know how long someone is stunned for for example). Basically it just came down to ease and time of play. Time-wise, and therefore fun-wise for us, it's far easier to split up responsibilities.
This is part of where our philosophy on character folders cutting down on combat round time comes in. Each player is responsible for having all charts relating to their character in that folder. Attack charts, Critical charts, Spell Lists known, etc. You look up your own attacks, crits, track your own bleeding, durations, and so on.
But then, my GM style will have an impact too. Players will find I play the bad guys and NPC's much as I would any player character. The bad guys, if they are combat oriented, probably have Stunned Maneuvering too.
-
If an individual is stunned it is pretty apparent - again I point to MMA fighting. When someone lands that blow to the head they immediately charge in because they know their opponent is stunned. But I will state that once the guy was only minimally stunned despite being hit by a major blow, and when the guy charged in he was caught with a knee to the face that knocked him out cold so feint's of this nature are definitely possible.
Combat Awareness will certainly allow someone to pause a moment to judge this better.
Another option, which I have used but did not enjoy, was having the GM handle all of the crits. Players simply roll and then I did all the calculating and described the results. A stumble backwards may or may not indicate stunned. If the player assumed he stunned him and he didn't, well that can lead to charging in without your defenses up which is not a good idea. This method did work well in that I could cater the result description exactly to the action instead of reading a critical description that was not applicable.
-
Please remember that an MMA fight is a one-on-one in a well-lit, open and flat arena, which is a far-cry from half-a-dozen adventurers taking on an equal or greater number of opponents in a darkened (usually) location with all manner of brick-a-brak cluttering the area. That makes keeping track of things a bit more difficult. Add in the fact that with a wink, a nod and a word (all things that are not usually considered dangerous) a spell could be being cast, and you get a seriously confusing situation, in which it is easy to miss something.
Of course, as an individual gets more experienced in such situations they get better at "reading" them, so mistakes are less common - the higher level/more skilled character vs. the lower level/less skilled character idea of the game. But, no matter what, no one is perfect so mistakes happen. And, as you mentioned, you always have to look out for the fakers.
The problem I have is that due to the nature of the game (player sitting comfortably, etc...) even 1st level characters tend to know all and be able to react to all near perfectly. I would just like a little more "fog of war" I guess, but I don't know how to go about it without being an ALL CONTROLLING GM. You know what I mean?
-
I understand completely.... actually that's addressed in some other stuff I'm playing with. Is a great roll really good enough? Only the GM knows.
-
To simulate the "fog of war", I often don't provide the players with all the information unless the character rolls high enough on his combat awareness roll. Players do realize things are missing, especially when I remove a creature from the table because the characters are unaware of the location where it has moved.
That's really when they start getting scared. :)
-
Sometimes this just takes the right players, Or training/Retraining the players to play differently.
Sometimes this takes a Carrot. In another Game system I run, They have a Game mechanic Called Honor. It can be used much like Fate points are In RM, to save your character when catastrophe strikes the dice. But the name is misleading.
Honor in this game is more like Dharma or Karma. The Players can earn or Lose points of Honor each level Based on 4 categories Judged by the GM.
#1 Playing your Class. This isn't necessarily Playing the Stereotype of your class (i.e. All fighters must be brutes wielding swords and charging in to beat down the enemy) But if your a Fighter and you cut and Run leaving the Mage and the Thief to Fight off the baddies every time a Combat does ensue, well maybe you should have chosen another Professions.
The Way I personally Judge this is to Talk to the player about their character concept when they are creating the character so I have an Idea what "they" intend their character to be. Then I judge based on whether they live up to their words.
#2 Play your alignment: I realize that RM was never a true alignment based system, mostly only differentiating Good and Evil, but the system this Idea comes from is a classic AD&D style game and does you the Iconic Alignment system that is Socially and Politically motivated, not necessarily Personality centric. It has it place in the Role play aspect of the game, and the players are judged based on how they live up to their chosen Alignment.
#3 Roleplaying: This one is, I think, the most important of the 4 categories. Does the player Metagame? Does he Play his characters Quirks and Flaws or try to ignore them unless the GM brings them up? Does he take advantage of information his character shouldn't have? Does he do things that are disadvantageous to himself because it would be in Character to do so? Does he Help Moderate the rules even when it is to his disadvantage to do so?
