Self-evaluation of a skill check. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Self-evaluation of a skill check. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
jaspercrey
02-22-07, 08:09 AM The whole "can a rogue take 20 to search for traps" has got me thinking . . .

When a character rolls poorly on a skill check and decides to roll again (hoping for a better result) is it metagaming or is it wise self-evaluation?

In other words, when you roll a 1 does your character recognize that he/she can do better and when you roll a 20 does your character know he/she has done the best they could?

Furthermore, just how does one self-evaluate a skill check?
cog_n_taz
02-22-07, 08:12 AM A wisdom check, perhaps?
Stumm_Dolch
02-22-07, 08:26 AM In my game it depends on the situation and how high/low the roll is.

A PC rolling for a search check for example missing the DC by 5 or so on something I want them to find I might say something like "You didn't see anything in the area you were searching but as you turned away something catches the corner of you eye... of course it might have been nothing." and let them roll again if they choose.

But, if it's a very low roll then They feel they have done their absolulte best and are convinced there is absolutely nothing they have missed.

These are checks the DM might want to be rolling for the players anyway, but I haven't done that in too many of my games.

I can't stand it when a player rolls for a skill check and sees a 1-5 pop up on that d20 and snatches the dice back up saying, I check again! Umm nope, you don't... atleast not now.
Inigo Carmine
02-22-07, 09:06 AM Unless they can see the results, then no.

Some skills give instant feedback though: jumping and climbing for instance will let you know just how well you did.

That being said, sometimes it is wise to be cautious. If a rogue suspects an area is trapped, he would be wise to take the extremely cautious route and take 20.

If I had to clear an active mine field with nothing but a hand shovel, you'd bet I'd be very careful in my search for mines. Instead of only spending 6 seconds on every 5-ftx5-ft area, I'd check, check again, check some more, and recheck a whole bunch of times.
Eightbitmage
02-22-07, 10:29 AM If someone searches and finds nothing they are not aware of how high they rolled, but they are aware that they did not find anything. If the last three doors have been trapped, and the rouge searches the fourth door and finds nothing they wouldn't be re rolling because they got a 1, but rather because they have pattern recognition. Usually in those cases they will forgo rerolling and just take 20 anyway.

I usually make sure my players have a good reason for a reroll on something like this before they can attempt one, and I always encourage taking 10 and taking 20.
Sereno
02-22-07, 10:56 AM I do roll some Spot/Listen-type checks in secret, but I generally allow my players to roll their own checks when they are explicitly taking the action.

I don't have a problem with them looking at the roll and deciding if they want to re-roll or add in an Action Point. I think people, in general, have an idea of how well or poorly they did something.
mvincent
02-22-07, 02:10 PM I generally have my players take 10 if there would be opportunity for reroll. They usually wouldn't use meta-game knowledge to reroll anyway (and I usually wouldn't allow it), but no biggie if it occasionally happens, since it's just a game.

I could roll for them in secret instead, but I rarely wish to do so.
Marcus Majarra
02-22-07, 03:52 PM Here are a few things that allow self-evaluation with respect to skill checks:

1) Gaining additional skill ranks. If anything, you've learned how to better use your skill by virtue of this alone, and it guarantees better results under the exact same circumstances.

2) Taking 20. This is basically trying again and again until you get it right (if you can get it right). It's highly reliable if you have the time.

3) Taking 10. This is what I call pre-emptive self-evaluation.

Simply re-rolling is a matter of luck; how you justify this in the game is up to you. For example, a character making a jump check could trip on something while attempting the jump, or lose his balance mid-air. A character picking a lock could have his lockpick slip inside the lock, ruining an otherwise good effort.
DreadArchon
02-22-07, 05:05 PM I usually allow re-rolls "if it makes sense," vague as that is. Even the PHB Search skill example is "Krusk encounters a mountain cave. He Searches and fails, so then he decides to Search again..."
ciryx2k
02-22-07, 06:28 PM Yeah, this is pretty much situation specific. I roll most rolls behind the screen, even for rolls that some DMs allow players to make (it also depends on how busy I am). If possible, I try to roll the following skills behind the screen: Appraise, Decipher Script, Disguise, Forgery, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot.

The reason for these is because the results are usually immediate but unknown. Appraise failed? You get ripped off. Forgery failed? This thing's more obvious than a Mona Lisa with buck-teeth. You get the picture. If players can give decent reason they are re-rolling on these, I don't call it metagaming (usually) and will re-roll for them.

