| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1iserithJul 07, 2014 6:01:53 | I am reposting a blog entry (not mine) from this blog: Deeper in the Game. This is very useful for DMs to think about when determining whether dice should come into play. It also gives some great examples of interesting failure. In the D&D Basic Introduction on page 2, an example of boring failure that shouldn't have been resolved with a die roll was offered; Phillip goes to check out the gargoyles, rolls low, and the DM basically tells him nothing happens. Lame. If there was nothing to be found, there should really be no roll in my view and if there was something to be found, then something should happen on a failure - the gargoyles attack with surprise because they're actually monsters or they are traps and go off.
If the only result of a die roll you can think of is "You don't know or see anything" or "Nothing happens," consider not asking for a roll or thinking up better failure conditions. If you're comfortable collaborating with your players, ask them what they think failure looks like before the roll. This has the interesting side effect of getting their buy-in on failing.
The Task Resolution Tool |
| #2yelosonJul 07, 2014 9:11:17 | Hi,
Thanks for linking my blog! I'm glad you're finding value in what I'm writing. I'd like to ask you to not repost my entries in full - feel free to post quotes or portions, but please do not repost the full articles.
I've had past experiences where entire articles have been reposted, another party later found those, and somewhere along the chain the authorship removed, and then my words, nearly exact, have shown up in some for-pay products without my permission or credit given. Since then, it's been my policy to ask people to not repost full articles.
Thanks,
Chris Chinn |
| #3iserithJul 07, 2014 9:13:59 | Corrected, and thanks for the heads up. |
| #4yelosonJul 07, 2014 9:45:15 | Thanks!
Chris Chinn |
| #5SirBobingtonJul 08, 2014 5:52:42 | The thing I do like about the "boring failure" is that it keeps players guessing. If you only require a roll on objects that have an actual effect then the players will soon begin to learn that even if they do fail, they know that something is up with whatever they happened to be looking at. Not everything needs to do something, and if every perception failure offers a negative, players may also be less inclined to search around, plus you never know what players are going to decide to investigate.
It can also end up with entertaining actions that have no effect on the overall story, but make for a good story in their own right. |
| #6iserithJul 08, 2014 6:10:41 |
|
| #7SirBobingtonJul 08, 2014 7:03:45 | I agree that not every mundane thing needs a roll either, I just have my group roll on things sometimes even if there isn't anything special. Now, obviously if they're looking at a wood table, I'm not going to require a roll. It's a table, (unless I happened to trap or hide treasure under the table) but you get that idea.
With the example of the gargoyle, that's an item that even if it does nothing, you would expect PC's to investigate it, now if it really doesn't do anything you may have a moment of "Oh no...".
|
| #8iserithJul 08, 2014 7:14:17 |
|
| #9mrsrockguruJul 24, 2014 4:50:31 | My personal House Rule is that the DM makes all perception rolls......
That way the players dont know if nothing there 'as there is nothing there, or the DM perception roll is a 1' and they cant see for the life of them the giant standing in the shadows by the corner grinning at them.
Also allows for a bit of 'fudging' for storyline purposes.... |
| #10iserithJul 24, 2014 6:45:52 |
|
| #11KarnosJul 24, 2014 11:04:47 |
|
| #12Beldak_SerpenthelmJul 24, 2014 12:47:15 |
|
| (Reply to #12)bawylie |
|
| #14iserithJul 24, 2014 13:14:45 |
|
| #15KarnosJul 24, 2014 19:47:30 |
|
| #16iserithJul 24, 2014 20:23:01 |
|
| #17KarnosJul 25, 2014 3:33:25 | The problem is your interpretation of "an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure"
If you think perception has no chance of failure, then you do not roll. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is anything to find in a room. The question is: are the players doing an action that can't fail (such as walking across the room, or picking up an object) or are they doing an action that has a chance to fail (such as perception, or climbing, or investigation). It doesn't say anything about there not being anything to find or not. It is just asking if it's the sort of action thaty *can* fail. If, in your game, perception checks can not ever fail, then you don't roll. But if you do roll perception in somecases, that means they have a chance of failure, exactly as written in the rules, and you must roll them, always.
Based on your reading, you wouldn't roll a stealth roll when you actually stealth in an empty room- there is no chance of failure because there is nobody observing the stealthed character. Yet the rules are very clear that you later compare that roll to the perception of nearby monsters. Playing as you describe results in a broken game. |
| #18emwasickJul 25, 2014 3:36:23 | Seriously? |
| #19iserithJul 25, 2014 5:33:16 |
|
| #20KarnosJul 25, 2014 9:05:17 |
|
| (Reply to #20)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #22iserithJul 25, 2014 9:45:25 | If you roll below the DC, you fail the check, but the result is either (1) the action fails or (2) progress is made with a setback (page 58).