#4 is Personal Honor: This one is a bit more difficult than the others as it is more of a In Game effect. This is More character directed. And it isn't the idea of Chivalry and Honor... it is the "Respect" issue. Accomplishments that the people Hear about will increase a Characters Honor, Things they fail at or slander t their names can bring it down. Now an evil Guy may do bad things, But he would still Earn honor cause that is the thing he is KNOWN for, and may be respected/feared for such. But if some one started talking about how Gimili liked to dress up in a tut-too and dance Ballarina, And it wasn't challenged or dis-proven, or it was heard that when the Cave Troll Came out, Gimili hid in the corner and wept with fear, it would bring his honor down. Or if some guy in the bar called him Orc dung, and he didn't stand up to the guy for it, he might lose honor.... it's a GM call situation.
All of these things can raise or lower a character honor. That honor can give him in game bonuses.
Without spending any Honor, if he is in what is Called the Dishonor window, he would gain a penalty to all actions.
If in low honor he has no bonuses and no penalties.
If In average honor level he gains a bonus to 1 roll per session.
If in great honor level he gets a bonus to 1 roll per session and 1 mulligan per session. if he is in Legendary honor, he gets the last two bonuses and he gets a GM forced Mulligan per session. (he can make the GM re-roll 1 roll)
The Player Can CHOOSE to spend his Honor to Bump a Die roll or to Buy a Mulligan... but this also Lowers ones Level as you are "Cheating fate".
this is the carrot ass Players want to earn that Honor and gain those bonuses, or even just have enough points to save the butt from the fire if needed.
I currently have a Great bunch of Players who have learned that the carrot is just a side benefit and now have learned over the years that the game is So much more fun when we all play by the rules and play the characters as if they weren't Omnipotent and All knowing.
-
Oh and I am using this Honor system in my RM game rather than Fate points.
-
I use the Fate points, but I also have Glory, Corruption and Status. Each can be used to provide bonuses or penalties. Status tends to change very little. Glory is most similar to the honor, although it has other uses. Corruption represents how evil a character is.
-
I understand completely.... actually that's addressed in some other stuff I'm playing with.
Oooh, do tell - I promise to keep it secret. 8)
To simulate the "fog of war", I often don't provide the players with all the information unless the character rolls high enough on his combat awareness roll. Players do realize things are missing, especially when I remove a creature from the table because the characters are unaware of the location where it has moved.
You know? I keep forgetting that I already am using Combat Perception for Initiative, I can just use the same roll to determine what they notice. It sort of explains why they have a better initiative: they know more.
I use the Fate points, but I also have Glory, Corruption and Status. Each can be used to provide bonuses or penalties. Status tends to change very little. Glory is most similar to the honor, although it has other uses. Corruption represents how evil a character is.
I think I will adopt something like this, more to keep it straight for me, so that I can predict PC actions and plans better. (Which is mainly to limit the amount of prep-work...)
Warl: The Honor System sounds intriguing, I will have to do some thinking about that - and talk to the players - and see if it might fit the game. I just don't know if I want another thing to keep track of, though.
-
I remember I tried to bring in GM rolling for non-combat situations but was voted against and never got to try it out. The idea was the player with the highest skill (perception, tracking, herb gathering whatever) would tell the GM the bonus and the GM would roll. The GM would then descibe what happened to the player based on the effect of the roll. The idea was that the PC's would rely totally on the GM's description of the event and wouldn't know if they did well, allright or badly (a lot like real life).
Instead we ended up with a system where all players rolled and added their skill and basically the best result was used. I wasn't a fan of this because you ended up with the party possibly following the PC with the least skill but the best roll while the most skillful PC may be ignored because of a bad roll.
-
Agreed - and if you ended up with everyone rolling poorly and the room description is generic and nothing is found they tend to move very cautiously - but if everyone rolls well and gets the same description they race through the room assuming nothing is going to happen.
If the GM rolls it you focus more on the game and the description and less on the roll.
-
My players don't like the idea of the GM rolling. I keep a certain amount of uncertainty, they don't know of any penalties or modifiers that are applied to the roll. A good roll means nothing because a high penalty may still make it poor.
My players have been burned by assumptions that they got a good roll and saw everything. Now they always have doubts.
In any case, the story needs rules over the rolls. If they need to see something for the story to move forward, they see it, no matter what they roll. If they need to miss something, they'll miss it the same way.
