Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 16, 2005 16:27:17	Adding an element to the virtual environment can add creative fun for any DM. For instance, choosing a trap, setting the trap in its location, envisioning the trigger mechanism and how the trap will spring on the party will flitter through a DMs mind. The DM describes the room to the party one night during play, locating the damage dice on the table in case the trap goes off. Before any fun interactions can begin between the players and this environment, they all start rolling their dice for search and spot checks. The players that don’t trust the DM take 20 on these checks and find the traps without interacting with the room. In fact, many interactions with the virtual environment are handled simply with a die roll. This is not an article meant to complain about how the overabundance of skills has lowered the amount of role-play involved in the game, I personally enjoy the current version of D&D. Actually, this article is designed to encourage environmental role-playing. Not merely the play acting role-playing, when players only talk in their character’s voice, but the role-playing whereby a player thinks more of how their character interacts physically with the virtual environment. It is aimed this way because there are plenty of threads that center around encouraging social role-playing at the table. Though, this could easily carry over into a character’s social interactions if desired. Encouraging players to have their characters interact with the environment is simple and it doesn’t require that they have to try and interact with the environment. Based upon how a player describes their action, rate it from 0 to 3 and then apply this number as a circumstance bonus to any roll surrounding the action being taken. Also, depending on how close they come to describing the ‘correct’ action to solve the problem at hand, give them another 1 or 2 points on the circumstance bonus Here are some guidelines: +0 – The player simply stated the action, roll the dice and look to you for the result +1 – The player gave some indication of how they would accomplish the action +2 – The player gave several details on how they would accomplish the action +3 – The player described in detail how they would accomplish the action And: +0 – They were way off in describing a correct action to solve the problem +1 – Not the correct solution but plausible (or in the right vicinity) +2 – Close to or right on target for solving the action With this system, they’ll receive a circumstance bonus of +0 to +5 on the action with an average of +2 or +3. The high end bonus might seem unbalancing (+5 circumstance bonus), but if they describe in detail how to do the action there is no reason they shouldn’t have a better chance at success. That’s it for this article, but I’ll part by offering two situational examples of how to use this system. Example 1: Some orcs have passed by this way in the forest, they have done something awful and the PCs are going to try and track them. There is a creek nearby and the orcs traveled near by, they have left tracks near the creek. Not readily visible but searching for the tracks would reveal them (Track DC 15). Player 1: I try to track the orcs Result: Normal Survival check for tracking Player 2: I’m going to look around the immediate area to see if I can find some orc tracks Result: +1 to the Survival check for describing that they would search. Player 3: I’m going to look around to find some orc tracks. There were a few of them, I bet they didn’t cover their tracks Result: +2 for giving some details (look for tracks because orcs aren’t smart enough to cover tracks) Player 4: Orcs are pretty rugged, I’m going to search around the trees. I’m going to especially look around smaller trees and bushes, I think they may have snapped some branches or left bits of cloth behind and hopefully I can find it. Result: +3 for detailing how they would search (even while looking at trees, they are attentive to detail and would probably notice the softer ground near the creek and then think to check the softer ground for tracks) Player 5: I’m going to look around the immediate area, maybe try to find some footprints or something. Result: +2 (+1 for describing search and +1 for looking for footprints, the track sign that DM determined was there) Player 6: I’m going to look around the immediate area, orcs probably didn’t cover their track, I think there was a creek nearby, maybe they left some tracks there. Result: +4 (+2 for describing in some detail and +2 for guessing it on the money) Player 7: I’m going to comb the ground for tracks, even if they tried to cover them, I might be able to spot track signs. There was a creek around here, I’m going to look around there for softer ground to see if they weren’t capable of covering their tracks over there. Result: +5 (+3 for detailing their search and +2 for nailing the location of the tracks). Example 2: There is a room with a treasure chest and a trap in the room. The trap is not on the chest, which is in the corner. It is a pressure plate in