Losing dice because of unknown factors, Unelegent rules? Options

[Summerstorm]

Something bothered me for a while now: (Yeah some of you all know that i am GM in a 4th edition group while prefering the third... sorry about the constant negativity.. i am trying to like it more, honest)

In some tests the active character(s) lose dice depending of thing they can not know... the gravest offender i think are perception test. Say you jump into the dark warehouse and take a quick lookie around: Visual perception is rolled BUT STOP: One dude is protected by concealment (6), another one has a chameleon suit (-4) Another one stand right before him but has a small gun in a stealth holster (-4 i think?) and a big gun in quickdraw beneath his coat (-2?)

So i have to ask him to throw say... 6 (of his 12) dice, than 2 more and then 2 more again... thats just unneccessary and gives him clue to what is going on here. (Yeah of course the GM could throw the dice hidden... but then I have to throw and throw again some crap all the time)

So i was thinking of converting dice substractions to additional threshold for my sessions (but my players HATE houseruling so thats a problem)

But i just wanted to ask: Anyone of you have the same bad experience with that? What are your opinions on that? Or is it totally ok for you? I really miss the stealthfactor of the third edition. (If i recall it correctly) Just an open test to set your factor, let the other character roll and just see if roll+enhancements > stealthfactor+enhancements... the more hits the more information.

EDIT: Damn i wrote unelegant wrong... sigh... why did i even chose that... is that even a word? Let's just call it coarse, ok?

[Neowulf]

Why not have them roll the dice where you can see them, and count over from the left only the number of dice they secretly get?
Sure it takes longer, but short of rolling the dice into something that will line them up, or using a program to roll and display a list, it's the best option I can see.

[Ascalaphus]

I think the GM rolling Perception in secret is always a good idea. Players won't know if they rolled well, so they can't be too sure they're safe. Roll 0-2 extra times just to keep them guessing about the number of people they're seeing/missing, too.

[DireRadiant]

So i have to ask him to throw say... 6 (of his 12) dice, than 2 more and then 2 more again... thats just unneccessary and gives him clue to what is going on here. (Yeah of course the GM could throw the dice hidden... but then I have to throw and throw again some crap all the time)

Every game has elements of metagaming. Doesn't matter what system it is. The moment you ask for a "Surpise" test, there goes surprise. Develop a method of players and GM to trust each other and not metagame to any great advantage.

This is where the occasional "Roll 6 dice please" and not letting them know what it is for helps. It requires some preparation, but it helps a lot. To prepare is easy, the common rolls are surprise and perception checks of various kinds, keep track of a few key pool sizes from session to session, and ask them to roll that pool and not tell them what it's for until the relevant moment. That way they know something is up when you ask for that roll, but not what's it's for, you keep suspense.

The other fun outcome is you can ask for a roll now and then completely randomly, but of course nothing will happen, just to keep their attention.

[ialdabaoth]

Well, if you change it into thresholds, remember that 3 dice roughly equals 1 hit. With Edge, 2 dice roughly equal 1 hit.

So maybe halve all the perception penalties, and apply them as threshold modifiers?

[Draco18s]

With Edge, 2 dice roughly equal 1 hit.

2.5 dice

With a dice pool of 36 you get 12 hits, 6 rerolls. Which gives another 2 hits and 1 reroll, which averages 1/3 more hits.* 12 + 2 + 1/3 = 14.3333

36 / 14.333 = 2.5116

*Additional 6s and hits from even more 6s is so slight as to on average disappear. If you really want you can add in an additional 0.0555, resulting in... 2.5019 dice equaling an extra hit. I suspect if I did the complex math to work this out to infinity I'd end up with exactly 2.5

[Ascalaphus]

It's probably easiest to make a sheet of paper with everyone's Perception pools, along with the various bonuses they get from enhancements. You can check for applicable enhancements without alerting them that they're needed.

For added convenience, also print the relevant Perception/Visibility tables on the same sheet of paper.

[ShadowPavement]

I usually turn penalties on a PC's perception test into extra dice for the bad guys to roll instead. That way I don't need to dicker with thresholds, The pc's always roll the same number of dice without having to worry about why their pools are suddenly lower, and the bad guys still get a better chance of hiding.

The best part is that the PC's never even need to know you're doing it since it never affects how many dice they roll. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

I've never felt that it was right for the GM to roll anything that's on a PC's sheet. Their character is the only thing they have in the game world that is theirs to control. Rolling their dice for whatever reason just takes away from that one bit of game influence they actually have.

[Draco18s]

I usually turn penalties on a PC's perception test into extra dice for the bad guys to roll instead. That way I don't need to dicker with thresholds, The pc's always roll the same number of dice without having to worry about why their pools are suddenly lower, and the bad guys still get a better chance of hiding.

Which is statistically identical, assuming that the penalty value is less than the PC's dice pool + 4 (then you're getting into probable glitch territory, or worse, 0 dice).

[Ascalaphus]

Which is statistically identical, assuming that the penalty value is less than the PC's dice pool + 4 (then you're getting into probable glitch territory, or worse, 0 dice).