If you are having players roll to test if they are completely incapable of figuring out that there is nothing in an empty room, you have reached a pretty ludicrous level of simulation. If you are rolling for every stated action of searching because you think that not doing so will lead players to "metagame" based on when you roll or do not roll, then the solution is already provided in the rules. You don't roll if there's nothing and if there is, searching always turns up what is hidden regardless of success or failure on the check, but in the case of a failure, there is a setback.
Here are some examples:
DM (telegraphing): The room appears empty, dust covering the floors and cobwebs hanging in the corners. Player: I search the room thoroughly. DM (knows nothing is in the room): You spend time searching the room and confirm there is nothing here of note.
DM (telegraphing): The room appears empty, dust covering the floors and cobwebs hanging in the corners. There is some broken furniture in the corner and what appear to be footprints in the dust. Player: I search the room thoroughly, including the pile of broken furniture. DM (knows something is hidden in the furniture with a given DC to find it): Okay, sounds like you're making a Wisdom (Perception) check. Player: *rolls* Bah, a 3. DM: Okay, after some searching, you find a rusty iron key among the broken furniture, but you make some noise while doing it as the furniture breaks apart and tumbles on the floor. A moment later, you hear a bone-chilling howl coming from the corridor outside the chamber. What do you do? Player: Oops... |
| #23KarnosJul 25, 2014 10:07:29 |
|
| #24iserithJul 25, 2014 10:19:07 |
|
| #25ShirebrokJul 25, 2014 10:27:31 | This talk about Perception reminds me of an actual (as in non-hypothetical) question I'm pondering. This may or may not be the place to ask, but it's such a common thing in adventures, I feel the answer could further the discussion.
Example: There is a cistern, and a waterproof satchel is hidden in it. The adventure states the satchel can be found with a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check, and any character who dives in or probes the cistern with a pole finds it automatically. My problem is with the perception check.
Here's how it'll likely go down: I describe the environment. A player decides to check out the cistern. Knowing that something is there and there is a probability of failure, I (the DM) call for a Wisdom (Perception) check, DC 15. If the player succeeds, cool. If the player fails... now what? Knowing how gamers are, they'll have been clued in on something being there and will take further action to be sure, like diving in or probing, thus finding it anyway.
So now I wonder what the point of the check is. It's easy to circumvent the check (at no cost or risk, even) and it's a hard failure, meaning there is no "success with a setback". Is there a way to make the failed check more interesting with cost or risk, or should anybody who takes the time to observe the cistern find it without a check? I think the latter option is best, given the alternatives to the check already provided in the adventure. Also, going with the former means altering the task in some fashion so that diving in or probing also carries a risk.
Thoughts? |
| #26KarnosJul 25, 2014 10:29:23 |
|
| (Reply to #26)Shirebrok |
|
| #28iserithJul 25, 2014 10:37:05 |
|
| #29iserithJul 25, 2014 10:39:21 |
|
| (Reply to #28)Shirebrok |
|
| #31iserithJul 25, 2014 10:56:47 |
|
| #32KarnosJul 25, 2014 11:13:07 |
|
| (Reply to #32)Shirebrok |
|
| #34KarnosJul 25, 2014 11:47:22 |
|
| #35iserithJul 25, 2014 11:52:43 |
|
| #36ShirebrokJul 25, 2014 12:08:02 | It might be "good enough" for you ("good enough" being an admission of a flawed rule), but it hardly is specific. It's an example in a sidebar, meant to illustrate or reinforce rules text surrounding it. Not only that, but it's open to interpretation; I read it differently than you and iserith, so that makes three different readings already -- although I'd attribute that to WotC's inability to write consistently, IMO.
What we do have on page 58, however, is a clear and unambiguous rule: that when the outcome is uncertain, the dice come in play. In other words, if the outcome is certain -- the result would be the same no matter the result of a check -- the dice aren't used (and thus no check is made). This is in direct contradiction to your supposed it's-okay-to-roll-when-the-outcome-is-certain "good enough rule-in-a-sidebar".
Now tell me which text is most important: the one introducing a core mechanic, or the interpretation of a sidebar?
