When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
If it's a situation where the character could reasonably know how difficult a task is, Yes. If not, No. Unless I want to speed up play for some reason, then Yes.
Not usually... but sometimes.
Overall I prefer self-referential systems where the issue is avoided all together.
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
My difficulty number is 5.
I'm not kidding. For 1d6 rolls, things stay the same on 1-4, things change on 5+. Occasionally, there is a plus or minus. That's it.
For combat, I use Target 20, so the combat difficulty number is 20. Beat that on d20 roll + OD&D hit dice. I add the AC to that roll mentally, but do not tell them the AC any more, just what it looks like. "He's wearing plate!" "The monster has a leathery hide!" If you can figure out the AC after a couple attacks, fine.
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
I run RQ/BRP/d100 games, so yeah, they generally know it. And I tend to award bonuses and penalties right as they are rolling for simplicity sake.
I could theoretically take their skill totals behind the screen, but rolling dice is fun and it'd be difficult in a BRP type game to have the players roll but not know their skill totals. I'm not sure the advantages are worth it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
I tell them how difficult a task would be, and they add/subtract whatever the number would be for that.
ADDED:
What I say is hard to do, may not be hard for a PC to do. Depending on how skilled they are. The players still has to add/subtract the difficulty though.
It depends on if their character would know how hard the task is.
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
Depends on the situation, and in particular, whether the character would be able to know, or not, and anywhere in between (i.e. "you can tell the cliff is very smooth, pretty hard to climb, especially now that it's wet after the storm").
Quote from: Benoist;737622Depends on the situation, and in particular, whether the character would be able to know, or not, and anywhere in between (i.e. "you can tell the cliff is very smooth, pretty hard to climb, especially now that it's wet after the storm").
this.
After a couple of checks I normally tell then what they are aiming for.
Generally with skills I am now just stacking disadvantages/advantages rather than using modifiers.
my games uses 2d10 v target 13. The target number stays the same except in opposed situations (combat is a particualr case of an opposed situation) however we can stack ad/disads on top and the players know these cos I am asking them to roll.
GM just eyeballs it. Smooth wall, wet, tryingto move silently.... 3 disadvantages
FYI with 3 disads on a 2d10 vs 13 roll with no bonuses you have a 2.7%chance of sucess. If your PC has a an excellent skill say +6 (4 ranks of skills + a key stat of +3) then success comes up to about 38%.
Advantage is a realy great rule that just removes tracking stacks of modifiers and makes combat and skill resolution very quick.
Yes I do. I think it enhances player engagement. More to the point it's part of the discipline that ensures that I have decided the target number before I ask for any dice roll. Don't laugh, this does happens.
With me using GURPS, players usually know the skill level, stat or defense off of which they need to roll. And that's alright.
They never, never, never have the slightest idea what modifiers I'm applying. Never.
That's the way I like it, because in real life, no one knows either. We know, in a vague, general way, that driving in a blizzard at night is more treacherous than driving on a sunny day on dry pavement. But I have no idea -- and neither do any of you -- what the precise percentage chance is of you driving home at normal highway speeds without an accident. We know, in a vague, general way, whether we're skilled singers or not. But I have no idea -- and in my shoes, neither would any of you -- the exact chance I have of getting through that Handel recitative without a bobble.
Yes, I tell them.
I want them to know and see that I never fudge outcomes to fit some story or plan.
Transparency and cold impartiality are the style I aim for. This makes it easier for players to accept things like character death that I feel are important to the game aspect of the hobby.
I almost always tell them the difficulty number -- I assume their characters would have a good, instinctive sense of how hard something would be to do.
There are, sometimes, exceptions -- a character is trying to sneak past some guards, but isn't aware that there are also hidden cameras watching the checkpoint: the cameras could impose an unexpected negative... but those are somewhat rare.
I also think the game works better if the mechanics are generally transparent.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Ravenswing;737634With me using GURPS, players usually know the skill level, stat or defense off of which they need to roll. And that's alright.
They never, never, never have the slightest idea what modifiers I'm applying. Never.
That's the way I like it, because in real life, no one knows either. We know, in a vague, general way, that driving in a blizzard at night is more treacherous than driving on a sunny day on dry pavement. But I have no idea -- and neither do any of you -- what the precise percentage chance is of you driving home at normal highway speeds without an accident. We know, in a vague, general way, whether we're skilled singers or not. But I have no idea -- and in my shoes, neither would any of you -- the exact chance I have of getting through that Handel recitative without a bobble.