-
I remember I tried to bring in GM rolling for non-combat situations but was voted against and never got to try it out. The idea was the player with the highest skill (perception, tracking, herb gathering whatever) would tell the GM the bonus and the GM would roll. The GM would then descibe what happened to the player based on the effect of the roll. The idea was that the PC's would rely totally on the GM's description of the event and wouldn't know if they did well, allright or badly (a lot like real life).
Instead we ended up with a system where all players rolled and added their skill and basically the best result was used. I wasn't a fan of this because you ended up with the party possibly following the PC with the least skill but the best roll while the most skillful PC may be ignored because of a bad roll.
In your proposal, the second-best character never uses their skill at all, and never notices anything. That seems odd.
There is also a substantially higher chance of success somewhere in the party if multiple characters get to roll. Giving up those rolls drops the chances a lot.
-
Group activities always threw me for a loop. Usually I either used the group average of the skill (for when it matter that all were involved - Stalking) or the group highest (for spotting type rolls). Anyone have a preferred method?
-
It depends on how you view fate (roll of the dice)...
Does each individual have a separate fate controlling them, or is it a group fate? And how far do you take the concept of individual fate impacting the results?
For my games skills like perception are individually rolled. I'd prefer to have GM roll it, but have in the past let players roll - and since I don't predetermine what each roll will yield, I can always incorporate a critical clue in, even if the roll is horrible.
-
My players don't like the idea of the GM rolling. I keep a certain amount of uncertainty, they don't know of any penalties or modifiers that are applied to the roll. A good roll means nothing because a high penalty may still make it poor.
My players have been burned by assumptions that they got a good roll and saw everything. Now they always have doubts.
My method is to most often not tell them what they're rolling for, or even if the roll I'm asking for actually means anything at all. Pick a person, tell them, "Gimme a percentile, please." They roll it, you say "Hmph" or snort or laugh or say "Oh hell" or whatever. You may or may not roll one or more percentiles of your own, applying "flavor" as necessary (flavor being facial expressions, remarks, etc. for the purpose of tweaking the party's attitude). You look at your notes and/or their character sheet and tell them the result.
They're still guessing because you've told them up front that some rolls are meaningless, and you don't tell them which ones are which. Most times they can infer from context, but only after you've told them the results. Sometimes they can't, even in hindsight.
Spellcasting, attacks... those things are gonna be pretty obvious what's being rolled for and by whom. Everything else.... not necessarily.
-
We don't tend to have the issue, but a good way to keep the players from knowing they've missed something because everyone rolled low is to just randomly have everyone roll the dice and not tell them why. I'll do it once in a while just for the hell of it. Once in a while ask what someones skill in something specific is that is totally unrelated. Once they get used to the fact that you do this they won't freak out when someone doesn't find anything. At times you may only have one person who's roll you care about, but the others don't know that.
For example, let's say someone is playing a Dwarf and only a Dwarf would realize something because they're in a cave... everyone rolls, but only the Dwarf's roll means anything. Now, you do need the players skill totals to be able to pull this off, but what I'll do is just have a list of the skills that this would come up for... mostly awareness type skills. Often times the awareness skill draws their attention to something, then you have them roll a related skill. Maybe a thiefly character knows art history and notices (due to awareness - which you make everyone roll but only that character would be successful at) that there is a famous painting on a wall. They would then use their knowledge (skill) about art to determine if it was a forgery or something.
-
Group activities always threw me for a loop. Usually I either used the group average of the skill (for when it matter that all were involved - Stalking) or the group highest (for spotting type rolls). Anyone have a preferred method?
My method:
For things like Perception, I will have the individual with the best skill - or the best opportunity/reason* - to make the skill check, though sometimes with a minor bonus granted by the presence and assistance of the other PCs. (Like +5/per individual.) This reflects the fact that if the person with the best senses/perception doesn't notice, then those of poorer ability surely won't. It also does away with what jdale mentioned: the odds. If you have 5 different rolls occurring, then it is much more likely that one will roll high and succeed. While that is not a game-breaker, it surely doesn't encourage a player to sink a lot of points into a skill like that, because they can just rely upon the odds that one of them will roll well.
*Like even though the dwarf's perception skill is not the highest, because of being a dwarf he will be the one with the best chance of noticing unusual aspects of a natural stone wall. Or a ranger would have the best ability to determine if the sounds of the forest are normal or not.