Also, good job on insulting my intelligence. |
| #37KarnosJul 25, 2014 12:12:01 |
|
| #38KarnosJul 25, 2014 12:21:14 |
|
| #39iserithJul 25, 2014 13:14:43 |
|
| (Reply to #37)Shirebrok |
|
| #41KarnosJul 25, 2014 19:24:39 |
|
| #42KarnosJul 25, 2014 19:37:50 |
|
| #43BeoricJul 25, 2014 21:54:56 | If you can all hark back to the conversation some thirty-odd posts ago, I would like to point out that the test as stated in the blog is not whether anything is there, but whether a failure is fun, entertaining or interesting. As such, if there is nothing there, but either result of a roll adds something to the game, there is still value in it. Conversly, if there is something there, but the result of a failure (or even a success, I suppose) detracts something from the game, don't ask for the roll.
For an example of the first, I don't think you should underestimate the value of asking for a roll as a device for creating dramatic tension. When you ask for a roll, the player immediately knows that this at least has the potential to be serious business. And if the result of the roll is ambiguous, the player does not know if there is really nothing there, or if he just missed it. The use of this device must be measured to be effective, or it will (a) slow down the game, and (b) numb the players to the very tension you might want them to feel.
So if the players approach a door which is not trapped, and I do not care to increase dramaic tension, then when if they search the traps I just tell them that there are none. But if I do want to increase the tension, I ask for a roll, and I don't tell them that there are no traps, I tell them that they don't find any traps. I might use this if I wanted to enhance the creepiness of a tomb, for instance.
By contrast, if there is something to find, and I want them to find it, there is generally no point in asking for a roll because I don't want them to fail - unless for some reason I want them to find it, but don't care if they find it right on that particular roll (maybe time is a factor, and missing roll sups the ante), in which case I might tell them they have not found anything yet but that they are pretty certain that something is there.
|
| #44emwasickJul 25, 2014 22:26:06 |
|
| #45iserithJul 26, 2014 5:54:08 | Well said, emsawick. The fiction creates the tension. The dice resolve it one way or another based on how the PCs react. Using the dice to create tension creates the very side effects and "metagaming" that a lot of DMs say they want to avoid. It's so bizarre when they say they want to avoid it and then engage in practices that create and encourage it. |
| #46DrDragonlanceJul 26, 2014 7:32:04 | Lets say a PC has 3 Wisdom and walks into a room, doesn't he auto succeed on all DC 5 Perception checks because of his Passive Perception? |
| #47emwasickJul 26, 2014 8:59:40 |
|
| #48emwasickJul 26, 2014 9:13:02 |
|
| #49iserithJul 26, 2014 9:20:25 |
|
| (Reply to #49)DrDragonlance |
|
| (Reply to #44)Beoric |
|
| #52iserithJul 26, 2014 9:56:08 |
|
| #53KarnosJul 26, 2014 10:15:16 |
|
| (Reply to #52)Beoric |
|
| (Reply to #42)Shirebrok |
|
| #56iserithJul 26, 2014 10:36:50 |
|
| (Reply to #52)Beoric |
|
| #58iserithJul 26, 2014 10:43:25 |
|
| #59iserithJul 26, 2014 10:48:11 |
|
| (Reply to #59)Beoric |
|
| #61iserithJul 26, 2014 11:39:22 |
|
| (Reply to #61)Beoric |
|
| #63iserithJul 26, 2014 13:25:52 |
|
| #64BeoricJul 26, 2014 13:52:44 | Again, you are conflating my practice with Karnos'. And you have not made a reasoned argument, you have merely stated an opinion, one in which you appear to assume that I am abusing my players. Since your reply is just opinion laced with insult, I don't see how I can give a substansive response. But perhaps that is your intention.
If you have an actual argument, see if you can articulate it without making any assumptions about the quality of DMing. |
| #65iserithJul 26, 2014 13:55:55 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Beoric |
|
| #67iserithJul 26, 2014 14:51:27 |
|
| #68BeoricJul 26, 2014 16:00:53 | I'm not sure that it make any sense to rules-lawyer a storytelling technique (is there a rule regarding using music to set mood? did we need permission to play transgendered characters?), but for what it is worth, if you search for a trap, and there is no trap there, and the DM tells you "You didn't find any traps", you have succeeded, not failed.
I can't imagine any circumstance where I would do it with the search of an empty room. If there is a possible scenario where having a character not know if they had searched a room adequately would add to the story, I havent thought of it.