We don't think in terms of precise percentages -- or exact dimensions -- but humans are good at assessing the difficulty of things.
In your driving example, I think a person would know if a particular set of conditions was going to be irritating (a low modifier), treacherous (a medium modifier) or extremely hazardous (a modifier high enough that catastrophic failure was a distinct possibility).
In game terms, I'd consider that as his *character* not seeing the mechanics (he doesn't know he has a 14- Vehicle Operations skills) or the modifier (blizzard conditions give -5), but he'd probably have a distinct sense of how dangerous it might be.
His *player*, on the other hand, sitting around a table, isn't getting the same kind of information his character is but he ought to be able make appropriately informed decisions.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
In games with GM-set difficulties, yes. Partly it's a means of quickly communicating expectations - I give them a chance to change their mind once they know the difficulty number if they realise that something was harder than they'd expected it would be. Partly, I find the tension of dice-rolling works better if the players know what they're aiming for and can instantly see whether or not they failed. Also, in some systems players might want to spend Fate points/Hero points to affect a roll and I don't think it's fair to ask them to do that when they don't know what the difficulty is and so can't make a meaningful judgement call on whether or not it's worth spending or saving those points.
Major exception is AD&D, where I don't give indications as to armour class, mostly because I find combat flows better if I do all the THAC0 calculations myself.
That said, it doesn't come up in Traveller (where you're always going for the same target number under Mongoose's task system) or Pendragon (where you already know what your skill is anyway).
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;737640Yes, I tell them.
I want them to know and see that I never fudge outcomes to fit some story or plan.
Transparency and cold impartiality are the style I aim for. This makes it easier for players to accept things like character death that I feel are important to the game aspect of the hobby.
That's important too - being
seen to be impartial as important - if not more important - than actually being impartial, because if you openly demonstrate impartiality like that you kill any lingering doubts before they even have a chance to work on you.
I don't usually give out hard numbers, but I do give them an indication of the difficulty involved with the task at hand. "The wall is rough hewn, plenty of handholds and places to grip, you could probably climb it with your eyes closed." (Easy, low difficulty), or "If you didn't know better you''d swear this wall was one single piece of polished stone, handholds are almost nonexistent. This one is really going to test your skill." (Hard, high difficulty).
One of the nice things about ad/disad is that the maths are a little obscure.
So 2 disadvantages feels like its hard but the exact level of "hardness" is kind of vague. So in that sense it kind of mirrors the general feel of real life where stuff feels tricky but you can't really say how tricky (unless you actually learn the maths of course :) )
In the majority of cases, I go ahead and reveal the difficulty number to the player.
Not for the first check/attack. I do subsequently, though. I just don't want them thinking mainly in numbers as they interact with the game world.
My default would be to state the difficulty. Generally I only hide it if the character is unaware of the reason for the roll.
I also like to have the difficulty set before the roll is made.
But I don't really set specific rules for myself as a gm; much of what I do is intuitive instead of planned.
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson
Now, I will give players a verbal indication of how it looks to them...
"It looks simple/easy/moderate/hard/damn near impossible." What their characters might be able to estimate. I also will say "Roll x die, you want high/low."
But I never, ever give numbers.
Quote from: Brander;737600If it's a situation where the character could reasonably know how difficult a task is, Yes. If not, No. Unless I want to speed up play for some reason, then Yes.
As an addendum I was including things like modifiers and the like.
And like some others here I see telling a player the numbers as being the exact same thing as their character looking at the situation and having a level of confidence in whether their skill is good enough or not. That way me and the player don't have to wonder whether my description means "hard" or "very hard." Though again, they have to have a reason to know. I'm not going to tell them an opponents skill in not getting hit until they have had a chance to fight them.
I generally do when playing Fate. But then again, when playing Fate a "number" can really be translated into "mediocre, average, fair, good, great, fantastic" anyway, so it easily flows into the "in-character" stuff.
That, and the skills have low enough granularity that if you give any idea of how difficult something is, you may as well tell them the target.
Depends on PC in-character perspective (barring my laziness and letting the player run the check). Helps me get out of my setting in-character perspective and really think about my description to the player. I've caught myself assuming what I said was clear, but upon openly talking about certain description-based penalties that would be obvious to IC PCs, I realized sometimes I gloss or am oblique.
