Everyone is familiar with the situation where the GM asks a single player for a preception roll and suddenly every other player is asking to make a roll as well.
I’ve been thinking about those moments and I want to share and get some feedback on an idea. Also, this idea cannot be used in all situations. It requires the triggering event to be limited to very short amount of time.
Initiative represents a characters ability to respond to a threating situation in relation to the other creatures involved.
I prepose that Initiative can and should be used in non-threatening situations
For example:
A shadowy figure darts across a doorway on the far side of a hall. The GM asks for a preception check from a player that she/he felt was in position to observe the figure.The rest of the table asks to also make perception checks and the GM agrees that anyone who was also in the hallway may have potentially caught sight of the figure.
The GM then asks for an Initiative check from everyone EXCEPT the initial character and rolls initiative for the shadowy figure. Those that roll higher than the shadowy figure also get a preception check.
In addition to keeping meta gaming down at the table, this also rewards those players who sacrificed ability score improvements for Initiative Feats like Alert.
What do you think? Is there a better way other than Initiative to represent a characters recation? Thanks for the feedback!
I haven't DMed 5e yet... but I can tell you that the situation you're describing isn't 5e specific... it's every dice-based RPG ever. :P There's a couple of things:
Yes, you could simply use init for stuff like that. It's a system that pretty much everyone understands and no one can really argue with... EXCEPT: If one player has a good idea or thinks to ask a question and the others don't, why would you give the bossy "me me me" players a chance to shoulder that person out of the way?
Here's how I've always handled situations like that:
Two types of situations... One is the "passive" check. The part, or at least a character, is in a position where they might notice something. This could be Perception, or any other thing that if successful the party will get information and if not they won't. The players don't even make these rolls, or if they do, they don't know what they're rolling or what they're rolling for. Mostly though those rolls are made behind the screen. A good DM has either copies of the character sheets or, better, a "cheat sheet" with stats they might need to make hidden rolls against. (Edit: That sounded crappy, didn't mean you can't be a good DM if you don't do this.. just what came out when I was blabbering.) If you have a list of everyone's Passive Perception sitting behind your screen, you've got all the info you need to determine whether they notice something or not. This also gives you an ability you don't have otherwise... If you ask the player to roll and they fail you really shouldn't give them the information anyway, if you roll behind the screen, and the roll is close, or for whatever nefarious reason you want them to succeed, they still do. It also prevents the "But what about me? I have a +22 to my check!" conversations that really aren't productive.
The other scenario is for "active" skills. When someone says "I want to look for ..." I take a moment and decide if they're going to be able to actually do whatever it is that they're asking about, at that point I would go to the next player and say "What are you going to do while Bobby looks for the needle in the haystack?" If the player says "I'm going to help Bobby look through the haystack.", great... they get a roll. If they say "I'm going to go look at this other thing over here..." then that's what they're doing. At that point once all of the different actions are decided if someone says "Well, I'm going to go look through the haystack..." you point out that "You said your character was going to go do that other thing that you did... why would your character go back and redo what Bobby and Jimbo already did?" The first time someone new says "But they failed their rolls!" you point out that "Your character has no concept of dice rolls, as far as your character is concerned if Bobby and Jimbo didn't find anything, it's because it wasn't there ... or your character is going to have to tell Bobby and Jimbo that they must not have looked hard enough before your character gets a shot at it." If they're willing to roleplay it out and everyone in the party is willing to stand around another ten minutes while another character checks something... so be it. In the future though, someone should point out that Bobby and Jimbo aren't good at looking for things and find them something else to do :P
I think your approach is fine, but honestly in this case, it's more appropriate to use passive perception scores instead of calling for a check. Active perception checks should come out when players actually spend their action looking for something.
Initiative is for combat. Outside of combat, you'd just be making a Dexterity check.
As mattdm says, it's pointless in the situation you described. Either the characters are in a position to notice the person or they're not. If they are, their passive Perception comes into play; if they're not, they have no chance to notice.
I agree that the hypothetical situation provided would more likely call for a passive perception check on the DMs part, but I don't dislike the idea itself. Initiative is just another tool to use, and need not be limited to combat ordering.
In most cases, I usually do my best to order things as the players say what they want to do, and only roll the initiative in cases of tie breaking, or if someone specifically says they're trying to beat another player to the bunch, making it a contest.
Well, can't argue with that. Thanks for the feedback. I still want to find a way to reward players outside of combat who are prioritizing Initiative. It hasn't been an issue yet, but I had this problem when I was running a 4e game. A player made a samurai that was built around the Iaijutsu ability and never ended up really benefiting from the specialization. Am I being too soft hearted?
I realize that failure is part of the game and can be equally/more interesting than success. Yet, I've watched enough players on a streak of bad luck to know that it eventually gets old. GMs can always have a conversation with troubled players, however; I'd like to ensure I have done my due diligence to ensure the player is having fun.
I like the tie breaking idea and will have to use it the next time a situation comes up. I don't feel Dexterity Checks fully cover the concept of reaction as both mental and physical response to events. Dexterity is defined in the PHB as covering "Physical agility, reflexes, balance, poise". All of which are clearly describing a physicallity except reflexes. So I assume (RAW) it means physical reflexes.
Again, thank you for your feedback and I appreciate everyone who took time to respond.
Good Gaming and Good Luck!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"One is wiser after the harm's been done."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello.