But in relation to traps, it can add to the scene if the character, unsure whether there is no trap, or he merely didn't find the trap, is trying to find a safe way to open the chest (for example). If they roll well enough I will probably tell them thery are confident there are no traps. Plus, I always let the players roll, so they know if their roll is good. Come to think of it, maybe the roll isn't to determine whether there is a trap, but their level of certainty as to whether there is a trap. But I only do it if I want them to be worried.
And my players know it. If they look for traps, or any other dangerous thing, and I don't tell them to roll, it is a cue that they don't need to be quite as on guard in that part of the dungeon, and they can spend their time doing things other than poking objects with 10' poles. If I do ask for a roll, they know to be on alert, and that looking for traps and listening at doors is a Good Thing To Do. As I have said, I don't abuse this. We all used to play with a really crappy DM, and I have had to work hard to convince my players to stop being so paranoid, because it was seriously slowing down the game.
If I didn't do it this way, and the characters were passing through a part of the dungeon that looks and feels just as creepy as the rest of it, but the story to be told there wasn't a typical creature/traps encounter, then I would have to resort to more overt means to avoid wasting time in a bunch of needless perception checks. And in the past this is happened, while I was still trying to convince them that my DM style was different, and it really broke the mood ("No, really guys, there are no traps there, or anywhere else in the room, I promise. And you are absolutely certain that the statue us just a statue, and there is no chance that the mural is going to come alive. None of the furniture are mimics, and the runes are not going to explode. Now can you please read the inscription that tells you the history of the castle?"). What I do evolved organically as a much less disruptive cue as to what sort of encounters they were likely to have. |
| #69KarnosJul 26, 2014 17:53:33 |
|
| #70KarnosJul 26, 2014 18:15:42 |
|
| #71AriKanenJul 26, 2014 19:27:30 |
|
| #72iserithJul 26, 2014 20:16:58 |
|
| #73iserithJul 26, 2014 20:25:10 |
|
| #74AriKanenJul 26, 2014 21:04:55 |
|
| (Reply to #72)Beoric |
|
| #76Archon007Jul 26, 2014 23:23:58 |
|
| #77emwasickJul 26, 2014 23:42:33 | This is partially in response to Karnos's posts, but really it's a general point germane to the original topic.
Some of us say the fiction should be the sole source of tension. This is important because it allows players to trust the fiction. "The room is devoid of furnishings or other unusual features. Thick dust and numerous cobwebs sit undisturbed." Unless the PCs are looking for a good place to hole up and rest, they shouldn't waste any time here. Rolling a bunch of checks to make sure that the room is as it seems to be is less fun than other options. Even if you have all day, you could still spend the next few minutes on an encounter that tells you more about the world or the characters (ie: not just fight fight loot loot fight moar spam powerz grrrrrrrrrraaaaaah, if anyone wants to take that angle). Tension about the nature of the room might not cause anyone to hate the game or jump out a window, but it's not better than any other option.
But wait, you say, I've had fun making those checks. Are you calling my fun badwrong? No, but you really could have had more fun another way. Almost anything can be made better, so let's look at how to do that. Sometimes we use extra rolls to imply that something bad could happen soon. There are two possibilities: either it could or it couldn't.
If something bad couldn't happen but we still roll, the players are being taught to be paranoid. Every NPC could be a spy or a doppleganger or a polymorphed devil. Every chest and door could be trapped. But don't check yet, because the floor in front of it could be trapped. This nonsense has to stop at some point because the paranoia can't be allowed to become all encompassing ("Should I use my ten foot pole? What if it was replaced with a cursed ten foot pole while my vigilance was focused elsewhere?") Whatever checks the DM doesn't call for establish the level of paranoia that he (perhaps not deliberately or consciously) has chosen. At some point, the DM (or his predecessor) will, as Beoric describes, sigh and hold his head while the players poke and prod at harmless, ordinary things. He may even wonder why they don't just get on with the game.
If something bad could happen, make it part of the story. If there's a nest of ravenous ghouls nearby, come up with details that make the players gradually suspect that something will eat them. Bones with teeth marks, gaunt figures scampering silently away in the gloom, a heavily barricaded door at the edge of the defeated goblins' complex. Be original or go for familiar devices - either way they'll be scared. If there are dice rolls or opportunities to pick at something, the players have a chance to use their brains and prepare for the encounter. But if the dice rolls and questions can't reveal anything, then any ideas they have will only waste their time.
