Surprise happens. It happens when a die roll says it does. Droping items happens. It happens when a die roll following surprise says it does. Bite or sting or fire breathing happen. Falling victim to traps happen. These and many more circumstances happen when a die roll says they do, regardless of player desires. Players must face the dice and act as seems best to them.
All true, I agree. But these are not all that happens.
Players have the opportunity to cause things to happen too. In fact, one might argue that the more control the players have, the more likely they are to survive and/or succeed. Therefore players might desire to be in the driver's seat as often as possible.
The referee, of course, may know something the players don't...
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #61 on Apr 19, 2012, 10:31pm »
Here's the Thief Table from Greyhawk converted (roughly) from percentages to d6 rolls:
For most of the abilities, his d6 chance = 1/2 of his level.
If you find this doesn't scale fast enough with level, you could speed up the increase 2x like this:
This is even easier to remember: his d6 chance for most is equal to his level. Thieves require only 20k for level 6, so he'd max out on these skills while other characters are still 5th level.
With either table, Dwarves get a +1 to Remove Traps; Elves a +1 to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows; and Hobbits a +1 to Open Locks, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows and Hear Noise. (By this I mean, the bonus is added to the number they need to roll under).
For locks, we could postulate (based on the implications of the Greyhawk supplement) that most locks in the Mythical Underworld are difficult to open, and the thief score represents a difficult dungeon lock. Easy locks could give a +2, medium-difficulty locks +1. This would give a normal person a 2 in 6 chance for easy locks, 3 in 6 chance for thieves. This is not far from what 'ways' suggested.
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #62 on Apr 19, 2012, 11:02pm »
Just for fun, here's the Greyhawk Thief Skills represented as Saving Throws.
Here, like all Saving Throws, we are rolling above the listed score on a d20.
Again, Dwarves get a +1 to Remove Traps; Elves a +1 to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows; and Hobbits a +1 to Open Locks, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows and Hear Noise. But here it's added to the Player's Roll rather than the score they are rolling against.
For adding fun, a natural 20 is always success and a natural 1 is always a fail. Non-thief characters have a 5% chance of success in performing any of the thief skills, except Hear Noise.
You could also easily add a simple Dex bonus to this system, say 13 or higher gives you a +1 on the table (whether thief or not).
New Magic Item: +1 Ring of Thievery gives a thief a +1 on his Thief Skill Saving Throws.
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #63 on Apr 20, 2012, 6:03am »
Quote:
course[/i] it is always the referee's prerogative to rule that the odds are different on a case by case basis when there are compelling circumstances.
But this is rarely necessary with a coarse-grained system. A circumstantial factor would have to be worth 15% or 20% before it would be noticed on a 1d6 roll. There are very few of these in OD&D.
On the other hand, there are a lot more adjustments worth 5% or 10%. With a fine grained system (such as percentile) players do, as you say, have the expectation that the referee will consider all the myriad factors, and adjust every die accordingly. I agree, and I mentioned the same effect in my rant about simplicity.
In a coarse grained system, expectations are set differently. And quite appropriately, in my view. There are very few "big" modifiers in OD&D, and so few modifiers ever need to be considered when throwing a d6.
My own experience with this is that most players are actually quite happy to forget about all the fiddly adjustments and focus on the game.
So long as the referee is consistent and keeps the game moving along, the players will be content.
Well, then you are considering the whole situation and just disregarding any consequences that don't affect it greatly.
In other words you are looking at the whole situation and deciding that on the whole the odds are in his favour and he should get a 4 in 6 chance to achieve success.
In other words you are putting pretty much exactly the same amount of thought into the process as I am. The difference is that whilst you say 4 in 6, I might say 4 in 6, or I might have jumped to a percentile number and thrown that. I'm not considering each factor individually as a percentile modifier, I'm playing it by feel and saying "to me that feels roughly 65%" or "that feels like a 15%".
See?
Neither is better or worse or particularly faster. As long as you are actually considering the situation, if briefly, that's all that matters to me.
Quote:
Regarding you comments on the various "skills", and specifically the case of surprise, you seem to be arguing that "circumstance dictates what happens".
This is clearly the antithesis of what actually happens in play.
It is explicitly the role of the players to cause stuff to happen, and then the referee's role to report back how the world responds as a result. Players are forever saying "I sneak into the room...", "I search the statue...", "I set fire to it...", "I listen for any noise..." and all the rest. That is what the players do!
If circumstance dictates what happens, then player actions are hardly important. If the players can't intentionally cause things to happen, but things just "happen to them" according to circumstance, why bother having players at all? That sounds to me like a referee-only simulation, rather than an interactive game of D&D.
You seem to have a strange perception of what Aldarron and I mean by circumstances. If the players aren't affected by circumstances, and circumstances aren't affected by players then the players aren't interacting with the world. I'm considering circumstances to affect the way players do things, or the chances of players doing things, or causing things to happen to players who then have to react to them. And likewise, players can alter circumstances by approaching situations in different ways, or cause completely different circumstances etc. And from the looks of it, that's what Aldarron's talking about too.
We seem to have all got a little confused here!
Interesting stuff as always Zenopus! I particularly like the table based on Saving Throw style numbers. Although of course, as I say I'm moving away from the idea of thief skills that improve by level and instead prefer the idea of them simply getting more options as they level up.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #64 on Apr 20, 2012, 6:52am »
Also you seem to be under the misapprehension that what Aldarron and I are discussing is a system. From my perspective at least, what I am discussing here is my intentional *lack* of a system. Systems create expectations and lawyers. As a referee I am simply assigning percentage or otherwise odds on something happening, basing these on gut instinct and an appreciation of the circumstances surrounding the action.