Anything else where they roll low and the player knows it, IF and ONLY IF, a re-roll is justified, I will require them to take 20 on it (if they have the time). Basically it's the character's thought process of, "Okay, I botched this and I know it, so I'm just gonna take my time, quit rushing, and do this right."
Draco Strang
02-23-07, 06:06 PM I let my players roll physical skills (Climb, Balance, Jump, etc.) because their suceess or failure is obvious in-game, as well as per the die roll. A player who rolls a 1 or a 20 on a Swim check will know how well their character did, based on the numerical values. Correspondingly, the in-game character will instantly know,based on whether they're sinking or breaking Olympic records.

Skills that are based less concrete evidence, and are open to intrepretation (Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Spot, Listen, etc.) I roll for the players, and I always have a list of those modifiers for each character behind my screen.

Why? Because it's entirely possible to THINK that you did well at something and completely blow it. We've all failed tests we thought we aced, made bad first impressions that we thought went over well, and turned in a crappy forged excuse note to our homeroom teachers that we slaved over for two hours.

As a result, it's fun (and arguably necessary) to leave the players in suspense when it comes down to searching for loot or trying to talk their way past a town official. If characters with high modifiers a few under the required DC, they'll be very hesitant to accept the fact that they failed, and just assume that their was nothing there.

Party Rogue: "Of course there's no trap on this door guys. I've seen and disarmed stuff in way higher-security places than this. Don't you think I'd find something if it was here?

Party Bard: "Guys, it's cool. I totally convinced that guard that we're not here to kill anyone, and I think he bought it."

Party Ranger: "No, trust me....we'll take the high road. That's DEFINITELY the way they went. I've been tracking for years, trust me."

These scenarios are far more fun and realistic than "No, you roll a one, and you know you screwed up. Try again guys."
StevenO
02-23-07, 07:02 PM If the character would not know the result of a skill check (success or failure) I wouldn't let them roll it to begin with but also wouldn't deny them another chance. If they would know the result there is no reason they can't reroll.