Like, a previous comment about misty dawn being relevant on how slick a rock wall is, but players didn't realize until I say its modifier that it makes things more challenging. Players think it was a throwaway comment about weather, or assume time rapidly sped up to mid-morning and dew burn off, and suddenly the cat came back as it were. That's when thinking from their PCs' eyes really helps me.
In turn it also guides me when they would normally have no idea. Helps remind me that description is important after those rolls, even if the response is subtle. That helps skip out on perception roll redundancy. So flirting with a brand new stranger gets no pre-roll description, but will get plenty of post-roll ones, even most subtle clues from the eyes and mouth. I let players roleplay how oblivious they are from there.
Quote from: Soylent Green;737628Yes I do. I think it enhances player engagement. More to the point it's part of the discipline that ensures that I have decided the target number before I ask for any dice roll. Don't laugh, this does happens.
It enhances engagement with
the system. I don't want the players to engage with the system. I want them to engage with what is happening around their characters. Most of the problems with that come from trying to make the system complex, setting percentages based on "real" probabilities or making the system itself strategically interesting. So, I keep my process simple and make no secret of how it works, but I don't tell people the numbers... At least during play.
Quote from: Old Geezer;737683"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson
Now, I will give players a verbal indication of how it looks to them...
"It looks simple/easy/moderate/hard/damn near impossible." What their characters might be able to estimate. I also will say "Roll x die, you want high/low."
But I never, ever give numbers.
Same here, although I probably go about it differently. I divide actions into:
- you want to do something, but maybe things can go wrong?
- things have already gone wrong, you want to make 'em better.
For specific characters in a given situation, either an action is simple (no roll,) nearly impossible (no roll,) or possible. Players may want to change which character performs an action, or do something else first to set up an action, in order to make the action possible or even simple.
If there's a roll, it's 5+ on 1d6 to see if things go wrong or things get better, depending on the two types of actions listed above. If I judge it more likely or less likely, I can add or subtract 1 from the roll, to make things easy or difficult. If it's reasonable that a character would know, I say it's difficult or easy, or what could go wrong.
That's as complicated as I make it. Again, because I don't want them thinking about the die roll and the numbers added or subtracted.
I always say out loud exactly what the difficulty number is, including circumstance modifiers etc, and then roll the dice on the floor/table in front of the other players. I find it makes play much much more exciting.
Quote from: talysman;737747It enhances engagement with the system. I don't want the players to engage with the system. I want them to engage with what is happening around their characters.
Meh, I'm not proud, I'll take any kind of player engagement I can get.
Quote from: -E.;737642In your driving example, I think a person would know if a particular set of conditions was going to be irritating (a low modifier), treacherous (a medium modifier) or extremely hazardous (a modifier high enough that catastrophic failure was a distinct possibility).
I agree ... but how often isn't that the case, beyond an ignorant or overconfident player?
Beyond that, we still do -- usually -- know what the system basic roll is. You know that your Climbing skill is 13, or that your DX is 14 (or, alternately, that you have no Climbing skill and an average DX, so any default roll your system allows would suck), so you can readily piece together that your roll to climb a two-story brick wall with a knotted rope is good, and surely can figure out that your roll to climb Whispering Death Crag barehanded in the rain comes with hefty minuses.
I always tell them the difficulty numbers unless is a roll I am making for them. I don't fudge, and if I tell them the numbers openly there is no chance for evven thinking about it.
Quote from: Soylent Green;737628Yes I do. I think it enhances player engagement. More to the point it's part of the discipline that ensures that I have decided the target number before I ask for any dice roll. Don't laugh, this does happens.
I don't tell target number for the exact opposite reason. I'll be determining in my head the difficulty while the player is rolling because, more often than not, the player's roll will either be so bad it would fail anyway or so good it would succeed despite any modifier. I only have to determine the exact target number or modifier in the few cases where it would actually make a difference between success and failure.
When it is a pass/fail roll like an attack vs AC, I generally don't spend the breath unless they ask but have no problem telling if they do.
Many skill rolls, however, are less of a pass/fail and more along the lines of rolling to see how well the PC did. In such cases, I don't set a TN; I just interpret the roll.