front of the chest that swings a thin blade out of the nearby wall towards the section of floor with the plate in it. Player 1: I search for traps. Result: Normal Search Check Player 2: I’m gonna take a moment to look around for traps before opening the chest - +1 Player 3: It doesn’t look right, I’m gonna look around for traps, I’ll use my sword to poke around in front of me too to set off any traps if possible - +2 Player 4: That chest looks suspicious sitting there in the corner like that. I’m going to approach it cautiously and bend down to examine its hinges and then its lock. I’m going to look for any strange protrusions on the chest itself that might indicate there is some sort of trap on it - +3 Player 5: I’m gonna take a moment to look for traps, maybe the walls around the chest - +2 Player 6: I’m gonna look around for traps here, that chest look suspicious sitting there in the corner all by itself. I’m gonna check out the floor in front of it - +4 Player 7: This doesn’t feel right, I’m going to look for traps, not on the chest itself but somewhere else. I’ll keep an eye on the floor for pressure plates and maybe look at the wall for dart holes or something, I’ll also keep an eye on the ceiling as a look around, just in case it’s a falling rock trap too - +5
#2 finarin_panjoro Oct 05, 2005 22:42:17	Excellent suggestions. I agree that the +5 is a bit daunting. I would tend to give a maximum +2 bonus; +1 for a good description, +1 for covering the actual situation. +5 seems like it could throw things out of balance a bit, but that's just my opinion. I think your ideas could apply equally well to combat. Rather than "I attack the bugbear" we could get "I roar as I approach the bugbear raising my axe above my head and swinging down at him" for a +1. Or "I roar as I approach the bugbear raising my axe above my head, but then spinning to swing low across his stomach after he raises his shield to defend" for a +2. Well said Brknlf.
#3 roninfrosty Oct 06, 2005 23:31:39	I like the idea, and it's a fantastic way to get your players involved in the story and the campaign world in general. In theory. The only problem is it tends to bog down a session. I tried to implement an idea similar to this one in an old campaign of mine, and it worked really well, until all my players realized the +3 bonus (max for me) was definitely helping the attempts to succeed. Unfortunately, it gets to the point where someone goes, "I'm going to look behind the bookcase. If food keeps disappearing, there must be a mousehole somewhere around here, and they tend to live behind things," which would provide a +3 bonus, and then someone damn near quotes him. If you could figure a solution to that problem, it'd probably help. Even if your players managed to be original in their action descriptions, a party of four all looking for the same lever to disable an arrow trap would take maybe a minute to describe what they're doing. Doesn't seem like much, but it can add up. Like I said, good concept, but tough to implement. If you're going to try this, let us know how it worked out, and how you handled those issues.
#4 roninfrosty Oct 06, 2005 23:35:15	I like the idea, and it's a fantastic way to get your players involved in the story and the campaign world in general. In theory. The only problem is it tends to bog down a session. I tried to implement an idea similar to this one in an old campaign of mine, and it worked really well, until all my players realized the +3 bonus (max for me) was definitely helping the attempts to succeed. Unfortunately, it gets to the point where someone goes, "I'm going to look behind the bookcase. If food keeps disappearing, there must be a mouse hole somewhere around here, and they tend to live behind things," which would provide a +3 bonus, and then someone damn near quotes him. If you could figure a solution to that problem, it'd probably help. Even if your players managed to be original in their action descriptions, a party of four all looking for the same lever to disable an arrow trap would take maybe a minute to describe what they're doing. Doesn't seem like much, but it can add up. Like I said, good concept, but tough to implement. If you're going to try this, let us know how it worked out, and how you handled those issues.
#5 amyris Oct 07, 2005 2:50:49	First off, I would like to say that I found your system for rewarding players who describe in detail their actions very good. I'm definitely going to be using it, as I find it very well thought out. Overall, I found your thread very helpful. IMHO, you did a great job on this. Also, I find the examples very good in illustrating how your system works. Again, good job.
#6 callista Oct 10, 2005 8:01:31	With as much as a +5 bonus to any given check possible, wouldn't the game become too easy? Many people who like the RP side of D&D already do this; and in a group where most people are role-players, the effective CR of a given skill-check-related obstacle could go down to the point where it might not be challenging enough for a fun game. I would suggest adding +2 to most DCs if you use this rule.
