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

An interval that keeps things exciting, and does not lead to tedium.

I can be bored on my own, I don't need a game group and dice and rules for that.

If the GM is determined to make me roll 10 times for something, and if one failure means everything turns to shit, let's just figure out the odds of failing at least one of the 10, and I'll roll once and get it over with. Eg, if I have 90% skill in tracking and must roll 10 times, the chance of succeeding on all 10 rolls is (0.90)^10 = 35%.

"But if I let you just roll once then I have to give up the pretence that you have any chance of success, and I can no longer hide my lack of ability to bring in dramatic tension, hide it with a lot of dice-rolling and looking up tables."

Or the GM could just not have me roll at all, and say, "you fail." Nasty, but it saves me from tedium.

The possibility of failure is fun. Taking hours and hours and heaps of dice rolls to find out whether or not you failed is not fun. This is what the guy was getting at, not that he didn't want to fail a Tracking roll, just that he didn't want to have to make a zillion Tracking rolls. The wonder of dice is the anticipation of the result, the cheers of glory and moans of ignominy. It's less exciting when there's a million rolls and lots of looking up tables.

Failure's fun in an rpg. Tedious repetition's not.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;363655Failure's fun in an rpg. Tedious repetition's not.

How about tedious repititious failure?

For expediency, most of the time I didn't bother with too many dice rolls for easy stuff the characters were largely capable of doing.

I thought it was largely pointless doing dice rolls for mundane or minor minutiae.

In the particular case of a character with tracking expertise, I only had them roll a skill check when they reached difficult terrain where the track could be lost, such as reaching a large stream or if it was raining in a particular area.

Even in the case of combat, if I feel the melee is getting too tedious or boring and the players are well on their way to defeating the monsters, sometimes I just have the monsters die earlier or have them flee away.  Kind of pointless continuing on in combat to the very end, when it is mostly the "attrition" phase left with the players repeatedly firing away their "at-wills".

Quote from: Benoist;363636I believe game mechanics should be tools for gaming groups to get the best games going, while providing guidelines and advice to help the average-to-mediocre DMs rise up and make them happen themselves.

We see things differently.

It seems to me that you believe that if you take someone whose gaming DNA, so to speak, is "average GM" and apply good advice, they'll rise above their DNA and become good or great GMs.

I believe that if you give someone with the average GM DNA a parcel of good advice, they'll ignore it, not understand it, misapply it, etc.. They won't transcend their DNA because advice can't do that. It's the intrinsic, internal ability to read and react that makes a GM good or great, not just technique.

More importantly, however, you have to get some good advice. Most advice is crap. Moreover, you have to find folks who can recognize the good advice - not just the popular or loudest advice - when they hear or see it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;363662We see things differently.

Absolutely, we do. Your use of a DNA analogy tells me as much. For me, GMing isn't a question of genetics, and it isn't some sort of mana from heaven either. It's a craft, a skill one may improve progressively, over time, with good input, feedback, advice, and a willingness to learn from one's (numerous and unavoidable) mistakes.

We seem to agree on that last part. And yes, many advice in gaming books could be improved as well, I'm not going to disagree there.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;363611I 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.

I think that is reasonable, and how I would handle if I was on the other side of the screen.

Quote from: The Shaman;363629A check every hour may be pretty generous, actually. In d20 Modern you move at half-speed while tracking, and you check every mile; that works out to about four checks an hour, assuming the terrain or conditions are such that the tracks are difficult to follow and require regular checks. From my personal experience actually tracking stuff, that's not at all unreasonable.

I have no real life tracking experience, and the game is not designed to simulate tracking but, rather, to emulate tracking.  If the GM wanted to simulate the experience of tracking, the tedium and the bordom, the he succeeded.  However, if the GM wanted to emulate the thrill of tracking the kidnappers of your companion, to whatever conclusion, then he failed in my opinion.

Quote from: The Shaman;363629Now from other things you noted, I think the referee is indeed a tool, but not because of the skill rolls.

Hehehe... you are indeed perceptive, my friend.  You got that from what information I provided?  Yes, the GM's response through the mouth piece of the Prince and the actions of the NPCs was a bit toolish in my opinion.

Quote from: The Shaman;363629Well, here's how I'd rule it: you make one roll, and the baddies with a chance to hear your characters (which if it's not a situation where sai baddies are lying in wait for you will probably be only a sentry or two) roll an opposed check against that roll.

This is a reasonable approach with which I agree.

Quote from: The Shaman;363629But let's say for a moment that it takes you several checks to sneak past - after all, your character is moving slowly if s/he plans on being quiet (half-speed again if we're talking bog-standard d20). How may rolls is acceptable to you?Conflict-resolution versus task-resolution.

