HYPERBOREA » AS&SH 2nd Print?

rhialto · 12/05/2015 7:22 pm

Doctor_Rob wrote:
Blackadder23 wrote:
I'm aware that some players prefer not to do any thinking, but I don't see any reason to cater to them.
My point refers to preferred playing styles. (And some players just like to chill ). Also, remember, it may be the DM's perferred way of playing as well as that of the players.

Anyway, it's just a thought...

R

I share the thought, especially as it pertains to preferred playstyles.

Blackadder23 · 12/05/2015 9:09 pm

I hate to sound like a taskmaster, but "I prefer not to engage with the game" is not an acceptable playing style to me. Modern gamers with families and responsibilities usually have to go to great lengths to clear their schedules for a gaming session, and in my strong opinion they're owed the respect of full attention and participation by everyone involved. But maybe I'm old-fashioned that way...

Ghul · 12/05/2015 9:51 pm

I've had situations, too. A recent example would be a PC who speaks Esquimaux trying to interpret a conversation between two men of a hybrid slave race who speak an Ixian-Esquimaux pidgin language. Translating was not going to be direct in the best of situations, but IMO, an IN check was appropriate to see just how much of the conversation was understood. I do not prefer any kind of checks that obviate PC ingenuity, inventiveness, or role-playing. It happens a lot at con games I run. A Pathfinder player will ask me if he can intimidate an NPC, to which I'll respond, "I don't know, tell me what your character does and says, and maybe we'll make a reaction (cha) roll!"

rhialto · 12/06/2015 4:55 am

Blackadder23 wrote:
I hate to sound like a taskmaster, but "I prefer not to engage with the game" is not an acceptable playing style to me. Modern gamers with families and responsibilities usually have to go to great lengths to clear their schedules for a gaming session, and in my strong opinion they're owed the respect of full attention and participation by everyone involved. But maybe I'm old-fashioned that way...

Assuming you meant no offense by quoting something not said...

I run for a mixed group of dads and kids, the youngest of whom is almost 10: it is simply not reasonable to expect the same level of engagement/ingenuity/what have you from him, as we have noted time and again in our AAR. What is important to us is that we are engaged as families in playing a game together, and having fun.

That said I usually use these rolls to provoke lines of thought, not give the answer outright. Especially as my world is a Schroedinger world and waiting to be discovered by me, too.

mabon5127 · 12/06/2015 7:06 am

rhialto wrote:
Blackadder23 wrote:
I hate to sound like a taskmaster, but "I prefer not to engage with the game" is not an acceptable playing style to me. Modern gamers with families and responsibilities usually have to go to great lengths to clear their schedules for a gaming session, and in my strong opinion they're owed the respect of full attention and participation by everyone involved. But maybe I'm old-fashioned that way...
Assuming you meant no offense by quoting something not said...

I run for a mixed group of dads and kids, the youngest of whom is almost 10: it is simply not reasonable to expect the same level of engagement/ingenuity/what have you from him, as we have noted time and again in our AAR. What is important to us is that we are engaged as families in playing a game together, and having fun.

That said I usually use these rolls to provoke lines of thought, not give the answer outright. Especially as my world is a Schroedinger world and waiting to be discovered by me, too.

Yup! I like to see the story unfold and react myself!

I game with friends. Some roleplay some don't, some are heavily engaged some aren't. As long as they aren't playing on their phone or cross-talking I don't care. At the end of the day they burned their gas and took their time to play a game I created and that's pretty cool.

It's not unreasonable to mirror the rolls for the "physical" characteristics with the same for the "mental" ones. There are lots of situations that come up that could use the same mechanic, not as a replacement for roleplaying, but as an arbiter of sucess in using their intellect, insight, or influence.

Ynas Midgard · 12/06/2015 7:36 am

I'd be interested in seeing a few more examples of INT checks, because people who say they don't let such rolls solve puzzles might misunderstand those who include this mechanic.

As for me, I don't use INT or WIS tests; I simply require the right question. For instance, if someone asks about the beliefs of a cult, I tell them honestly, unless it's a cult secret. If I can't decide whether something would be known by a character or not, I tell them a partial truth.