#7 solik Oct 11, 2005 13:18:23	There are a few problems with this article. First, this system encourages metagaming to the fullest. For instance, a character who knows nothing about performing a particular skill could still net a +5 on the check just by being an experienced or insightful gamer. It also allows for stacking of player and character knowledge; for example, a skilled tracker might already know to check the soft ground or the bushes for signs of orcs. That is reflected in the ranks or stat bonus already applied to the skill. Adding the player knowledge provides double the bonus. To compensate, you will need to increase the DC of everything by 1-3; however, now you require both that your characters and your players be knowledgeable in their skills. This can be quite a problem if a player who knows nothing about ships decides to create a seafaring swashbuckler and must make constant Profession (sailor) checks. Second, this system falls victim to repetition. Given your treasure chest example, I could simply poke around with my sword and check every box for strange protrusions, advancing cautiously all the while, and always net a bonus of some type to my roll. After I come up with one sentence, in fact, I no longer have to be creative at all. You could then rule that players must describe things differently to gain bonuses, but there are only so many ways to search a chest for traps. A better approach is to use these guidelines only for unique situations. If you've created a special trap in the room that depends on something odd, like a weird arrangement of furniture or rugs, and a player picks up on that and focuses on it to investigate, then applying bonuses is fitting (but only if it's possible to solve the problem using plain rolls to begin with -- if you require that players notice the trick for their searches to even be successful, then applying bonuses serves no purpose). In conclusion, a probably better way to encourage poking around at environments is simply to include challenges that cannot be solved with skill checks. Not everything can be searched, disabled, appraised, and jumped over.
#8 zombiegleemax Oct 11, 2005 13:50:44	Your idea is interesting. It is good to try to include some detail with concrete game-mechanic results. However, I find that I disagree with your suggestion, and would not suggest using such a system. In most of your examples, the "I search for XYZ detail" should fit the general "I search" declaration. What difference is there between "I track the orcs," and "I’m going to look around the immediate area to see if I can find some orc tracks?" I mean, what would the ranger (or other person tracking) be looking for if not for some orc tracks? Where other than the immediate vicinity (if he wants to look elsewhere, he must *of course* state that he changes the area he is in). Why would you give a +1 bonus to the ranger for such a statement? What do you think the ranger does when he tracks the orcs, other than looking in the immediate vicinity to see if he can find some orc tracks? Also, some players have a good imagination, but might not know how tracking works, because they have never been woods persons, they are city dwellers. Should these persons be penalized compared to other players that know that tracking includes looking for tracks, broken twigs, and so on? In any event, would a ranger (representing the character but *not* the player) not know how to track, since this is his skill? Does the player also need to have some skill in tracking in order to benefit from the bonuses you would use? Let's also look at your second example, and let's say a rogue is searching for traps on a chest. Say he has 10 ranks in his Search skill, at level 7 (maxed), plus a few dexterity bonuses, for a total of +12. The rogue is doing exactly what he is good at: looking for traps. It is his job, of sorts. If the rogue player says "i search for traps on the chest", I find that he should be rewarded with the same likelihood of success than if he had stated "That chest looks suspicious sitting there in the corner like that (of course he finds it suspicious if he is looking for traps on the chest). I’m going to approach it cautiously and bend down to examine its hinges and then its lock (would any rogue *not* examine the hinges and lock? If so, tell him to retire immediately). I’m going to look for any strange protrusions on the chest itself that might indicate there is some sort of trap on it (if there are protrusions on the chest that are relevant, the DM should have described them, otherwise it is understood that the chest is non-descript. As a player, if I enter a room, I don't have to say "I’m going to look for any furniture in the room;" if there is furniture, the DM should tell me. According to your example, you should grant him a +3 bonus for the latter description. See, the way I see it, what do you think the rogue does when he searches for traps if the player doesn't expressly talk about the protrusions, hinges and lock? That he idly looks at the chest from 6 feet, and declares: "nope, no traps there." Of course not, the rogue will be actively looking for strange protrusions will pay special attention to the hinges and lock since traps are pretty darn likely to be sprung from those places, and so on. That is exactly what those 10 ranks in search represent, how good he is at recognizing that hinges and locks and protrusions might be worrisome, and examining those with special attention. So overall, although I see where you are going, I respectfully disagree with your proposed rule. However, I strongly encourage all players and DMs alike to add some extra color to their description of their interaction with the virtual environment, since this is where a game gets its color. As a rogue, you can say "I kneel down before the chest, and put on my thin leather gloves. I open up my tools kit, folded in my pouch, and using my favorite fine pair of pliers as always, I look around the chest to search for traps, and disarm them if I find any." I find that this kind of detailed description, as some of those you suggest in your post, add a lot of color to the game, instead of always simply stating "I search for traps." This is where interesting role-playing kicks in. Sky