Players always wonder what's around the corner, in the next room, in the misty clearing, etc. Usually it's something to fear. When an encounter seems like it could be more dangerous or challenging, building upon that fear in a specific direction adds to everyone's fun and anticipation. Building up to everything the same way doesn't make that sense of dread anything special. Building up with no specifics isn't awful, but it could be more engaging. |
| #78BeoricJul 27, 2014 5:44:51 | I would agree that using checks instead of description is not very engaging. However, the use of checks and the use of description are not mutually exclusive. My point is that the use of checks to supplement description does not negate the effectiveness of the description already provided. |
| #79iserithJul 27, 2014 5:53:16 |
|
| #80iserithJul 27, 2014 6:05:22 |
|
| #81iserithJul 27, 2014 6:06:58 |
|
| #82KarnosJul 27, 2014 6:32:20 |
|
| #83iserithJul 27, 2014 7:38:53 | Success on the check would be finding the key without a setback. Failure on the check is finding the key with a setback. This is perfectly in line with the rules as written. |
| #84Beldak_SerpenthelmJul 27, 2014 8:04:19 |
|
| #85KarnosJul 27, 2014 8:35:34 |
|
| #86KarnosJul 27, 2014 8:43:35 |
|
| #87Beldak_SerpenthelmJul 27, 2014 8:52:48 |
|
| #88KarnosJul 27, 2014 8:56:11 |
|
| #89emwasickJul 28, 2014 0:17:47 |
|
| #90emwasickJul 28, 2014 0:21:21 |
|
| #91iserithJul 28, 2014 5:34:35 |
|
| #92KarnosJul 28, 2014 5:35:48 |
|
| #93iserithJul 28, 2014 5:41:16 |
|
| #94KarnosJul 28, 2014 5:52:28 |
|
| #95iserithJul 28, 2014 5:56:11 |
|
| #96KarnosJul 28, 2014 10:12:51 |
|
| #97iserithJul 28, 2014 10:15:17 | |
| #98KarnosJul 28, 2014 10:31:22 |
|
| #99iserithJul 28, 2014 10:35:44 | Sure it is. It's just swapping one challenge for a new one. You made progress on the first thing and now there's a new thing. This really isn't very hard to conceptualize and it's all there in the rules. You do have to break away from your process-sim habit though to see it. |
| #100KarnosJul 28, 2014 11:33:12 |
|
| #101iserithJul 28, 2014 11:41:37 | Progress can be completion of a task. Remember that "success" or "failure" only refers to the result of the check.
Finding the key without a setback is a the "whole enchilada." |
| #102KarnosJul 28, 2014 11:52:34 |
|
| (Reply to #69)Shirebrok |
|
| #104iserithJul 28, 2014 11:56:09 | What I'm repeatedly describing is progress with a setback. You are too narrow in your simulation to see it. Finding the key without a setback is the "whole enchilada." I can't explain it in simpler terms, so thanks for that. |
| #105KarnosJul 28, 2014 11:57:44 |
|
| #106iserithJul 28, 2014 12:01:30 | You're not speaking in facts, just flailing. A wandering monster can be the setback or in addition to the setback since the rules say the DM both narrates and the results of character actions and describes the environment. |
| #107KarnosJul 28, 2014 12:02:53 |
|
| #108KarnosJul 28, 2014 12:04:14 |
|
| #109iserithJul 28, 2014 12:27:40 |
|
| #110emwasickJul 28, 2014 19:56:25 |
|
| #111KarnosJul 29, 2014 10:31:50 |
|
| #112GamingGormanJul 29, 2014 13:47:25 | I'm with Karnos on this.
The first bit is, characters are rolling to see what thier characrter knows and or percieves, not what actual game facts are. If the rogues rolls to find traps, and no traps exist I don't say, don't bother no traps are here. I let him roll it (or rather I roll it and keep the roll secret) and tell him relevant information based on his roll. But he as a player does not know what he rolled, he is fed the same information his charcater has, as it should be.
Second, failing a check to jump a gap, should mean the charcater does not make the jump. Not the character makes the jump but ooga booga random monster attacks you because you did not roll high enough to succeed.