Last edited by Ynas Midgard (12/06/2015 7:43 am)

rhialto · 12/06/2015 7:43 am

Ynas Midgard wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a few more examples of INT checks, because people who say they don't let such rolls solve puzzles might misunderstand those who include this mechanic.

As for me, I don't use INT or WIS tests; a simply require the right question. For instance, if someone asks about the beliefs of a cult, I tell them honestly, unless it's a cult secret. If I can't decide whether something would be known by a character or not, I tell them a partial truth.

Here's one, from my last session: the group was exploring a ruined temple, and I had them roll to see if they knew anything about the ancient race of jinn: based on backgrounds they each had a different chance. Now, a GM who has lots of time to prep (not I) might have had a detailed background drawn up, and made the players rely on their consultation of such. One such as I (drafted into running over Thanksgiving break with zero notice) just said "Roll to see if you recall anything about the jinn from ages past." Not saying it's the only way or even best way, but it is a way that keeps the game moving.

DMPrata · 12/06/2015 8:18 am

Has anyone considered using d6 task resolution in these situations? It still lets the players roll dice without obviating their need for engagement.

d6 Task Resolution: When a nonstandard action is attempted, the referee may call for d6 task resolution. The referee must consider the action and factor in character class, applicable abilities, secondary skills, and experience. Thus informed, the referee then assigns a chance-in-six of success.

For instance, suppose that the party chance upon a subterranean temple dedicated to a deity worshipped centuries ago. The player of the cleric asks if his character knows anything about the dæmon idol rising from the temple dais, so the referee assigns a 4-in-6 chance (difficulty: moderate) that some general or specific information is recalled.

As another example, suppose that a ranger leads a score of refugees across unfamiliar marshy terrain. In the near distance he spies a patch of lotuses nodding their heads in the gentle breeze. The player of said ranger understands that certain species of Hyperborean lotus can release deadly spores, so he asks the referee if his character knows anything about these plants. The referee considers the ranger’s experience, intelligence, and wisdom, but also that this is a foreign land, and thus assigns a 3-in-6 chance (difficulty: challenging) for the ranger to identify the lotuses as harmful or not.

Table III.8.: d6 Task Resolution

Estimated   Probability
Difficulty     of Success
Simple               5:6
Moderate           4:6
Challenging        3:6
Difficult              2:6
Very Difficult      1:6

Chainsaw · 12/06/2015 9:50 am

I totally forgot about those examples of the d6 Task Resolution, David, because stuff like that is exactly when I often resort to some sort of INT attribute check. I think I'll skew toward d6 in these instances going forward. Thanks for the reminder!

Edit: Ideally, where I can, I try to avoid INT/WIS checks because I think they're a very slippery slope toward a playstyle I don't enjoy. We're all a little different though, so if other referees and their groups enjoy a game with those checks, by all means, you should use them. Seems like an easy enough thing to adjust on a group-specific basis.

mabon5127 · 12/06/2015 9:52 am

DMPrata wrote:
Has anyone considered using d6 task resolution in these situations? It still lets the players roll dice without obviating their need for engagement.

d6 Task Resolution: When a nonstandard action is attempted, the referee may call for d6 task resolution. The referee must consider the action and factor in character class, applicable abilities, secondary skills, and experience. Thus informed, the referee then assigns a chance-in-six of success.

For instance, suppose that the party chance upon a subterranean temple dedicated to a deity worshipped centuries ago. The player of the cleric asks if his character knows anything about the dæmon idol rising from the temple dais, so the referee assigns a 4-in-6 chance (difficulty: moderate) that some general or specific information is recalled.

As another example, suppose that a ranger leads a score of refugees across unfamiliar marshy terrain. In the near distance he spies a patch of lotuses nodding their heads in the gentle breeze. The player of said ranger understands that certain species of Hyperborean lotus can release deadly spores, so he asks the referee if his character knows anything about these plants. The referee considers the ranger’s experience, intelligence, and wisdom, but also that this is a foreign land, and thus assigns a 3-in-6 chance (difficulty: challenging) for the ranger to identify the lotuses as harmful or not.