#9 zombiegleemax Oct 20, 2005 16:47:38	Thanks for all the replies. A system similar to this one that I presented actually exists in the game, both in previous editions and in the current v3.5. It’s commonly the Rule of Two. It has always existed as a suggestion in the DMG. I would have to look over the 3.0 DMG, but I know for certain that it is in the 3.5 DMG. Basically the system in the current DMG (or the Rule of Two) accounts for anything that is not presented in the rules. For anything that benefits the player's roll, a +2 is added to the roll, and for anything that negatively affects the situation, a -2 is applied to the roll (or vice versa depending on whether a high or low roll is beneficial to the character). In the current edition, these are stacked on as circumstance bonuses and can be added on ad infinitum, but the DMG suggests keeping it to a minimum (the +2/-2 is the baseline). These bonuses can stack in the current edition (multiple +2 circumstance modifiers can be added using the Rule of Two as defined in the current edition of D&D). With the max +5 bonus suggested, there is a limit to the amount of circumstance bonuses that can be applied. This is more an addition to the rules that exist then a complete house rule. A few responses: Finarin Panjoro: Excellent suggestion about including this with combat, it might make the players more descriptive in combat as well. I think I will actually try this one, but I think I'll stick to your +1 or +2 bonus instead of the max +5 bonus. I can see this becoming far more unbalanced then using it with search checks and the like. RoninFrosty: If two players do exactly the same thing, this is a synergy bonus to the first person who did the action and is covered in the rules already (+2). If two players search independently, they get their own rolls. If they want to be more specific and search independently, they need to specify their independent actions. If they are similar, they are merely helping each other out. Amyris: Thank you, use or discard the suggestions as you see fit. Callista: You are right, in most rp-intensive games this system becomes obsolete. In those games, most DMs will for go the skill check itself when a player hits the nail on the head, so to speak. In traditional D&D before the skill system of 3e was introduced, this was how the situation was handled even. To locate a trap, players needed to specify exactly where they were looking (a lot of older gamers probably remember every party carrying a 10' pole into every dungeon to prod ahead of them to locate pit traps). If there was a pit trap and the 'bypass' switch was in the second brick from the ceiling 2' before the pit trap itself, players pretty much needed to specify they were looking around the ceiling for the release otherwise they missed it. If I am running an RP intensive game, most players give descriptions of their actions beyond the scope that I have outlined in this article. In these circumstances, if they don't 'guess' correctly, then I require a roll. If they describe in absolute detail how to overcome the situation and interact with the environment specifically, I don't bother with the dice too much. Solik: Second, this system falls victim to repetition. Given your treasure chest example, I could simply poke around with my sword and check every box for strange protrusions, advancing cautiously all the while, and always net a bonus of some type to my roll. After I come up with one sentence, in fact, I no longer have to be creative at all. You could then rule that players must describe things differently to gain bonuses, but there are only so many ways to search a chest for traps. This is an attempt to metagame my suggestion. I never say to provide multiple bonuses each time a search is performed or for each action within the search itself. If the player probes each protrusion, advancing cautiously, they would get +1 for saying they probe each protrusion and advance cautiously. If the trap was on a protrusion, as it is in my example, they would get another +1 (for guessing at the area to search, protrusions) for a +2 bonus total. If they said the probe the protrusions in the floor and advance cautiously, then I'd give a +3 (+1 for the slight attempt at searching without just rolling the die, +2 for guessing that the protrusion is in the floor - if the protrusion was on the wall and they were searching the floor, its only a +2 because they guessed closely but where not right on). Skyscraper: You are welcome to disagree with my article. Again, mine is actually a variation on rules presented in the DMG. Unlike the rules presented in the DMG, mine provides a limit to the bonus one can accrue. The difference between +0 for saying 'I search' and +1 for saying 'I'm going to look around the immediate area for orc tracks' is that in the first instance, the player is merely rolling the die to see what happens and in the second one the player is attempting (not all together successfully) to describe what their character is doing in the virtual environment. The +1 is a reward for attempting to interact with the environment and not a reflection of how the character is tracking the orcs. The bonuses are not meant to represent the action itself but serve as a reward for trying to describe what is going on rather than immediately picking up the dice and rolling. Like my response to Callista, in groups that are already well involved in interacting with the virtual environment, this system is of no benefit and is really just giving everyone +5s for all their dice rolls for doing what they've always done. With the system I've offered, most groups should average out at +2 or +3 from my experience (ranging from RP-intensive (yes, I've played diceless RPGs) to hack&slash styles of play). This is already in the rules, the Rule of Two.