If the players don't think they can influence the odds of something occurring or not occurring then they will not feel like they have any control over their character or its actions. On the other hand, if they know the exact numbers and ways they can influence things then they can start thinking too much like lawyers, which is my problem with some players brought up with 3rd and 4th edition d&d.
Edit:
Of course, if you don't *tell* your players that no matter the situation it will always be a 4 in 6 chance for things they're 'good' at, or 2 in 6 otherwise then it doesn't really matter.
After all, our purpose is to host an entertaining session of play. So as long as the players *believe* they can affect things, that's all that matters no matter what odds you're using.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,220 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #65 on Apr 20, 2012, 7:19pm »
@Zenopus, Nice tables
I personally prefer that low level thieves don't have awful odds of performing their primary function... but that is another debate.
@Norse, I acknowledge that you can assign an percentage by "gut feel". I am all for the referee just "ruling" that the chance of success is "X" -- the entire proposition of this thread was to provide the referee with a neat little OD&D way of coming up with the "X".
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to have turned your argument around. You argued previously that the referee was "expected" to enumerate and evaluate a list of relevant factors to come up with "X", and chided the notion of glossing over most of these as a rather unpalatable simplification.
Now you seem to be arguing you can gloss over all that and do exactly as I was suggesting just as easily as I can. I agree, you can.
Also you seem to be under the misapprehension that what Aldarron and I are discussing is a system. From my perspective at least, what I am discussing here is my intentional *lack* of a system.
I doubt very much that Aldarron and your good self don't have a system. You may well have an undocumented system, but it is still a system. If you had no system whatsoever, your results would be completely random, or meaningless, or even absent altogether. I know from your contributions to this discussion that is unlikely.
Even if your system is entirely in your head it is still a system. The "in your head system" (probably) constrains possible results to integers between 1 and 100. It (probably) further restricts the results to increments of 5%. It (probably) gives you a big number when you think the odds of success are good. And so on. It is just as much a system as anything written on paper... if fact, it is very likely a much better one. Otherwise, you wouldn't be using it.
If the players don't think they can influence the odds of something occurring or not occurring then they will not feel like they have any control over their character or its actions. On the other hand, if they know the exact numbers and ways they can influence things then they can start thinking too much like lawyers, which is my problem with some players brought up with 3rd and 4th edition d&d.
Edit:
Of course, if you don't *tell* your players that no matter the situation it will always be a 4 in 6 chance for things they're 'good' at, or 2 in 6 otherwise then it doesn't really matter.
FWIW -- I believe the players should know what their PCs are good at. The thief player should be able to assume he is good at infiltration and subterfuge -- that is what his character is for. I don't explicitly tell the player what the odds are, but I don't hide them either. If they ask me, I will tell them.
our purpose is to host an entertaining session of play. So as long as the players *believe* they can affect things, that's all that matters no matter what odds you're using.
I agree absolutely with that!
I think I am just about done here guys. I've expressed my notion to the best of my ability... I hope someone may have got something useful out of it.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to have turned your argument around. You argued previously that the referee was "expected" to enumerate and evaluate a list of relevant factors to come up with "X", and chided the notion of glossing over most of these as a rather unpalatable simplification.
Now you seem to be arguing you can gloss over all that and do exactly as I was suggesting just as easily as I can. I agree, you can.
You have indeed misunderstood me. I did not argue that the referee was expected to enumerate a list of relevant factors. Only to consider the situation as a whole rather than basing the odds which you have selected based solely on the training of the character in question and no other factor. Which is what it sounded like you were suggesting considering the statement you made in response to the example of what might be going through my head. Which it turns out wasn't what you were suggesting at all.
Also you seem to be under the misapprehension that what Aldarron and I are discussing is a system. From my perspective at least, what I am discussing here is my intentional *lack* of a system.
I doubt very much that Aldarron and your good self don't have a system. You may well have an undocumented system, but it is still a system. If you had no system whatsoever, your results would be completely random, or meaningless, or even absent altogether. I know from your contributions to this discussion that is unlikely.
Even if your system is entirely in your head it is still a system. The "in your head system" (probably) constrains possible results to integers between 1 and 100. It (probably) further restricts the results to increments of 5%. It (probably) gives you a big number when you think the odds of success are good. And so on. It is just as much a system as anything written on paper... if fact, it is very likely a much better one. Otherwise, you wouldn't be using it.
Fair enough, can't really argue with that I guess. The discussion point there then is whether you have a system that players can see and figure out, or one run mostly from your head.
Quote:
FWIW -- I believe the players should know what their PCs are good at. The thief player should be able to assume he is good at infiltration and subterfuge -- that is what his character is for.
I agree.
Quote:
I don't explicitly tell the player what the odds are, but I don't hide them either. If they ask me, I will tell them.
Fair enough. For me, except in cases where I've felt like letting them roll the dice on that one, or got them to act like a prat in front of everyone by making slug noises or whatever, the dice have already been rolled and the situation decided on before they consider asking.
Quote:
I think I am just about done here guys. I've expressed my notion to the best of my ability... I hope someone may have got something useful out of it.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
I like his reading of this, but I have always understood the roll to be random, more or less part of the dungeon key, having little reference to the party. Isn't the 'Avoiding Monsters' taken up in U&WA (12)? Has anyone else interpreted the die as Zenopus? Zenopus or anyone else can you present some of the considerations you imagine assumed in that roll?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/screenshot20120419at111.png/ "[image]")
![[image]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/screenshot20120419at111.png/ "[image]")
![[image]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/444/screenshot20120420at120.png/ "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