For skills like stalking, I go with the worse individual in the group; there is a reason scouts ranged out away from the main body of the army.
Now, while they sound like good ideas, all the extra rolls that don't actually mean anything and the acting like, "Oooh, that's interesting" when there is really nothing going, all that does is put extra work on for the GM, when they actually can remember to do so at all. I have come to the conclusion that you just have to rely upon the players ability to separate player and character knowledge (or supposition), because all of that extra "I'm gonna fool ya" stuff is just extra baggage that is not necessary, and just cuts into the already limited playtime. Now, I would love to be able to shock/surprise the players a couple of times a session, but I just got to understand that that is not going to happen - unless what I have "behind the next door" is completely different from what they expected.
-
I keep access to all my players character sheets on my computer, doesn't take long to reference what I need, Depending on whether I want the players to know a Check is being made or not I will have them roll or I will roll. Though sometimes I will have them roll for no reason.
It Is important for me to have everyone roll, Not just the highest, because even the rube with very little "perception" Might get lucky and succeed or see something others don't.
-
I keep access to all my players character sheets on my computer, doesn't take long to reference what I need, Depending on whether I want the players to know a Check is being made or not I will have them roll or I will roll. Though sometimes I will have them roll for no reason.
It Is important for me to have everyone roll, Not just the highest, because even the rube with very little "perception" Might get lucky and succeed or see something others don't.
I agree with having everyone roll. I don't generally have my players roll for no reason, but I do have them roll for very very trivial reasons, like noticing a spot of rust on their armor. I also have them roll for things that have absolutely nothing to do with the characters also. So they roll and just "oh, ok". Something happened, they just don't know what. ;)
-
Exactly. The rolls aren't necessarily meaningless per se, they're just meaningless to them. I'm one of those "build the world as you go" types, at least to some extent. I mean yes, I'll likely have a map, I'll know what the country is like, I'll know why they're there, I'll know what season of the year it is, etc... but there are all kinds of specific little details that get made up and filled in as you go along. If you roll random for those, you'll always need more die rolls. Let the players make them, don't tell them what they're rolling for.
A party of 6 is riding through the woods. The GM has all of them roll "a percentile." Half a dozen d100s give the GM the particulars on the small village they have just come upon.
A PC comes to a small stream, fills his waterskin, allows his horse to drink, looks around.... rolls Perception, fails it miserably. Suddenly the GM includes a fossilized dinosaur footprint on the stream bank that wasn't there before. The PC spends the rest of the day on the lookout for imaginary wyverns.
The height and weight, eye and hair color of the traveling merchant you pass on the road, the reliability of the rock upon which "the clifftop road" you are currently traveling is built, the flood stage of the river at the bottom... little details are what gives the setting depth and make it feel real. "I can't think of all those little details, I'll spend 300 hours doing prep for each 6 hours playing the game!" Of course you can't, that's the point. Let the ongoing chaos of players' dice rolls furnish the details of the scenery as you go. By getting the players to roll them without knowing what they are rolling for (more than in very general terms), most of the die rolls they make become "chaff" for tactical purposes.
"Okay what was that series of rolls you had us make a while back?"
"That was the basics of that dwarf merchant you came across right after."
"Is that all? I had a 95 in those rolls!"
"Yeah I know, that's why you met a dwarf who was only 3 inches shorter than you."
-
GOF, that all sounds great - for those who want to do that - but it presupposes a system in place to handle that method of creation. I don't know of that system. Not that I don't do that a little bit anyway... ;D - just making it up on the fly.
-
Not that I don't do that a little bit anyway... ;D - just making it up on the fly.
Exactly. The only "system in place" it presupposes (and requires) is the GM's ability to frame questions about the setting in terms of "is/is not" to as great a degree as he can. A d100 not only gives him the "is/is not" he wants, it gives him a broad range of "meh, sort of" to let his imagination work on. It also allows him to conceal what he's doing just by how he frames his questions. If he's asking himself "how solid is the cliff under the party," a 97 is good, but if he asks himself "how badly eroded is the cliff under the party"... not so much.
-
If he's asking himself "how solid is the cliff under the party," a 97 is good, but if he asks himself "how badly eroded is the cliff under the party"... not so much.
Yeah, deciding on the question prior to them rolling is very key, and something I occasionally forget. :bang: