Quote from: BedrockBrendan;934472An easy solution to skills like Perception is to have the GM decide when to roll those on behalf of the player. That makes it more of a passive, you happen to notice, kind of thing, and not this button they can push to make sure they've combed through an area sufficiently (if you are trying to encourage getting them to engage with the surrounding environment and be more specific about their exploration).

This.

Just because you roll high doesn't mean you spot anything of useful notice. (I usually joke as if they've gained Enhanced Senses, "You see through Time! You hear the leaves breathing, see the water vapor move about you...") In fact, like Move Silently, it tends to make the player more active and descriptive of their search if the roll is behind the screen and are left to assume "you noticed everything immediately interesting," ("you always think you move silently!")

I don't care how high your passive Perception or Spot roll is, if you don't open the box you don't suddenly get X-Ray vision to compensate. Interact, don't just throw dice at the fictive world.

My favourite way of simulating awareness is not through a distinct perception skill but through all regular skills.

The type of check and who has a chance of discovering something is dependent on the info to be found.

Make characters do a combat skill check to anticipate an ambush, or a library use skill check to find irregularities or hints in the arrangement of books on a shelf, or an architecture skill check to find that a building's construction materials act as a conduit for summoning Babylonian gods.
People will notice stuff out of line in those fields that they are competent in.

Quote from: AsenRG;934469I find it amazing that you managed to write a post where I disagree with basically every single sentence, and yet you just did:D!

Then my purpose here is complete!  Disagreeing with you is part of my hobby.  Funny thing is, I'm not even sure I agree with myself half the time.  Cheers anyway!

Quote from: Madprofessor;934762Then my purpose here is complete!  Disagreeing with you is part of my hobby.  Funny thing is, I'm not even sure I agree with myself half the time.  Cheers anyway!

Well, then you score a great achievement in your hobby;). Now let's move on, I don't see a reason to make the disagreement public.

Not sure how you manage to disagree with yourself, but congratulations on having found a way, BTW:D!

I really like the "skill system" from Barbarians of Lemuria.  You just have levels in different careers.  If you attempt a task that one of your careers would be good at, you get add your level in that career as a bonus.

So for perception or sense motive, a "spy" could certainly add his level towards reading someones lips, gathering information, or noticing a dagger hidden behind a cloak, but that same spy would likely be oblivious that a predator was stalking him in a jungle.  I pirate might notice that he is being cheated at cards, where a barbarian, despite his instincts, would have no clue.  A thief would notice traps and have a nose for where the treasure is hidden, but pay no heed to the smoke of a burning village on the horizon.  A soldier might know the resolve of his enemies, but completely confused by the intricacies of court etiquette.  Etc.  All of this communicated by very simple mechanics e.g. spy level 2, and soldier level 1 - on the character sheet.

The biggest complaint about the setup is that it is, to an extent, it is a GM judgement call as to whether a particular career will apply to a given situation, but I think that's more feature than flaw.

I think the thief should pay attention to the smoke of burning village, but then that's something to debate with the GM:).

And yes, I also consider it among the best systems for light games, though I add to it a list of modifiers for "stuff pirates do all the time" and "stuff pirates have more experience in than the average blacksmith, but that they don't do all that often". Just remember to cap the negative modifiers to the level of skill in the career, and you have a system where a Pirate 0 is more useful than not having Pirate at all, but having a low skill like Soldier 1 never screws you over in related fields;).

Well, to break the perception discussion, what about Intimidation? I wrote a whole thing about it here; but basically it is either deception, combat or common sense, not a separate skill.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;935035Well, to break the perception discussion, what about Intimidation? I wrote a whole thing about it here; but basically it is either deception, combat or common sense, not a separate skill.