Again, this depends on the situation.  How far is the character moving?  How many baddies are in the area?  Etc., etc., etc...  I have no bog-standard answer because the number of roll which I may require as a GM, or the number of rolls I would feel are acceptable as a player, is not static, but, rather, fluid based upon the circumstances of the situation.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;363655The possibility of failure is fun. Taking hours and hours and heaps of dice rolls to find out whether or not you failed is not fun. This is what the guy was getting at, not that he didn't want to fail a Tracking roll, just that he didn't want to have to make a zillion Tracking rolls.

Kylie is inciteful as well because this sums up what I was originally saying.

Quote from: Drohem;363666Kylie is inciteful as well because this sums up what I was originally saying.

QuoteKylie

Well that's news to me!  

But yeah, I agree with Kyle.  Rolling for the sake of rolling dice isn't fun, and usually doesn't add to the drama.

Say what you will about BW or Crane, but Let It Ride was, IMO, a good idea to put in as a non-negotiable rule.  Figure out the advantages and disadvantages each side has, factor them into the dice pools, then roll once and move on.

Quote from: Benoist;363664It's a craft, a skill one may improve progressively, over time, with good input, feedback, advice, and a willingness to learn from one's (numerous and unavoidable) mistakes.

To a point. You can study painting, writing, carpentry, leadership, or any number of other crafts as much as you'd like, but unless you have natural talent, you're just not going to progress, to make that leap to greatness.

But, realistically speaking, how many folks are really willing to do what it takes to reach the next level? Particularly when we're talking about a game.

So I refer back to the idea that the LCD isn't necessary a bad thing. If the rules can keep a situation that usually wouldn't be a fantastic one because of limitations on the GM's part from becoming that bad, isn't that worthwhile?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;363673But, realistically speaking, how many folks are really willing to do what it takes to reach the next level? Particularly when we're talking about a game.

So I refer back to the idea that the LCD isn't necessary a bad thing. If the rules can keep a situation that usually wouldn't be a fantastic one because of limitations on the GM's part from becoming that bad, isn't that worthwhile?

Seanchai

I just don't believe in settling for mediocrity. I don't wish that for anyone.

When the rules prevent a mediocre situation from becoming worse by putting boundaries and on/off switches on said situation, I wonder why they didn't shoot for greatness in the first place, while at the same time providing a hand (through the advice and guidelines we talked about) to the fledging DM to rise to the plate and reach for it.

Like I said, I don't believe greatness is some sort of genetic privilege. I don't believe it is that hard to attain a good to very good level of GMing either. It's just takes the right person/attitude, playing with the right people, with the right feedback and advice. It's not rocket science. If, as a gamer, you are not willing to put a minimum -not tremendous, mind you, but minimum- amount of efforts into making your GMing half-decent, then you shouldn't GM at all, in the first place.

Different strokes, most definitely.

Quote from: One Horse Town;363657How about tedious repititious failure?

Happened to me last weekend in a Pathfinder game. It was a first level character and the dice hated me that night. Could not succeed at anything involving a die roll. Failure after failure happened. At the end of it all, I renamed the PC from Erasmus to Erasmus the Unlucky since he now had a schtick.

And you know what? I still had fun because some nights that is the shit that happens and you can either laugh or be a douchebag about it. One is fun while the other is just juvenile and petty.

Quote from: Drohem;363666I have no real life tracking experience, and the game is not designed to simulate tracking but, rather, to emulate tracking.

If the game has you rolling for tracking every hour, then I would say it is indeed simulating tracking, not emulating it.

I might even argue that, from a simulation standpoint, it's still too easy. But I digress.

Quote from: Drohem;363666If the GM wanted to simulate the experience of tracking, the tedium and the bordom, the he succeeded.

When I was a park ranger I tracked mountain lions and lost people. Believe me, tedious and boring it ain't.

Quote from: Drohem;363666However, if the GM wanted to emulate the thrill of tracking the kidnappers of your companion, to whatever conclusion, then he failed in my opinion.

If that's what the referee was after, then yes, it was probably the wrong approach.

If the referee was in fact attempting to simulate losing and regaining a trail, and the impact ths would have on subsequent events, then it worked, after a fashion. I kinda have the impression that the referee may have thought the situation would develop into a chase, but tracking doesn't lend itself to that.

Now, all of that said, as I noted earlier, my personal preference is for systems which allow characters with sufficient skill to skip rolling for routine tasks, and this could apply to tracking situations.

Here's how a situation like this might play out in a game that I'm running. The kidnappers know they are likely to be followed, and they have a decision to make: do they want to throw off pursuers, or do they want to make time? The terrain will play a role in the decision, but in many cases you might find they will attempt to move through a patch of difficult terrain to throw off pursuers initialy, then follow the easiest path to get to their destinations. The result for the tracking adventurer, assuming fundamental competence, will be some rolls to track through the difficult terrain, which may involve losing and finding the trail depending on the rolls, then relatively straightforward tracking, using take ten or a similar mechanic, afterward.