Table III.8.: d6 Task Resolution

Estimated   Probability
Difficulty     of Success
Simple               5:6
Moderate           4:6
Challenging        3:6
Difficult              2:6
Very Difficult      1:6

You could. But you could also use the same system for physical tests. The current system for physical tests allows those characters with greater areas of physicality to have a better chance of success in those areas. I don't have to roleplay lifting a boulder I just roll the dice and viola its lifted or it isn't.

Some "puzzles" or situations are for the players regardless of character int. I don't roll for them to figure it out because I do want them to figure it out as players. For characters I don't see a difference between a fighter lifting a boulder and a wizard deciphering runes on a temple wall. Strength of arm vs strength of mind.

Ghul · 12/06/2015 9:52 am

I use it quite a bit, Dave, but I also use an alternative method that Antonio Eleuteri (rabindath) and I worked out during the early development of AS&SH. Ultimately, I decided on the simpler d6 task resolution method you've cited, but since I've found room in my own game for the slightly more complex system that Antonio and I developed, I often consider whether it should be included as an alternate method for other referees, too. It is attribute based, and worth discussing when we next meet.

Ynas Midgard · 12/06/2015 10:02 am

Now I'm tempted to design a dungeon that would serve as an example to how I run puzzles (so it would note which stuff is "rollable" and which must be figured out by the players)...

gizmomathboy · 12/06/2015 10:24 am

Maybe for the INT/WIS stuff you don't get to solve the puzzle outright but are given a clue that could help you solve it?

Of course, now I'm interested in the alternate resolution system alluded to by Ghul.

rhialto · 12/06/2015 10:28 am

DMPrata wrote:
Has anyone considered using d6 task resolution in these situations? It still lets the players roll dice without obviating their need for engagement.

Yes, this is what I use, for just about anything. Rhil the Thief (background: musician) playing for his room & board? Roll a d6, 5:6. Naia the Cleric of Apollo binding wounds (background: pirate)? Roll a d6, 5:6. Q the Mysterious, Illusionist Extraordinaire (background: slave) deciphering the Amulet of Set? Roll a d6, 1:6 (it's an artifact, you think I'm going to give away it's secrets!). And so on.

rhialto · 12/06/2015 10:31 am

Ghul wrote:
I use it quite a bit, Dave, but I also use an alternative method that Antonio Eleuteri (rabindath) and I worked out during the early development of AS&SH. Ultimately, I decided on the simpler d6 task resolution method you've cited, but since I've found room in my own game for the slightly more complex system that Antonio and I developed, I often consider whether it should be included as an alternate method for other referees, too. It is attribute based, and worth discussing when we next meet.

I'd like to see it: Beyond the Wall uses such a system, and Swords & Wizardry (or maybe Crypts & Things) uses the Saving Throw to adjudicate "non-standard skills". I still prefer the "roll a d6", but I'm simple that way. If I wanted a detailed skill system I'd play BRP.

Blackadder23 · 12/06/2015 11:29 am

rhialto wrote:
Blackadder23 wrote:
I hate to sound like a taskmaster, but "I prefer not to engage with the game" is not an acceptable playing style to me. Modern gamers with families and responsibilities usually have to go to great lengths to clear their schedules for a gaming session, and in my strong opinion they're owed the respect of full attention and participation by everyone involved. But maybe I'm old-fashioned that way...
Assuming you meant no offense by quoting something not said...

I run for a mixed group of dads and kids, the youngest of whom is almost 10: it is simply not reasonable to expect the same level of engagement/ingenuity/what have you from him, as we have noted time and again in our AAR. What is important to us is that we are engaged as families in playing a game together, and having fun.

That said I usually use these rolls to provoke lines of thought, not give the answer outright. Especially as my world is a Schroedinger world and waiting to be discovered by me, too.

Certainly no offense was intended. I'm sorry that anything I said could be construed as offensive.
I was responding to the idea of players "just chilling" during a gaming session, which I took to mean not engaging with the game being played. To me, this is disrespectful and unacceptable. People can "chill" on their own time. When several people have cleared their schedules for a group activity, I believe everyone involved owes the courtesy of their full attention. I know I may sound like a jerk, and I realize it's not "politically correct" to put things that strongly, but that's just how I see it. Maybe I am a taskmaster...
Your game sounds fantastic. I'm especially pleased to see young people being introduced to "real" D&D. I wouldn't presume to tell you how to run your campaign. I would just say there are lots of puzzles and riddles that are entirely solvable by younger players. No one would suggest giving them problems based on Latin grammar or the Fibonacci sequence, but there are plenty of other challenges eminently suited to their age level. I also believe the feeling of accomplishment from actually working out a problem without help is many times greater than the feeling of accomplishment from meeting a number on a die roll - especially for a child. But ultimately, the important thing (as you say) is that you're playing great games as a family. Good luck with your campaign.