When possible I'd normally recommend just taking twice as long to do things; once for a take 10 and once for an actual roll. One is basic procedure while the other is a little more effort which may or may not be more helpful in determining the outcome. Taking 10 plus a second roll allows you to get through the easy stuff while pointing out the harder things.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jaspercrey 02-22-07, 08:09 AM	The whole "can a rogue take 20 to search for traps" has got me thinking . . . When a character rolls poorly on a skill check and decides to roll again (hoping for a better result) is it metagaming or is it wise self-evaluation? In other words, when you roll a 1 does your character recognize that he/she can do better and when you roll a 20 does your character know he/she has done the best they could? Furthermore, just how does one self-evaluate a skill check?
cog_n_taz 02-22-07, 08:12 AM	A wisdom check, perhaps?
Stumm_Dolch 02-22-07, 08:26 AM	In my game it depends on the situation and how high/low the roll is. A PC rolling for a search check for example missing the DC by 5 or so on something I want them to find I might say something like "You didn't see anything in the area you were searching but as you turned away something catches the corner of you eye... of course it might have been nothing." and let them roll again if they choose. But, if it's a very low roll then They feel they have done their absolulte best and are convinced there is absolutely nothing they have missed. These are checks the DM might want to be rolling for the players anyway, but I haven't done that in too many of my games. I can't stand it when a player rolls for a skill check and sees a 1-5 pop up on that d20 and snatches the dice back up saying, I check again! Umm nope, you don't... atleast not now.
Inigo Carmine 02-22-07, 09:06 AM	Unless they can see the results, then no. Some skills give instant feedback though: jumping and climbing for instance will let you know just how well you did. That being said, sometimes it is wise to be cautious. If a rogue suspects an area is trapped, he would be wise to take the extremely cautious route and take 20. If I had to clear an active mine field with nothing but a hand shovel, you'd bet I'd be very careful in my search for mines. Instead of only spending 6 seconds on every 5-ftx5-ft area, I'd check, check again, check some more, and recheck a whole bunch of times.
Eightbitmage 02-22-07, 10:29 AM	If someone searches and finds nothing they are not aware of how high they rolled, but they are aware that they did not find anything. If the last three doors have been trapped, and the rouge searches the fourth door and finds nothing they wouldn't be re rolling because they got a 1, but rather because they have pattern recognition. Usually in those cases they will forgo rerolling and just take 20 anyway. I usually make sure my players have a good reason for a reroll on something like this before they can attempt one, and I always encourage taking 10 and taking 20.
Sereno 02-22-07, 10:56 AM	I do roll some Spot/Listen-type checks in secret, but I generally allow my players to roll their own checks when they are explicitly taking the action. I don't have a problem with them looking at the roll and deciding if they want to re-roll or add in an Action Point. I think people, in general, have an idea of how well or poorly they did something.
mvincent 02-22-07, 02:10 PM	I generally have my players take 10 if there would be opportunity for reroll. They usually wouldn't use meta-game knowledge to reroll anyway (and I usually wouldn't allow it), but no biggie if it occasionally happens, since it's just a game. I could roll for them in secret instead, but I rarely wish to do so.
Marcus Majarra 02-22-07, 03:52 PM	Here are a few things that allow self-evaluation with respect to skill checks: 1) Gaining additional skill ranks. If anything, you've learned how to better use your skill by virtue of this alone, and it guarantees better results under the exact same circumstances. 2) Taking 20. This is basically trying again and again until you get it right (if you can get it right). It's highly reliable if you have the time. 3) Taking 10. This is what I call pre-emptive self-evaluation. Simply re-rolling is a matter of luck; how you justify this in the game is up to you. For example, a character making a jump check could trip on something while attempting the jump, or lose his balance mid-air. A character picking a lock could have his lockpick slip inside the lock, ruining an otherwise good effort.
DreadArchon 02-22-07, 05:05 PM	I usually allow re-rolls "if it makes sense," vague as that is. Even the PHB Search skill example is "Krusk encounters a mountain cave. He Searches and fails, so then he decides to Search again..."
ciryx2k 02-22-07, 06:28 PM	Yeah, this is pretty much situation specific. I roll most rolls behind the screen, even for rolls that some DMs allow players to make (it also depends on how busy I am). If possible, I try to roll the following skills behind the screen: Appraise, Decipher Script, Disguise, Forgery, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot. The reason for these is because the results are usually immediate but unknown. Appraise failed? You get ripped off. Forgery failed? This thing's more obvious than a Mona Lisa with buck-teeth. You get the picture. If players can give decent reason they are re-rolling on these, I don't call it metagaming (usually) and will re-roll for them. Anything else where they roll low and the player knows it, IF and ONLY IF, a re-roll is justified, I will require them to take 20 on it (if they have the time). Basically it's the character's thought process of, "Okay, I botched this and I know it, so I'm just gonna take my time, quit rushing, and do this right."
Draco Strang 02-23-07, 06:06 PM	I let my players roll physical skills (Climb, Balance, Jump, etc.) because their suceess or failure is obvious in-game, as well as per the die roll. A player who rolls a 1 or a 20 on a Swim check will know how well their character did, based on the numerical values. Correspondingly, the in-game character will instantly know,based on whether they're sinking or breaking Olympic records. Skills that are based less concrete evidence, and are open to intrepretation (Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Spot, Listen, etc.) I roll for the players, and I always have a list of those modifiers for each character behind my screen. Why? Because it's entirely possible to THINK that you did well at something and completely blow it. We've all failed tests we thought we aced, made bad first impressions that we thought went over well, and turned in a crappy forged excuse note to our homeroom teachers that we slaved over for two hours. As a result, it's fun (and arguably necessary) to leave the players in suspense when it comes down to searching for loot or trying to talk their way past a town official. If characters with high modifiers a few under the required DC, they'll be very hesitant to accept the fact that they failed, and just assume that their was nothing there. Party Rogue: "Of course there's no trap on this door guys. I've seen and disarmed stuff in way higher-security places than this. Don't you think I'd find something if it was here? Party Bard: "Guys, it's cool. I totally convinced that guard that we're not here to kill anyone, and I think he bought it." Party Ranger: "No, trust me....we'll take the high road. That's DEFINITELY the way they went. I've been tracking for years, trust me." These scenarios are far more fun and realistic than "No, you roll a one, and you know you screwed up. Try again guys."
StevenO 02-23-07, 07:02 PM	If the character would not know the result of a skill check (success or failure) I wouldn't let them roll it to begin with but also wouldn't deny them another chance. If they would know the result there is no reason they can't reroll. When possible I'd normally recommend just taking twice as long to do things; once for a take 10 and once for an actual roll. One is basic procedure while the other is a little more effort which may or may not be more helpful in determining the outcome. Taking 10 plus a second roll allows you to get through the easy stuff while pointing out the harder things.