Using skills question

[OverDrunk]

Lets say that the players meet a woman, who really is a demon in disguise. They can notice that with a successful roll of vision, observation or other appropriate skill.
How can they know to ask for the roll? Should the GM just roll for them in secret without them even asking? Should the GM ask for a vision roll: would be weird to say "you notice nothing out of the ordinary" on a fail (the players would be really cautious about the npc).

[lachimba]

Classic Answer:


You roll the dice for them and you have a Gm Control sheet with the appropriate stats on it so you don't need to check their sheets.



Some other ideas:

You can make 'fake rolls' every so often during the game so the players don't know for sure whether they are missing info.

You could just get the players to roll the dice 'if they like rolling' and not tell them what for. Once again if every so often they roll 'fake rolls' this shouldnt matter. Though they might see obvious cri failfures or success.


You do it at the same time as reaction rolls... which you roll anway and aren't the same as skill rolls... so obvious highs and lows dont necessarily tip the players off.

[doulos05]

The GM could also 'pre-roll' a list of 100 or so 3d6 rolls. Using the internet, it's trivial to get such a list. Then, as needed, take the top roll and cross it off.

EDIT: If the players are bothered by not getting to roll the dice, ask each player to bring a list of 20 or so rolls. Then take said lists, put them together (in a random order, so maybe Player 1s rolls get used first, followed by player 5, then player 3, 2, and 4 like so) And take the top roll and cross it off when needed.

[Celjabba]

Instead of "you notice nothing out of the ordinary", give them a trivial data to anyone who succeed with a +4 bonus. (You recognize her, she is wearing a knife, she belong to that ethnic group, she is obviously rich/poor/famished/overworked/arrogant/..., ... ). Do that for most NPC they meet, and it will dilute some of the suspicion.

Besides rolling yourself and asking for fake rolls from time to time, you can also disguise the roll.

Ask the PC another roll, and use the dice result for the perception check.
In the example given, connoisseur(fashion), currents events, area knowledge, sex-appeal, streetwise, ... Or as Lachimba said, reaction roll.

Or describe several scenery items at the same time and ask for the per roll.
"The bartender woman meet you with a smile. On the left behind the bar, you notice a door that was not visible from the room. Behind you, 2 people start arguing loudly. make a per check". Hopefully, if the player all fails, they will wonder what -other- detail they missed.

Hope this help

Celjabba

[OverDrunk]

Thank you all! Didn't expect such indeph, interesting advice.

[Rupert]

I suggest asking for Perception checks on any encounter that's of any import at all (i.e. any that you roleplay out). Be sure to give out extra details to those who make them. Thus your players will come to expect it as part of the normal flow of the game and not think it unusual when you ask for a roll for this particular encounter.

[gilbertocarlos]

I tell another thing to disquise, for example:

You met a woman in black, she is tall and skinny. The room is brown, about 100ft², roll perception.

That way, they would think it's because of the room.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I suggest asking for Perception checks on any encounter that's of any import at all (i.e. any that you roleplay out). Be sure to give out extra details to those who make them. Thus your players will come to expect it as part of the normal flow of the game and not think it unusual when you ask for a roll for this particular encounter.

This is an important thing I also do. I ask for Perception checks all the time, not just when there is a demon in disguise. And I also tell them that they are free to tell me they want to make Perception checks without me asking for them. The goal is to get them to internalize proactivity. Another goal is to normalize die rolling so it becomes just a part of life rather than automatically a sign of something bad.

Additionally, when I do perception checks (and the like) I also do a few other things that I think have worked out very well.

1) I don't tell them the numerical values of modifiers. I don't tell them I'm giving them a +4 for routine, or that there is a -6 because this person is actually a demon, etc. I may give some indications through descriptions, "The lock you want to pick looks old and simple and probably easy to pick" or "Carlo is well known as a top poker player, telling if he's lying will probably be very difficult," but I don't give actual numbers. Why? Two reasons, first I don't want them to be too secure or insecure going into any roll and I want to encourage in-character thinking, and secondly, for things like Perceptions checks, etc, I want to obscure success and failure. So if they roll a 12 on a 10 perception check, they might have succeeded. I find it reduces the instances of players being overly suspicious.

2) I never say: "You see nothing." I always give some answer as to what they perceive. Something like:

Crit Fail: Some dangerously false info...mixed in with some unimportant true info.
Fail: True info that is unimportant and/or obvious.
Success: True into that is important and/or not obvious.
Crit Success: Something really critically important or really not obvious info.

3) Perception checks, when I call for them, I often make more general to assess the scene rather than exclusively just one person. If they want to focus on one person they can do that by asking...but unless it is an Observation roll, the person they are looking at will know that they are being checked out.