Blackadder23 · 12/06/2015 11:54 am

I don't really care if other referees give away answers to puzzles and riddles with die rolls (other than thinking they're softies, but that's my problem). My objection to including such a mechanic in the default rules is that some players will then argue that it's an entitlement - i.e., "But the rules say I'm supposed to get a saving throw vs. having to think!" I still wouldn't give it to them, but it could get annoying.
I also have another objection to this mechanic, this time from a player's perspective. On another forum, a referee mentioned that in his 1e campaign PC's weren't "allowed" to burn green slime unless they passed an INT check to "prove they knew they should". I think that's absolutely outrageous. Why even bother with players? In my view, PCs should be able to attempt any action their player desires, unless under magical compulsion of some kind. The referee can set the chance of success wherever he wants (including zero) and he can warn of a possible alignment violation. But it's unacceptable to me for a referee to exercise "prior restraint" over PC actions, and I worry that this is another use to which such a mechanic could be put ("I charge the ogre bare-handed!" "Your PC must fail a WIS check before you can take that action"). Some referees are apparently doing it already...

Doctor_Rob · 12/06/2015 12:35 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
I was responding to the idea of players "just chilling" during a gaming session, which I took to mean not engaging with the game being played. To me, this is disrespectful and unacceptable. People can "chill" on their own time. When several people have cleared their schedules for a group activity, I believe everyone involved owes the courtesy of their full attention. I know I may sound like a jerk, and I realize it's not "politically correct" to put things that strongly, but that's just how I see it. Maybe I am a taskmaster...

I take your point about disengagement, and I too find it annoying on the occasions when it has happened.

My 'chill' point was aimed at something different and was not intended to imply disengagement (sorry if this was not clear). To put it in a context: we play late on a weekday (can't do weekends due to family commitments), we all work and some of us are tired. But, we like to gather together to play the game. So, if that means cutting the players a little slack, then so be it. So long as we are all paying attention (and not looking at the phone) then we are all happy.

The central point is that there are many ways to play and engage with the game, and so long a everyone involved is having fun, then that's what matters.

But, this is getting away from the original point. How the suggested extension (of the existing mechanic into the psychological stats) is used in a game will differ according to each group's preferences. As already stated above, some may prefer to game-out situations and eschew rolling dice, whereas others may ask what the PC does and then roll the dice.

Rob

mabon5127 · 12/06/2015 1:24 pm

Doctor_Rob wrote:
My 'chill' point was aimed at something different and was not intended to imply disengagement (sorry if this was not clear). To put it in a context: we play late on a weekday (can't do weekends due to family commitments), we all work and some of us are tired. But, we like to gather together to play the game. So, if that means cutting the players a little slack, then so be it. So long as we are all paying attention (and not looking at the phone) then we are all happy.

The central point is that there are many ways to play and engage with the game, and so long a everyone involved is having fun, then that's what matters.
Rob

We play on Friday evenings with many people arriving from work. Nearly everyone is tired including me so it tends to be a very relaxed atmosphere. We don't always get a lot accomplished.....

mabon5127 · 12/06/2015 1:36 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
I don't really care if other referees give away answers to puzzles and riddles with die rolls (other than thinking they're softies, but that's my problem). My objection to including such a mechanic in the default rules is that some players will then argue that it's an entitlement - i.e., "But the rules say I'm supposed to get a saving throw vs. having to think!" I still wouldn't give it to them, but it could get annoying.

Heh! But on the other hand just because there are rules for the physical attributes doesn't mean they automatically get a chance to push a tree over. I'm pretty sure you are in control of your game and don't allow entitlements. I've used this house rule for three years and never had anyone come close to using it to replace actual thought or role-playing. Maybe I'm just lucky because I am not a hard-nut GM!