I disagree, having met several bullies whose bullying threats had nothing to do with their combat ability, common sense, or deception. They just had an unwise bad habit of trying to intimidate people. If it was part of another skill, it would be something to do with sensing and exploiting people they could manipulate. The weasel skill? I can easily think of people who have deception, combat, common sense and/or weasel skills, but no particular talent for intimidation. So I'd have intimidation be it's own skill, even of other skills and traits can contribute to its effectiveness.

Quote from: Skarg;935038I disagree, having met several bullies whose bullying threats had nothing to do with their combat ability, common sense, or deception. They just had an unwise bad habit of trying to intimidate people. If it was part of another skill, it would be something to do with sensing and exploiting people they could manipulate. The weasel skill? I can easily think of people who have deception, combat, common sense and/or weasel skills, but no particular talent for intimidation. So I'd have intimidation be it's own skill, even of other skills and traits can contribute to its effectiveness.

I mean, were they actually skilled in intimidation? I can see it, but most bullies I've met were just bigger / more numerous / higher in the hierarchy than their target... So complying is sometimes just common sense. An effective "intimidator" would be the weak, poor, unarmed guy facing Conan and making him say "well, better not mess with this guy, he looks dangerous". I mean, it is possible, but I'm not sure it is an useful enpugh archetype that I would need to include it in my games.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;935039I mean, it is possible, but I'm not sure it is an useful enpugh archetype that I would need to include it in my games.

Depends on the game being played. In superhero vs. villain, intimidation is a big deal. Hero system manages that with a Presence test (which is an attribute test, which is a skill test by another name)

Quote from: Eric Diaz;935039I mean, were they actually skilled in intimidation? I can see it, but most bullies I've met were just bigger / more numerous / higher in the hierarchy than their target... So complying is sometimes just common sense. An effective "intimidator" would be the weak, poor, unarmed guy facing Conan and making him say "well, better not mess with this guy, he looks dangerous". I mean, it is possible, but I'm not sure it is an useful enpugh archetype that I would need to include it in my games.

They had some skill, but not a lot. Their Manipulative Asshole skill was higher than their intimidation, and they would not have been as successful at intimidation if they were not very large. Conan would not have been impressed.

Intimidation is pretty awkward as a mechanical skill methinks.  It's doable, but I mostly see it as a function of role playing.  Context makes all the difference - relative power, leverage, social conventions, presence of friends, vulnerability, etc.  It is a tactical consideration based on the situation.  I almost think it works better to just use will as a defensive save against an opponent who has gathered the power and advantages for intimidation.

Quote from: Madprofessor;935104Context makes all the difference

Agreed. I was thinking on this earlier... if I'd ever known anyone who was consistently intimidating and I couldn't come up with anyone. I have a friend who scares a lot of people, but other friends of mine just find him annoying and juvenile. I think you'd have to have some perceptible, accepted power over a person before any skill of wielding that power could come into play.

Quote from: Simlasa;935114Agreed. I was thinking on this earlier... if I'd ever known anyone who was consistently intimidating and I couldn't come up with anyone. I have a friend who scares a lot of people, but other friends of mine just find him annoying and juvenile. I think you'd have to have some perceptible, accepted power over a person before any skill of wielding that power could come into play.

Yeah, I think the best way to handle intimidation in a game is that both sides take the danger of the situation into consideration, and the intimidating side role plays their threats.  If PC are the targets of the intimidation, the player should be allowed to choose their character's reaction in almost all circumstances without a roll (unless it is like a sanity check in CoC or similar).  If NPCs are targets, the GM can either choose the NPCs' reaction or roll a wisdom or will save if he is unclear about their response.  That's about it. - no need for an intimidation skill in most genres or settings.

I have seen GMs use the intimidation skill in 3e games like a magical power, causing fear-like effects that remove player or even NPC agency, and I think that is the wrong approach.

Watch movies/shows with Organized Crime or Corporate negotiations.  Watch Westworld and see Anthony Hopkins talk to the QA Officer and the Board Member who both are trying to get him removed.  There's your Intimidation.  Implied Threat, politely delivered.