#10 Dan_Hemmens Nov 03, 2005 7:20:08	A number of people have already pointed out the major problems with this system. Put simply, it's just not how the game was designed to work. The other big, big, big problem is that it encourages players to badger the GM. The examples you provide give huge bonuses for essentially harassing the GM with reasons why your action should damned well succeed. Rather than a circumstance bonus for giving you random details, I'd just give a lower DC if the player specifically mentions something important. For example, the players are searching the rooms of an NPC for clues. In a secret panel in his desk, there are the letters from the BBEG. If one player says: "I search the room for clues" and the other says: "I search the desk for a secret panel, such as might conceal documents of some sort" Then the second character should get a drastically reduced DC. On the other hand if a third character says "I search the room carefully, I go round all of the walls, running my fingers gently across the surface, looking for any hidden catches or triggers. I sniff the contents of the flowerpot, to see if there are any lingering odors, I search for stray hairs, threads of cloth, trapdoors, hidden levers, concealed buttons, and runes inscribed on the ceiling..." Then all they are really doing is hogging GM time.
#11 zombiegleemax Nov 03, 2005 15:34:51	Rather than a circumstance bonus for giving you random details, I'd just give a lower DC if the player specifically mentions something important. Arguably, giving a circumstance bonus and reducing the DC amount to the same thing. If I give a +3 circumstance bonus and someone else reduces a DC by 3, it is the samge thing. For example, the players are searching the rooms of an NPC for clues. In a secret panel in his desk, there are the letters from the BBEG. If one player says: "I search the room for clues" and the other says: "I search the desk for a secret panel, such as might conceal documents of some sort" Then the second character should get a drastically reduced DC. On the other hand if a third character says. Drastically reducing DC because the situation is easier is about the same as an increase to the characters attempt via circumstance bonuses. "I search the room carefully, I go round all of the walls, running my fingers gently across the surface, looking for any hidden catches or triggers. I sniff the contents of the flowerpot, to see if there are any lingering odors, I search for stray hairs, threads of cloth, trapdoors, hidden levers, concealed buttons, and runes inscribed on the ceiling..." Then all they are really doing is hogging GM time. I agree with this as pointing out badgering the GM for a bonus, but I don't see this as 'hogging' GM time. In fact, I think the spotlight should be more on the players in a game and if they take time to describe their actions then I think they are doing just fine. If the player is acting this way simply to badger the GM for a bonus to their dice role (or to reduce the DC), then it will get old for the other players, the player doing this and the GM all the same. After two or three times of sarcastically over-describing what they will do, they will get bored with it. If the player continues to do this, then I would say the problem isn't with the slight variation on the old Rule of Two but with they player themselves. Also, I would like to say in overall defense of this article, the title says it all. This is designed to encourage interaction with the virtual environment. The need to encourage such an interaction implies that the problem is for groups that do not interact with the game other than just grab dice to role their skills. If someone has a group that already interacts with the virtual environment then there is no need to encourage it any further. This article is not suggested to replace the rules or add house rules, it is meant to encourage interaction with the virtual environment for GM's with groups that do not interact with the virtual environment beyond rolling dice and naming the skill they are using.
#12 zombiegleemax Nov 08, 2005 8:18:46	A system similar to this one that I presented actually exists in the game, both in previous editions and in the current v3.5. It’s commonly the Rule of Two. Hmmm. My understanding of the rule of two, is that its purpose is not to give bonuses for RPing, but rather to give circumstance bonuses if they are warranted as a result of an action. I don't have my DMG at hand, but one particular example of the rule of two is when a character gets on high ground to fight another, then he gets a +2 circumstance bonus (the upper ground bonus is actually not provided as a rule of two example and stands on its own in the DMG, but I believe it stems from the same origin). If your point is that the RPing might actually provide for circumstance bonuses (e.g. looking for protrusions on a chest, when the trap is actually on the protrusion), then I it could be argued that you could indeed give a circumstance bonus for it, so I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I believe I get your point and I think your idea might indeed be advantageous for pushing players that do not RP, to include more RP in their game. In any event, it is an option that is available for whoever feels comfortable using such a system, and as always, suggestions such as this should be welcomed by all, even though everyone might not agree on their use.
