Quote from: Benoist;363483Agree, disagree, comments?

Absolutely agree.

"Adventure is hardship aesthetically considered."

Quote from: ggroy;363488Why should this be a controversial point?  This is how it was back in the day.

Maybe kids think differently this these days,

Yeah. Some games exclude the possibility of death "unless the GM and player agree/really mean it/etc."

I also think that there is some frustration with what some players call "whiff factor", but that's partly to do with the way game timing is structured, IMO. Players want to feel like they are contributing. If they only have one chance, blow their shot, and sit there while lots of stuff happens before their next turn, they can feel disinvolved.

Quote from: jeff37923;363557I think that the problem here stems from the fact that failure does not necessarily equal fumble.

Yeah. Bad GMing leads to a generation of bad mechanics to protect us from the bad GM.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363586d20, I assume? Did you consider taking 10?

If your "take 10" was not high enough to consistently follow the tracks, then that would indicate that you were not necessarily skilled enough to follow the tracks. You needed lucky breaks, sudden insights, and/or other essentially "random" circumstances to continue tracking - represented by the d20.

As for why it would be hourly, well, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Hourly checks for a chase that takes days might seem unreasonable, but at the same time, daily checks for a chase that takes only a couple hours seems a bit off.

This doesn't really seem like an instance of the GM trying to screw you (unlike the "stealth, perception, stealth, perception" example). Per the RAW, a successful survival check to follow tracks lets you follow them for a mile, with another check called for if the tracks become difficult to follow. Requiring one per hour is probably more lax than the rules call for, even.

No, it wasn't d20 per se- it's a hybrid game.  However, that was not the point I was making.  The point I was making was about the frequency of failure and how it detracted and derailed my sense of immersion and genre emulation.  

Fine, you think that the situation reasonable given the information you have at hand.  I was in the situation and I found nothing reasonable about it.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;363587Yeah. Bad GMing leads to a generation of bad mechanics to protect us from the bad GM.

Yup. A clearer, more succinct way of getting to the point I was earlier trying to get at.

Quote from: Drohem;363588No, it wasn't d20 per se- it's a hybrid game.  However, that was not the point I was making.  The point I was making was about the frequency of failure and how it detracted and derailed my sense of immersion and genre emulation.

What interval would have been reasonable, then?

QuoteFine, you think that the situation reasonable given the information you have at hand.  I was in the situation and I found nothing reasonable about it.

Well, just because it looks like it would be fine in one system doesn't mean it would in another.

This may be a matter of perspective, too - if you considered your character awesome at tracking, then found yourself sucking at this particular task (which sounds like a rather mundane, possibly even trivial instance of tracking), that probably would have been irritating to me, as well. It's a question of perceived ability against perceived difficulty.

Quote from: Drohem;363584We follow it now to find the Messenger's dead body.  I was blamed for the Messenger's death because I refused to continue rolling dozens of tracking checks.  I feel the GM was responsible for the whole situation.  Why did I have to roll a tracking check every fracking hour of game time, especially when the chase would cover several days of game time?

I've played in games a number of times with DMs which required a roll to do anything and everything, not related to combat.  It made the game really boring for the most part.  After awhile, the DMs acquired a bad reputation for doing things in such a manner that less and less people were interested in playing their games.  What ends up happening is that most of their players are strangers who typically answered an ad posted up online or at an FLGS.  After awhile, they show less interest in playing in these particular DMs' games too.  It's amazing how fast news of crappy DMs spread in the local gamer grapevines.

Over the years I've noticed that the number one reason for many (A)D&D campaigns faltering and abruptly ending after a few sessions, is almost always related to the DM conducting things in manners which are very incompatible with the expectations of the players.  In my games, I ask the players on the first day what exactly they expect and want in the game.  Typically it is stuff like:

- Follow the rules strictly as written, or more loosely?
- Pure hack and slash, or more in depth of a storyline?
- Railroad or sandbox?
- Munchkin or not?
- Puzzles or no puzzles?
- How fast do they level up?
- A lot of role playing, or very little to none?

Here's a blog post about dice rolling.

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/02/attitudes-toward-dice.html

The writer DMs in a manner of, "never roll dice (or make the players roll them) if you're not prepared to accept a negative outcome".

EDIT:  Perhaps unconsciously, this is how I've always dealt with dice rolling in my games.

Quote from: Benoist;363589Yup. A clearer, more succinct way of getting to the point I was earlier trying to get at.

Yup. Hadn't read that far before I replied, but sounds spot-on!

Quote from: Benoist;363578See. That's where I personally feel left out. Because some DM somewhere is a definite asshole and/or moron, a guy I don't know, will never play with, half a continent away, some designer will decide to change the game mechanics and fix an issue I never had in the first place.

Exactamundo.

Full disclosure, when I responded the last time, I had a specific game/mechanic in mind. To wit, the let it ride bit from Burning Empires.

But this bit reminds me of the D&D design team in Renton... both in their late 3e tenure, and with 4e. It seems like 2/3 of the design changes they made seem to be to address problems I'm not having, but whose implementation creates for what is, for me, dull gaming. That's a cost trade off I'm not willing to buy into.

So not to sound like Mark Foley, but we're on the same page here.

Quote from: ggroy;363594Here's a blog post about dice rolling.