3) Lastly, I skew the information I give to the PCs based on who the PC is. In order to do this best, a) the PCs need to be well thought out and three dimensional and b) as a GM, I need to be very familiar with each PC. So all 4 PC could make a Perception Roll against the Bar Maid, and they could all succeed by 2, and I'd give all of them slightly different information. It helps make each PC not only feel special, but be special. And it helps encourage the development of each PC.

So here is an example of how I do this in practice:

Campaign Background: The PCs are spies for Cosimo DeMedici in a Magical Renaissance Florence campaign.
PC1: Barbara, daughter of a doctor. Poisoner, Mage, and full of Savoir-Faire.
PC2: Matteo, Obsessed by revenge. Expert in hand-to-hand combat. Socially oblivious. Alchemist.
PC3: Wolfgang. Infamous Thief and also City Watchman. Knows the world of Streets.
PC4: Rafael. Mage. Scholar. Obsessed with book learning and education.

So if this group were at the tavern and came upon the Bar Maid who is actually secretly a demon. I'd do something like this:

GM: The tavern is perhaps a quarter full. There is an older, very thin man behind the bar and two bar maids. Both the bar maids are young. One, looks a bit more tired than the other, though both are attractive. The one who is less tired looking approaches your table. She is quite beautiful. She has shoulder length blonde hair and blue eyes. She smiles as she approaches you table and says, "May I help you all?" Perception checks.

Wolfgang: I make it.
GM: By how much?
Wolfgang: By 3.
GM: *Scribble something down* I see. Matteo?
Matteo: I fail by 1.
Barbara: Success by 9.
Rafael: Critical Failure.

GM: Okay, Rafael: There seems to be something off inside the tavern. You that tingle you sometimes get when around magical energy or items. It seems to be coming the sinister thin man behind the bar. You are pretty certain this man is a Mage...and perhaps a very powerful one.
Matteo: Your eyes sweep over everyone in tavern. Out of everyone in the bar, there only three people who seem like they could be physically dangerous in a fight. Those are three men in the back seem to be travellers. They all have rapiers. But most importantly, no one in the tavern is wearing the livery of the hated Busoni family...no one except one of the travellers!
Wolfgang: The tavern is a bit run down and doesn't have a lot of customers. This isn't the sort of place you'd ever stake out to rob, though it might be a good place to hide out if you were on the run. What does strike you as odd is that a place that doesn't do much business would have two barmaids. That wouldn't be cost effective, and it strikes you as suspicious.
Barabara: As the attractive barmaid approaches your table and addresses you all, you feel immediately like something is off. Her language and manners are too proper for a bar maid. It is as if she were someone of much higher status slumming. But then you notice her clothes...they are not at all right. You don't recognize the construction techniques...and as a matter of fact, she is wearing make up that...also seems strange to you somehow. Your overall impression is that this is a woman in disguise...but the disguise really rubs you the wrong way. Something is wrong about the whole situation...and you think you notice a look of fear in the eyes of the thin man behind the bar...and now that you look more closely, the other bar maid is thin and tired looking as well. Actually, the only person in the bar who doesn't seem tired and low energy is the bar maid right in your face smiling at you with teeth that look a little too sharp.

[Kromm]

As the GM, I follow the Basic Set on this: If a PC's roll would reveal information, then I make it in secret. In my campaign, that's how I handle all cases of Detect Lies vs. Fast-Talk, Perception vs. Disguise, etc. If the players have suspicions and want to roll to test them, that's certainly fine . . . but I always let them think that it's a Contest of some kind, and they only get to see their rolls. If they learn nothing, they don't get to know whether I rolled better, they failed due to a hidden penalty, or I rolled as a decoy and there was nothing to notice. Which is to say, having a capability on your character sheet doesn't mean you'll be the one rolling for it; most information-gathering and truth-finding traits are "passives" for the GM to use on your behalf.

See also When the GM Rolls (p. B344).

[Gigermann]

I've gotten in the habit of using pre-rolls from the players—they like to "do their own damage." In my case, I don't mix them up, though; each player's rolls are his own. I also like to get these pre-rolls the week prior, and actually apply the results to known checks beforehand, so I don't have to improvise—I like to take my time, when I can—so when that instance comes up in-game, I already know who made the roll or not, and how to describe the results.

Lately, I've ripped a concept from D&D 4e, and use a "passive result," for mundane/repetitive checks: just treat it as a roll of "10" on the dice—I mostly use this for common Mooks' rolls, and treat the result as a penalty to the PCs' rolls, rather than a "traditional" rolled contest. I only use this when the action doesn't hang on a die-roll—when it matters, it really should be rolled.