One other thing: a referee may give clues suggesting the possible route or destination of the kidnappers. This is where tracking, which is more akin to searching for trapsin a game context, may turn into an actual pursuit, a "head 'em off at the pass!" moment in the game.

But that's how I run things; other referees, varying mileage, and all that, of course.

Quote from: Drohem;363666You got that from what information I provided?  Yes, the GM's response through the mouth piece of the Prince and the actions of the NPCs was a bit toolish in my opinion.

Yeah, a bit.

Quote from: Drohem;363666Again, this depends on the situation.  How far is the character moving?  How many baddies are in the area?  Etc., etc., etc...  I have no bog-standard answer because the number of roll which I may require as a GM, or the number of rolls I would feel are acceptable as a player, is not static, but, rather, fluid based upon the circumstances of the situation.

Fair 'nuff.

Quote from: Cranewings;363567And I would agree with you if I were rolling 1d1000 and a 0,0,1 came up, however most games give a 5% chance for fumbling, which is far to high, especially for people that are highly trained in what they are doing.

I disagree.  You've got a party of guys versus a group of monsters, all clanking around in armour, tripping over things, and swinging crazy weapons like morningstars while wizards throw balls of fire, webs and prismatic sprays into the mix.  A mere 5% fumble chance is generous!

I think that's what Cook was getting at in the OP:

QuoteI'll also say that failure in rpgs has gotten a bad rap lately. There's a lot of talk about the PCs being "heroes" and the action of the game being "cinematic" and in such a set up the heroes always win.

I'm perfectly happy with a 5% fumble chance, but I'm not a "cinematic" player.

Quote from: Hairfoot;363699I disagree.  You've got a party of guys versus a group of monsters, all clanking around in armour, tripping over things, and swinging crazy weapons like morningstars while wizards throw balls of fire, webs and prismatic sprays into the mix.  A mere 5% fumble chance is generous!

I think that's what Cook was getting at in the OP:

I'm perfectly happy with a 5% fumble chance, but I'm not a "cinematic" player.

I like the cinematic style, but that's not the only thing. When I do martial arts and spar with strangers, I don't fail that often, even if they start trying to kill me. I don't know how to cook, but I can pull a recipe together and fail far less than 1 in 20. I certainly don't critically fail 1 in 20 times. I don't critically fail performing patient care in my ambulance 1 in 20 times.

When I write a character, especially a character that has actual experience fighting wars and killing people with the help of his peek human attributes, I expect him to fail far less than me. When my peek human player character / trained killer starts failing more than I do, it completely breaks immersion, especially if he is fumbling more often than I fail in real life.

It's a matter of being under pressure, Cranewings. Firing on the range is easy, firing on the two-way rifle range is a lot harder. Experienced soldiers rarely screw up badly on the range, but regularly do so on the two-way range.

You should not have to roll for your character to make dinner, you should have to roll for them to make dinner for the King. Etc.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;363701It's a matter of being under pressure, Cranewings. Firing on the range is easy, firing on the two-way rifle range is a lot harder. Experienced soldiers rarely screw up badly on the range, but regularly do so on the two-way range.

You should not have to roll for your character to make dinner, you should have to roll for them to make dinner for the King. Etc.

Maybe if the character isn't a cook. I'm not against the character doing a sub par job. I'm not against him losing to someone else. Lets say you roll a 1 on a cooking check for the king. If the king doesn't finish his meal because it is too bland for his taste, that sucks, but I understand. If the GM interprets it to mean that the cook used all the wrong spices and then failed too cook it through and got him sick from one bite, that would be too much, but unfortunately, that's that way it usually goes.

Soldiers in battle miss the enemy an awful fucking lot. But 1 in 20 times they do not drop their grenade in their own fox hole, shoot their buddy, miss identify a friendly, or stab a comrade in the back. In fact, failure is often a tool, because a miss can still cause the enemy to block or cover, taking away his freedom to act. Even in "failure" a soldier can take an advantage.

I'm just talking about regular soldiers there. In dungeons and dragons, a regular USMC Private would be a level one warrior and probably have high stats of 14 in Strength and Con. He doesn't hold a candle to typical player characters with much higher stats and special feats, who after a typical month of playing could kill 4-6 of the level 1 warriors at once. Such a person definitely doesn't screw up all the time because they are peak human, polished and amazing due to their training, natural talent, and drive. I'm not making it that way in my head. That's what they are. Almost no one in real life can beat the shit out of 4 soldiers at once, but my 2nd level rogue can. On top of that, he has a dexterity score ranking him higher than your typical Olympic gymnast because he is an elf. He might not always come out on top, but I'm sure that he does better than breaking his sword or stabbing his friend 1 in every 20 times he swings it.