Everyone is familiar with the situation where the GM asks a single player for a preception roll and suddenly every other player is asking to make a roll as well.
I’ve been thinking about those moments and I want to share and get some feedback on an idea. Also, this idea cannot be used in all situations. It requires the triggering event to be limited to very short amount of time.
Initiative represents a characters ability to respond to a threating situation in relation to the other creatures involved.
I prepose that Initiative can and should be used in non-threatening situations
For example:
A shadowy figure darts across a doorway on the far side of a hall. The GM asks for a preception check from a player that she/he felt was in position to observe the figure.The rest of the table asks to also make perception checks and the GM agrees that anyone who was also in the hallway may have potentially caught sight of the figure.
The GM then asks for an Initiative check from everyone EXCEPT the initial character and rolls initiative for the shadowy figure. Those that roll higher than the shadowy figure also get a preception check.
In addition to keeping meta gaming down at the table, this also rewards those players who sacrificed ability score improvements for Initiative Feats like Alert.
What do you think? Is there a better way other than Initiative to represent a characters recation? Thanks for the feedback!
It is with a try
I haven't DMed 5e yet... but I can tell you that the situation you're describing isn't 5e specific... it's every dice-based RPG ever. :P There's a couple of things:
Yes, you could simply use init for stuff like that. It's a system that pretty much everyone understands and no one can really argue with... EXCEPT: If one player has a good idea or thinks to ask a question and the others don't, why would you give the bossy "me me me" players a chance to shoulder that person out of the way?
Here's how I've always handled situations like that:
Two types of situations... One is the "passive" check. The part, or at least a character, is in a position where they might notice something. This could be Perception, or any other thing that if successful the party will get information and if not they won't. The players don't even make these rolls, or if they do, they don't know what they're rolling or what they're rolling for. Mostly though those rolls are made behind the screen. A good DM has either copies of the character sheets or, better, a "cheat sheet" with stats they might need to make hidden rolls against. (Edit: That sounded crappy, didn't mean you can't be a good DM if you don't do this.. just what came out when I was blabbering.) If you have a list of everyone's Passive Perception sitting behind your screen, you've got all the info you need to determine whether they notice something or not. This also gives you an ability you don't have otherwise... If you ask the player to roll and they fail you really shouldn't give them the information anyway, if you roll behind the screen, and the roll is close, or for whatever nefarious reason you want them to succeed, they still do. It also prevents the "But what about me? I have a +22 to my check!" conversations that really aren't productive.
The other scenario is for "active" skills. When someone says "I want to look for ..." I take a moment and decide if they're going to be able to actually do whatever it is that they're asking about, at that point I would go to the next player and say "What are you going to do while Bobby looks for the needle in the haystack?" If the player says "I'm going to help Bobby look through the haystack.", great... they get a roll. If they say "I'm going to go look at this other thing over here..." then that's what they're doing. At that point once all of the different actions are decided if someone says "Well, I'm going to go look through the haystack..." you point out that "You said your character was going to go do that other thing that you did... why would your character go back and redo what Bobby and Jimbo already did?" The first time someone new says "But they failed their rolls!" you point out that "Your character has no concept of dice rolls, as far as your character is concerned if Bobby and Jimbo didn't find anything, it's because it wasn't there ... or your character is going to have to tell Bobby and Jimbo that they must not have looked hard enough before your character gets a shot at it." If they're willing to roleplay it out and everyone in the party is willing to stand around another ten minutes while another character checks something... so be it. In the future though, someone should point out that Bobby and Jimbo aren't good at looking for things and find them something else to do :P
I think your approach is fine, but honestly in this case, it's more appropriate to use passive perception scores instead of calling for a check. Active perception checks should come out when players actually spend their action looking for something.
Initiative is for combat. Outside of combat, you'd just be making a Dexterity check.
As mattdm says, it's pointless in the situation you described. Either the characters are in a position to notice the person or they're not. If they are, their passive Perception comes into play; if they're not, they have no chance to notice.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I agree that the hypothetical situation provided would more likely call for a passive perception check on the DMs part, but I don't dislike the idea itself. Initiative is just another tool to use, and need not be limited to combat ordering.
In most cases, I usually do my best to order things as the players say what they want to do, and only roll the initiative in cases of tie breaking, or if someone specifically says they're trying to beat another player to the bunch, making it a contest.
Well, can't argue with that. Thanks for the feedback. I still want to find a way to reward players outside of combat who are prioritizing Initiative. It hasn't been an issue yet, but I had this problem when I was running a 4e game. A player made a samurai that was built around the Iaijutsu ability and never ended up really benefiting from the specialization. Am I being too soft hearted?
I realize that failure is part of the game and can be equally/more interesting than success. Yet, I've watched enough players on a streak of bad luck to know that it eventually gets old. GMs can always have a conversation with troubled players, however; I'd like to ensure I have done my due diligence to ensure the player is having fun.
I like the tie breaking idea and will have to use it the next time a situation comes up. I don't feel Dexterity Checks fully cover the concept of reaction as both mental and physical response to events. Dexterity is defined in the PHB as covering "Physical agility, reflexes, balance, poise". All of which are clearly describing a physicallity except reflexes. So I assume (RAW) it means physical reflexes.
Again, thank you for your feedback and I appreciate everyone who took time to respond.
Good Gaming and Good Luck!