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/02/attitudes-toward-dice.html

The writer DMs in a manner of, "never roll dice (or make the players roll them) if you're not prepared to accept a negative outcome".

YES! YES! Good lord, yes!

I've said this so many times over on ENWorld. Actually, the spin I use is "never roll the dice unless you are willing to pay the price!"

I get sick of "this game sucks... I put a dozen bodaks in my game and the pcs DIED! Gasp!" Reminds me of the Wierd Al song "I sue you"

   I sued Starbucks
'Cause I spilled a Frappucino in my lap
And brrr, it was cold!

I sued Toys'R'Us
'Cause I swallowed a Nerf ball
And nearly choked to death

Ugh, I sued PetCo
'Cause I ate a bag of kitty litter
And now I got bad breath!

etc...

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363592What interval would have been reasonable, then?

Well, certainly not making 10-15 skill rolls for the same task within several hours of game time.  Something less that would be reasonable.  

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363592It's a question of perceived ability against perceived difficulty.

No, it's about the GM making a player roll an excessive number of skill checks for the same task that detracted from the play experience.

I am a big fan of the possibility of failure in games. As a player, I really hate it when character death is basically impossible (whether by the GM being overly nice, or the system being designed that way). I get that some games are deliberately cinematic, and that is cool too. If the game is meant to play like Star Wars (where main characters can rush through a blaze of lazer fire without getting hit) that's fine. But for most of my games, I prefer failure and character death to stay on the table.

Also, I think the use of the term cinematic is misleading. After all, not every film genre plays like pulp or high adventure. What if I am playing a game modeled after a more gritty genre? In some movies characters drop like flies.

Quote from: Drohem;363599Well, certainly not making 10-15 skill rolls for the same task within several hours of game time.  Something less that would be reasonable.

But it's not like the task being discussed is discrete, like "tie a knot" or "hit a dude with a stick." It's an ongoing thing, with presumably varying difficulty over time (whether or not that was taken into account for specific checks, or averaged out, I don't think is really relevant).

Did you make any other checks that session? I mean, players like to roll dice, maybe the GM was just trying to give you an opportunity to do so?

QuoteNo, it's about the GM making a player roll an excessive number of skill checks for the same task that detracted from the play experience.

I don't know if it is really the same task, though.

What if, for instance, you were sneaking through a location full of baddies, trying not to be noticed. Would the presumably constant requests for hide/sneak/move silently rolls irritate you?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363604Did you make any other checks that session?

Upon reflection, the only real dice rolls in that whole session where by me and for the endless tracking rolls.  I think that we had to make a Diplomacy roll when we spoke with the Prince, but that was about it really for that wasted session.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363604What if, for instance, you were sneaking through a location full of baddies, trying not to be noticed. Would the presumably constant requests for hide/sneak/move silently rolls irritate you?

Well, that depends on the circumstances.  How many baddies are in the location?  How many rolls are needed in relation the number of baddies in the area?  Blah, blah, etc., etc....

Yes, it would irritate me if excessive rolls where required for the same task- sneaking through a location full of baddies.  Should the player have to roll a hide/sneak/move silently for each individual baddie in the location?  What if there were 20 baddies in the said location?  Would you as a GM require the player trying to sneak through the baddie filled location to roll a hide/sneak/move silently combination 20 times, once for each baddie in the area?  If so, I feel that is excessive and needless and, yes, it would irritate me.

Quote from: Benoist;363578Somewhere along the road, it seems that suddenly offering advice in supplements was completely discarded in favor of mechanical adjustments to the game system itself...

Because advice is much, much more easily ignored than mechanics.

Seanchai

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363592What interval would have been reasonable, then?

When the situation changed significantly enough to warrant a new roll.

Seanchai

Quote from: Drohem;363606Upon reflection, the only real dice rolls in that whole session where by me and for the endless tracking rolls.  I think that we had to make a Diplomacy roll when we spoke with the Prince, but that was about it really for that wasted session.

That might have had something to do with it.

Personally I don't see a need to fill sessions that lack combat with other dice rolls, but that might seem like the thing to do for some folk.

QuoteWell, that depends on the circumstances.  How many baddies are in the location?  How many rolls are needed in relation the number of baddies in the area?  Blah, blah, etc., etc....

A fair response.

QuoteWould you as a GM require the player trying to sneak through the baddie filled location to roll a hide/sneak/move silently combination 20 times, once for each baddie in the area?

I'm not really sure - there's a reason I'm going after this line of thought.

I think what I would do is have the player make one set of rolls, then use that unless or until circumstances change - if they need to move somewhere else, if they do something that might attract attention and/or changes the environment in some way, etc. However, I would stress that one set of relevant rolls would be useful against as many baddies as were relevant until the next set of rolls: if you only happened across one dude, the rolls work for that one encounter; if - for some reason - twenty stumble across your path, the rolls are relevant for all twenty of them.

Hmm... and to bring it back to the tracking, I suppose that the way I would have handled it would have been to have you roll, then use that roll until the situation changed enough to warrant calling for a new roll. If you lost the trail (which would presume varying DCs across the trek), that seems like the kind of thing you would probably notice, which would warrant another check (to try to find it again).

I'm not sure, though, if that's a fair way to go about it.