Does it mean they have to fall in the hole? no not always, maybe they grab the edge and have to struggle to hold on, thats progress but not a true success.
|
| #113iserithJul 29, 2014 14:07:14 |
|
| #114GamingGormanJul 29, 2014 14:41:23 |
|
| #115iserithJul 29, 2014 17:24:39 |
|
| #116emwasickJul 30, 2014 2:35:45 |
|
| #117emwasickJul 30, 2014 2:48:18 |
|
| #118KarnosJul 30, 2014 5:08:57 |
|
| #119iserithJul 30, 2014 5:58:29 |
|
| #120KarnosJul 30, 2014 6:10:59 |
|
| #121iserithJul 30, 2014 6:16:46 |
|
| #122KarnosJul 30, 2014 6:31:41 |
|
| #123iserithJul 30, 2014 6:55:44 |
|
| #124KarnosJul 30, 2014 8:33:54 |
|
| #125iserithJul 30, 2014 8:38:06 | What you're saying is, essentially, if a player's action vaguely smells like it could be a skill check, you're going to process-sim your way into making a roll. And that since there's a skill check, there must be a chance of failure or uncertain outcome. That is backwards thinking and until you stop thinking backwards, there can be no understanding reached in this or other threads.
The DM calls for a roll because he has determined that the situation has an uncertain outcome and a chance of failure. He doesn't call for a skill check because the action sounds like a skill check and all skill checks have a chance of failure. |
| #126KarnosJul 30, 2014 9:09:56 |
|
| #127iserithJul 30, 2014 9:18:08 | Players don't "use skills!" They just describe actions. The DM narrates the results of those actions. When the results of those actions are uncertain and there's a chance of failure, then the DM assigns a DC and ability check to it.
This is why you're all confused. |
| #128KarnosJul 30, 2014 10:34:42 |
|
| #129emwasickJul 30, 2014 10:47:21 |
|
| #130KarnosJul 30, 2014 11:49:36 |
|
| #131iserithJul 30, 2014 12:09:50 |
|
| #132KarnosJul 30, 2014 12:14:44 |
|
| #133iserithJul 30, 2014 12:23:38 |
|
| #134iserithJul 30, 2014 12:35:16 | Karnos, my final word on the subject will be to point you to post #915 of a related thread and subsequent posts of a similar nature here in this thread and in the linked thread. When you've got that sorted out in your head, you'll understand. Until then that breakthrough is made, no agreement of any sort can be reached by discussing the topic with you.
I'm going to end my discourse with Karnos at this point because it's becoming repetitive and I have other matters to attend to. I'll engage with others in this thread as needed and will look for quotes of my content accordingly.
Cheers! |
| #135emwasickJul 30, 2014 12:38:56 |
|
| (Reply to #131)DrDragonlance |
|
| #137NathanIWJul 30, 2014 19:39:28 | It's definitely a core skill as a DM to realize when you should and should not go to the dice. An approach where the default is to go to the dice every time it might be uncertain from the player's perspective is ridiculous. The DM does her thing from the DM's perspective.
Players don't "use skills" or invoke the system. The new D&D text in both the starter and basic PDF does a wonderful job explaining this and unless you are bringing anti-metagame hate baggage to the text that clouds your vision, it's pretty clear. |
| #138KarnosJul 30, 2014 19:44:02 |
|
| #139KarnosJul 30, 2014 19:59:00 |
|
| #140Caliburn101.Jul 31, 2014 4:40:43 | This is an odd thread - a real storm in a teacup.
Just have the players roll when an outcome is unknown to them.
If there is nothing to 'find' then you tell them they found nothing regardless of the result.
If there is something to find go on your secret DC against their roll.
If they roll a 20 and you tell them there is nothing, the character is convinced there is nothing. If they roll a 1 and they find nothing, the character is convinced there is nothing.
Only poor players metagame PC suspicions of having missed something based on a dice roll. There have to be in characters reasons for any kind of follow up, or you as the DM calls foul on the player, and rightly so.
This is very basic stuff in my opinion.
If you want more suspense (as I often do) for tasks with no resolution because there is nothing there - still have them roll, and then roleplay eh? You can even throw in completely bogus 'behind the DM screen' rolls just to add to the tension - 'was there an opposed roll from some threat, or is he just rolling some dice...?' Sometimes there really do have to be rolled-for surprises in wait, but that's another no brainer of course.
Works every time for me, and I've been using this method since hydrogen first formed... |
| #141iserithJul 31, 2014 5:48:42 |
|
| #142KugnarJul 31, 2014 7:05:34 | Wait, is the same conversation between the same people going on in two threads at the same time? Wow, some people are committed! |
| #143iserithJul 31, 2014 7:24:24 |
|
| #144KarnosJul 31, 2014 9:30:58 |
|
| #145GamingGormanJul 31, 2014 12:18:42 |
|
| #146iserithJul 31, 2014 14:58:10 |
|
| #147emwasickJul 31, 2014 14:51:29 |
|
| #148emwasickAug 01, 2014 1:13:07 | Ooh, added bonus from the Adventurer's League Player's Guide PDF:
|