Rolling the Dice (Was: Re: T'orites and armor)

["Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>]

There are some skills that the GM rolls and not the player. Find Traps
is one of these. The GM makes the roll because otherwise the player is
granted too much information. In a succeed/fail scenario a player can
roll the dice... but if there are more options? How about:

For example, lets assume that There _ARE_ traps. The player rolls his
'find traps' skill and succeed. Obviously the player finds the traps
right? But what if he fails? Obviously he doesn't find them but he also
knows that he failed his check and will just either try it again or ask
someone else to also check for traps. If the GM rolls the dice and
simply says 'you didn't find any traps' the player isn't sure which way
it went. The player isn't sure if there aren't any traps or he just
didn't find any. This is in keeping with reality. You can never be 100%
certain, you can only be sure of what you saw. A failed roll might turn
up something that looks like a trap but a successful roll would have
dismissed it as not a real trap.

That said... greg wasn't suggesting telling the player how many dice to
roll or using the rather lame successive dice thing. He was saying that
they don't know how many dice to roll until they try.

Example: the player goes for the immobilize. He rolls 2d6 and annonces a
successful immobilize. The GM says, sorry he doesn't go down. The player
at that point knows he has to roll more dice.

The same thing could apply to the above detect traps example. It would
seem that there are always two ways to do it:

1. the player rolls and the GM can say that even a success is a failure
because they didn't roll enough dice. The player knows that either it
can't be done or its going to require more dice.

2. the GM rolls the number of dice the player requests and then
announces success or failure and lets the player decide what happened.

I'm more for #1 ... even in the detect traps scenario. Even if there are
no traps the GM might decide that it would take a 3d6 check to determine
that fact because the room is filled with smoke. So when the player
rolls 2d6 and is successful the GM can always say: "you detect no
traps". A good player should recognize that some situations require more
dice and not go with the minimum roll.

Blah. Had my wheaties this morning :) (pay no attention to the inherent
self contradictions in this message... they aren't there... your getting
sleepy... Terrence and Phillip rule...)

-Steve

> no, the player made an incorrect assumption and
> jumped the gun.  Wait to find out how many dice
> it'll be, then roll.
>
> Wright
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Luers" <orc_food@yahoo.com>
> To: "Greg Mowczko" <mooch@cioe.com>
> Cc: <gmlist@cioe.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: T'orites and armor
>
>
> >
> >   Greg .. You don't tell the player how many die they
> > need to roll!!! What do the poor persons do, roll one
> > at a time to see how many they get? I have been know
> > to do that in the past but almost never for skills.
> >
> >   Now to you srewing the person with the case cost 400
> > skill. The skill clearly states 2d6 for unarmed
> > tergets.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Greg Mowczko <mooch@cioe.com> wrote:
> > > As a GM I've had people try to immobilize someone
> > > who wasn't normal and ran
> > > it as following:
> > >
> > > Player: Is he wearing armor?
> > > Me: None you can see
> > > Player: I immobilize him ( 2d6 roll ) Made it.
> > > Me: Results, he is still standing
> > > Player: What I made my check
> > > Me: Correction you would have made your check if it
> > > took 2d6 but that was
> > > a 3d6 check since you didn't know he is missing the
> > > kidney you tried
> > > to hit ( or something like that )
> > > Player: F*ck
> > > Me: Does a 24 hit? How about a 25 and an 18? Take 26
> > > points
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm for extra dice to the check with possibilities
> > > of the player not knowing
> > > they need to roll more dice to succede until they
> > > try. Just like detect traps
> > > is supposed to be done by the GM. You don't know if
> > > you failed or not you just
> > > know you didn't find a thing ( or you waste time
> > > unarming a piece of hair that
> > > go stuck in the lock that you thought was a trap )
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > > From steve@virtual-voodoo.com  Tue Mar  7 14:10:32
> > > 2000
> > > > From: "Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
> > > > To: "John  Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>
> > > > Cc: "John  Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>,
> > > <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: T'orites and armor
> > > > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:10:01 -0500
> > > >
> > > > Clothing and Robes are different. Clothing does
> > > not provide any DV.
> > > > Standard everyday attire or business clothing
> > > gives you 0 CDV. Hence you
> > > > can immobilize most people with no extra effort.
> > > So... you don't have to
> > > > be naked to get zero CDV... you just can't be
> > > wearing anything armored
> > > > or padded. Normal clothing also does not affect
> > > your movement rate (GM
> > > > adjudication for those tight leather pants you
> > > like to wear).
> > > >
> > > > I'm still pondering your extra difficulty check...
> > > are you suggesting
> > > > something along the way of an extra die per CDV?
> > > So 3d6 for robes, 6d6
> > > > for plate?
> > > >
> > > > -Steve
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "John Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>
> > > > To: "Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
> > > > Cc: "John Hogg" <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>;
> > > <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 1:53 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: T'orites and armor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Steven E. Ames wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doesn't robes protect against immobilize as
> > > well? Twas my
> > > > understanding
> > > > > > that anything that provide at least 1 point of
> > > 'CDV' could get you
> > > > > > around an immobilize. Plus monks wear robes :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kinda takes the wind out of that 400 ep skill if
> > > you go that way,
> > > > though
> > > > > ... not many folks outside of scrogg worshipers
> > > and new party members
> > > > > dashing ahead before the fire mage's spells go
> > > off enter combat naked.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps instead of a 2d6 flat roll, increase the
> > > difficulty of the
> > > > skill
> > > > > check based on how the target's armored (GM's
> > > call)
> > > > >
> > > > > Something like 2d6 for naked and clothing and on
> > > up for different
> > > > armors,
> > > > > creature armor ability, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as robes stopping an immobilize, I
> > > distinctly remember an
> > > > > unfortunate 1-hop line drive when I was in
> > > shallow left field in
> > > > little
> > > > > league that my uniform pants indeed did NOT stop
> > > before dropping me to
> > > > the
> > > > > ground quite effectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Needless to say, that area got armored right
> > > quick.
> > > > >
> > > > > Though I do see your argument in regard to
> > > taking the armor value and
> > > > > movement costs associated with clothing and
> > > considering it armor ...
> > > > > within the system it seems accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>