It's a difficult question for me to answer...sometimes yes, sometimes no? I mean, there's times when I don't want the players to know right out of the box what the AC of a given monster is, just out of a sense of suspense and surprise.
Then there's other times when it's like...They're orcs in leather armor with shield. AC7. Go get 'em.
...
Of course for things like locating secret doors and traps and disarming said traps, I always roll behind the screen.
If its something they are aware of. Yes. Otherwise. No.
IE:
Dexterity check grabbing a rope as they fall overboard on a ship = Yes. Tell them.
Wisdom check detecting a lie when they werent expecting to be lied to = No. Dont tell them even why they are rolling.
Successfully leaping onto the back of a Pinetto = Yes. Tell them.
They just walked into a rad zone = No. Dont tell them the rad level they are rolling against and possibly not even tell them what they are checking. Theyd see the glow at night.
I don't like how D&D difficulty classes work...I have no idea what DC 30 means in terms of scale, especially in a system where DC is potentially limitless. I prefer games that use natural language to describe target numbers like FATE, so that I can describe a roll as being good, difficult, challenging, etc. That way they can be aware of the roll, without reciting numbers back and forth across the table.
That said, I like players to have some clue how hard that external challenges, like climbing a wall, sneaking across a courtyard, or arm wrestling a bear is going to be. For internal challenges, like bluff, lore and perception rolls I prefer that players have no clue, because requiring an exceptionally high perception check on a well travelled road on a sunny day is pretty much they same as telling them: "Psst! Here's where you get ambushed!"
The DC difficulty ranges is pretty much a WotC D&D thing. And yes, I agree. Since it is essentially open ended, scale is hard to instantly assess. It is very campaign style dependent. One of the many reasons I avoid WotC D&D and its derivatives.
You'll hear about people here enjoying "bounded accuracy" for often this reason.
Quote from: Ravenswing;737837I agree ... but how often isn't that the case, beyond an ignorant or overconfident player?
Beyond that, we still do -- usually -- know what the system basic roll is. You know that your Climbing skill is 13, or that your DX is 14 (or, alternately, that you have no Climbing skill and an average DX, so any default roll your system allows would suck), so you can readily piece together that your roll to climb a two-story brick wall with a knotted rope is good, and surely can figure out that your roll to climb Whispering Death Crag barehanded in the rain comes with hefty minuses.
For someone with no actual climbing skill, it might make sense not to give them specific modifiers.
But for someone who's a trained, experienced climber, I bet they *could* figure out what their odds of climbing the Whispering Death Crag would be -- not that the actual character would be aware of the exact percentages or the game mechanics... but they would have an "expert" opinion which translates (to the person playing them) as an accurate assessment of the negative modifier.
Hidden modifiers wouldn't be exposed, obviously -- but an expert would be able to gauge known-unknowns, and would only be surprised by something really unusual.
Roleplaying has 2 inherent difficulties
1) The players always have far less information than the characters would
2) The characters are often experts in things the players are not
Because of these, I think it's best to err on the side of giving the players more mechanical information since it's likely that their characters would have a better sense of their own limits than the players do.
Cheers,
-E.
I never (well, ALMOST never) tell the PCs the difficulty; certainly not with armor classes.
Quote from: -E.;738217For someone with no actual climbing skill, it might make sense not to give them specific modifiers.
But for someone who's a trained, experienced climber, I bet they *could* figure out what their odds of climbing the Whispering Death Crag would be -- not that the actual character would be aware of the exact percentages or the game mechanics... but they would have an "expert" opinion which translates (to the person playing them) as an accurate assessment of the negative modifier.
Hidden modifiers wouldn't be exposed, obviously -- but an expert would be able to gauge known-unknowns, and would only be surprised by something really unusual.
Roleplaying has 2 inherent difficulties
1) The players always have far less information than the characters would
2) The characters are often experts in things the players are not
Because of these, I think it's best to err on the side of giving the players more mechanical information since it's likely that their characters would have a better sense of their own limits than the players do.
Cheers,
-E.
One of the main failings of all games is the player world interface. This is the GM. The GM often fails to give the players enough information to make a decision. In your example. An expert climber can look at a path up a rockface and very accurately work out if that is climbable or not. We just say ... it looks quite slippery :)
the same is even more true to social situations. Its where I get frustrated with the old school Roleplay every roleplay thing out in character no social skills. Becauss the GM will then proceed to give no or inaccurate social queues as to the task.