#13 habronicus Nov 08, 2005 20:00:39	Also, I would like to say in overall defense of this article, the title says it all. This is designed to encourage interaction with the virtual environment. The need to encourage such an interaction implies that the problem is for groups that do not interact with the game other than just grab dice to role their skills. If someone has a group that already interacts with the virtual environment then there is no need to encourage it any further. This article is not suggested to replace the rules or add house rules, it is meant to encourage interaction with the virtual environment for GM's with groups that do not interact with the virtual environment beyond rolling dice and naming the skill they are using. As I read the OP, several things sounded "wrong" with this system, and that feeling just grew as I went through the previously posted replies where most of my arguments (and then some) were raised against it. However, the above quote helped me put things in perspective. There's no doubt that this system doesn't work for "normal" gaming groups. It might actually hinder normal gameplay. However, anyone who has visited the "What's a DM to do" board will know that "problem players" and "problem groups" do exist. A common example, is the group of "Jokers" - basically, players who never take the game seriously and kill NPCs left and right because they're not really paying attention to the story, plot, mission, or whatever. In these (sad) specific situations, this system might actually bring the players into the game. Fortunately, I do not have that problem, but I'd be interested in reading how this works out in practice with aforementioned groups.
#14 shift244 Nov 10, 2005 2:24:47	The idea for providing such bonuses would definitely encourage players to RP, and is not the problem of this thread. I think the problem is that most are taking his drawn out guide-lines rather strictly than using it as a suggestion and modifying it to suit their play style. Perhaps Brknlf's experience is as such, and will change this guide-line as s/he experiences other playstyles? Though personally, I must say that I too, find the bonuses provided are rather steep. Perhaps +5 XP per circumstance bonus suggested? As a rough guide the DM would be better off to give a 1-300 XP in one whack as RP bonus at the end of campaign... or you can use this guide line to add little bits here and there. No offence meant to any party.
#15 boozerker Nov 11, 2005 0:09:45	Some people are just not good at giving descriptions, even if they've had time to really think it through. And anyway, you know how players (including DM) like to interrupt each other, imagine everyone trying to get a narrative description in edgewise. But your idea has merit. So here's my humble three cents: Determine which player (or players) is really good at descriptions, one who could come up with something like this on the fly: "I kneel down before the chest, and put on my thin leather gloves. I open up my tools kit, folded in my pouch, and using my favorite fine pair of pliers as always, I look around the chest to search for traps, and disarm them if I find any." Then I'd pull that player(s) aside and ask him to sprinkle the campaign with colorful bits, in exchange for moderate XP bonuses. As for the rest of the group, assign them different things to liven things up so that everyone gets an XP bonus. The artist of the group can draw found weapons or items that you can present to players, or might draw an NPC for you. The player best able to mentally navigate can draw maps as the group explores (and here the artist can doodle whimsical drawings of remembered details). An experienced player can have the PHB and DMG ready to assist in quickly looking up rules, or might make mini-sheets in advance of summon monster spells stats (which the artist can also spruce up with delightful sketches), etc. The point is, there are many different ways to add description (or speed gameplay to allow more flavor), and don't forget: DMs see everything that players don't, so it's probably best left to DM to describe when necessary. As to the rule of 2, I think the book meant it for something like: your boots of water-sloshing are making extra noise (+2 for goblins to hear you), but goblins are noisily munching fried fungus peelings (-2 for them to hear you), but the walls carry echoes particularly well (+2 for goblins to hear you), and rats are squeaking and scuttling from your presence (+2 for goblins to hear you coming), your cell phone goes off (goblins scratch their heads then leap up - they do hear you coming).