A guy who has 99% in bribery is a guy who can look at a bloke across a room and work out what he earns a month (from his shoes, the state of his hands, any jewellery), what he spends his money on (expensive cigars, good liquor), etc etc All of that stuff is rolled intot eh DC 30 bit. Now I can toally see a straight roll doesn't really lead to roleplaying however when people expect roleplay but don't give any of those professional expert queues then its their own fault.
When I was running OD&D, I would always tell the players the armor class because
a) I was using one-minute combat rounds and figured their characters would discern how difficult landing a blow was
and b) I was using Delta's Target20 method.
D&D is sorta confused in this regard (specifically, what difficulty classes players know and do not know). Cf. saving throws
Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;738193I don't like how D&D difficulty classes work...I have no idea what DC 30 means in terms of scale, especially in a system where DC is potentially limitless.
The D&D editions that use DC are actually pretty remarkable in terms of how much they
do define such things! Try Call of Cthulhu (or for some things GURPS) if you want to see vague.
QuoteI prefer games that use natural language to describe target numbers like FATE, so that I can describe a roll as being good, difficult, challenging, etc. That way they can be aware of the roll, without reciting numbers back and forth across the table.
That's like old D&D level titles: "Here come two myrmidons, a theurgist and a lama." Removing such stuff seems pointless to me, but I can understand not every game designer feeling obligated to make it up in the first place.
Nothing to stop you from doing so yourself for home use among consenting adults, eh?
Quote from: RPGPundit;737597When the PC has to roll something, do you as GM tell the player what the difficulty number is?
Yes if it's one and done thing. But remember I mostly only run MtAw so it's mostly expected to know the target number..mostly.. maybe..;)
Quote from: Marleycat;739259Yes if it's one and done thing. But remember I mostly only run MtAw so it's mostly expected to know the target number..mostly.. maybe..;)
Your difficulty number is the target number then? Is the target number always calculated for each PC's roll? Or is it already known and the difficulty is added?
In roll-under systems the unmodified target number is already on the character sheet, though I *may* at times not tell them the modifiers I am applying.
Overall, I found that knowing the target number does not interfere much with immersion, if at all.
Quote from: 3rik;739399In roll-under systems the unmodified target number is already on the character sheet, though I *may* at times not tell them the modifiers I am applying.
Overall, I found that knowing the target number does not interfere much with immersion, if at all.
The players in my last group knew the base target number all the time, but weren't looking at their sheets to see what best to do to get the maximum DMs added (some of them had already maxed their characters out to prevent any failures anyway). I could tell they still were not happy whenever their rolls missed the target if something got real difficult.
.......
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;739260Your difficulty number is the target number then? Is the target number always calculated for each PC's roll? Or is it already known and the difficulty is added?
Target number is known difficulty.... maybe.;)
Depends on which game. MtAs has an easier difficulty with thresholds while MtAw has a harder difficulty with factors.
Quote from: FASERIP;739100When I was running OD&D, I would always tell the players the armor class because
a) I was using one-minute combat rounds and figured their characters would discern how difficult landing a blow was
That's probably the most decent argument I've ever heard in favor of telling people the AC.
Mind you, my players tend to guess based on the description I give them of the monster or opponent. Even in cases where they're not precisely sure, they'll figure it out in the first couple of rounds of combat.
I'll reveal the DC for stuff like jumping over a pit. Last but one 4e game a player needed it explained that his 18th level dwarf fighter (at least +15 on jumping, assuming no Athletics skilll) wasn't going to have any trouble jumping over the 10' wide pool (DC 10!) that looked scary to him on the map.
I'll typically reveal DCs if the PC should logically know how hard the task is. I'll conceal them where they would not. With combat I'll typically reveal it after the first roll vs that defence - in 4e choosing which of 4 defences to target (AC Reflex Fort Will) is part of the game, so I won't reveal them up front.
Edit: With 1e AD&D likewise I'll typically reveal the AC as soon as the monster is attacked, but not before. If I apply mods to a Thief d% roll, a d20 attribute check etc, I'll usually reveal that up front, before the roll.
A lot depends on what is going on in play and who the Player is. There will be circumstances where the PC will have no idea what the difficulty number is for the roll and others where it will be obvious.
I've run games for people who were still learning the rules and I would just say, "Roll high", because the more numbers I'd mention the more confused they would get.