#16 zombiegleemax Nov 11, 2005 14:08:40	I would like to distinguish that I'm suggesting encouragement for interacting from a 3rd person perspective. Lots of people on the forums already offer advice to encourage playing in-character (acting in character). I don't think that is such a good idea, to merely award players who act in character. Some players aren't always comfortable with this and simply play in a 3rd person perspective of their character; i.e., John goes to intimidate the bartender, grabbing him by the scruff of the neck and threatening to break his knee caps if he keeps gouging prices on his onion soup ... instead of I grab the bartender by the scruff of the neck and say, "Look here weasel, you keep gouging the senior citizens here and robbing them of their retirement, I'm gonna come in here with a baseball bat and a few friends and go to work on those shoddy knees of yours, if you catch my meaning pansy." I think both are valid forms of playing in-character. For all interested, I do use this system, it is not a hypothetical suggestion for others to experiment with. This is how the balance should work: On average, any player that does more than grab their dice and roll then wait for a result will net a +2 to +3 bonus. +2 for interacting with the environment and possible +3 if they were close to saying the 'right' solution (ie trap on the dresser, the player searched in, around or near the dresser). A smart player who figures out a trap or situation can gain a singular +5 circumstance bonus. +5 is the limit, there is no stacking beyond +5 to the die roll from interacting with the environment or role-playing. A player who attemps more than just grabbing dice and rolling will get a +1 bonus. Most bonuses are still +2, with the +5 high end bringing the average up to around 2.5-3. I would also say an XP bonus is another good way to encourage players to play more than just showing up, taking a seat and rolling dice occasionally. And, as pointed out, this can extend to out of game assistance to make the actual game more enjoyable (including drawing, journals, etc.). As to the rule of 2, I think the book meant it for something like: your boots of water-sloshing are making extra noise (+2 for goblins to hear you), but goblins are noisily munching fried fungus peelings (-2 for them to hear you), but the walls carry echoes particularly well (+2 for goblins to hear you), and rats are squeaking and scuttling from your presence (+2 for goblins to hear you coming), your cell phone goes off (goblins scratch their heads then leap up - they do hear you coming). The book means for it to represent anything that is not accounted for in the rules, which is the traditional understanding of the Rule of 2. I believe this was an actual suggestion starting with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (that's 1e), I'd have to get out my old DMGs and other gaming materials to found out the first introduction of this concept. Say in the above situation, you describe the situation to the players (your foot steps echo off the halls ancient stone walls of the sewer, splosh-splosh, as the rats scatter at your approach, squeaking away into the darkness) and the players devise a plan to counter the noises (ie, I take off my boots of water-sloshing, walking in my socks, I proceed forward a few yards at a time, pausing to let the rats flee farther ahead of me), they counteract some of the bonuses to the goblins to hear the pc's approaching. Instead of adding in more -2 modifiers to the goblins listen check on top of what you have, the system I propose would really just put one modifier on the dice rolls - on the players move silently roll and then the goblins roll an unmodified listen check.
#17 gilean_dup Nov 14, 2005 10:37:40	Though personally, I must say that I too, find the bonuses provided are rather steep. Perhaps +5 XP per circumstance bonus suggested? As a rough guide the DM would be better off to give a 1-300 XP in one whack as RP bonus at the end of campaign... or you can use this guide line to add little bits here and there. What does experience mainly give? Combat ability. Roleplaying being rewarded by extra combat ability leads to confused players. Might work to convert dedicated gamists, though.
#18 zombiegleemax Nov 14, 2005 10:58:25	[...]your cell phone goes off (goblins scratch their heads then leap up - they do hear you coming). The cell phone ringing also increases the aggressiveness of the goblins.
#19 boozerker Nov 14, 2005 20:30:52	Say in the above situation, you describe the situation to the players (your foot steps echo off the halls ancient stone walls of the sewer, splosh-splosh, as the rats scatter at your approach, squeaking away into the darkness) and the players devise a plan to counter the noises (ie, I take off my boots of water-sloshing, walking in my socks ... lol, the boots are cursed - they don't come off. ... they counteract some of the bonuses to the goblins to hear the pc's approaching. Instead of adding in more -2 modifiers to the goblins listen check on top of what you have, the system I propose would really just put one modifier on the dice rolls - on the players move silently roll and then the goblins roll an unmodified listen check. Do what you feel is best, it's your game my friend. (I assume you're the DM) The cell phone ringing also increases the aggressiveness of the goblins. |_D | Now, that's funny.