Not if not all of the PCs have the same penalties; for example, when one of them has ultrasound and the rest don't. Then you'd have to roll separate hiding tests for a single badguy against different PCs. And eventually that means you'll screw up your hiding test against the blind one, and succeed against the all-seeing one. (And Murphy will make sure it happens often.)

[tete]

Use auto-successes ONLY unless they specifically say they are actively scoping the area then use concealment mods as auto successes for a threshold.

[Karoline]

Not if not all of the PCs have the same penalties; for example, when one of them has ultrasound and the rest don't. Then you'd have to roll separate hiding tests for a single badguy against different PCs. And eventually that means you'll screw up your hiding test against the blind one, and succeed against the all-seeing one. (And Murphy will make sure it happens often.)

Or you just roll the biggest DP that the NPC gets after bonuses (anti penalties) and subtract dice from left to right to get the various thresholds that the people have to hit. So blind joe has to get 6 hits and ultrasound bob only needs 3 hits because of the 8 dice you took off from the left, three of them were hits.

The big differences statistically between doing this and doing it the 'proper' way is 1) an overall lowering of glitch and critical glitch chances because everyone will always be rolling large DPs and 2) the inability to completely null out someone's ability to do something (Like giving a -6 DP to someone with a DP of 5). So yeah, a bonus to the NPC DPs is actually slightly in favor of the PCs, so I can't imagine them complaining too much. Of course you don't ever have to tell them you're doing it.

Oh, and as for the surprise check, every once in a while say "Okay, everyone declare what you are doing right now." and when it is actually a surprise attack, whatever they say they're doing is what they'll be locked into doing during their IP if they are surprised. And of course make sure to ask this at random times as well so they don't always go 'pulling out my gun and looking around' whenever you ask.

[Aerospider]

Which is statistically identical, assuming that the penalty value is less than the PC's dice pool + 4 (then you're getting into probable glitch territory, or worse, 0 dice).

Not quite. Here's a base example:

'Attacker' and 'Defender' both have a DP of 2. So by deducting from the attacker or adding to the defender we have either 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 3.

1 vs 2
Probability of success (at least one net hit) = Probability of 1 hit vs 0 hits
= (1/3)x(4/9)
= 4/27
= 36/243

2 vs 3
Probability of success (at least one net hit) = Prob. of 1 hit vs 0 hits + Prob. of 2 hits vs 0 hits + Prob. of 2 hits vs 1 hit
= [(4/9)x(8/27)]+[(1/9)x(8/27)]+[(1/9)x(12/27)]
= 52/243

The starting point of 2 vs 2 had a success probability of 72/243, so benefitting the Defender reduces the probability by 20 units whilst penalising the attacker reduces it by 36 - a decrease of 4/9 of the penalty's weight.

Looking at the next case up,
3 vs 3 has a probability of success of 242/279
3 vs 4 has a probability of success of 184/279
2 vs 3 has a probability of success of 156/279

If the attacker is penalised the probability loss is 86 units, whilst if we award the defender the loss is instead 58. This time the loss of probability of success drops by 14/43.

So the difference will be felt less with more reasonable dice pools but of course they'll be felt more with bigger penalities.
Either way, reducing the attacker's DP and raising the defender's DP isn't the same thing.

[Feel free to correct the numbers if necessary, it's late. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif) ]
[Left out glitches, but their inclusion could only support the hypothesis]

[Neraph]

It's probably easiest to make a sheet of paper with everyone's Perception pools, along with the various bonuses they get from enhancements. You can check for applicable enhancements without alerting them that they're needed.

For added convenience, also print the relevant Perception/Visibility tables on the same sheet of paper.

This is the best suggestion I've seen yet, but I would like to help with it slightly. Instead of printing out the visibility tables as well, use the GM screen.

Don't forget that visibility penalties also apply as penalties for ranged attack rolls as well.

Also, you can always ask your players to roll random dicepools with random penalties, just to keep them off their toes.

[The Jopp]

We also have the BASE PENALTY of "Distracted" with a -2 modifier.

Unless a character is taking a complex action to "Obsercve in detail" they suffer a -2 dicepool modifier.

Now, how many runners are on their toes ALL THE TIME looking for things?

Unless a player states what they are looking for and that they actually take the time (observe in detail) I would give them a -2 modifier.

This is where a good observation drone is useful. Give a drone the order to:

A: Follow the players
B: Observe in detail for...
B.1: Hostiles
B.2: Weapons
B.3: Traps

etc...

[toturi]

We also have the BASE PENALTY of "Distracted" with a -2 modifier.

Unless a character is taking a complex action to "Obsercve in detail" they suffer a -2 dicepool modifier.

Now, how many runners are on their toes ALL THE TIME looking for things?

Unless a player states what they are looking for and that they actually take the time (observe in detail) I would give them a -2 modifier.

This is where a good observation drone is useful. Give a drone the order to:

A: Follow the players
B: Observe in detail for...
B.1: Hostiles
B.2: Weapons
B.3: Traps

etc...

Isn't "Observing in Detail" a simple action? A runner can't be on his toes all the time looking for things, but he can be on his toes, while he is conscious, looking for things. Of course, if the runner is making a Complex action or doing things that require 2 Simple actions, then normally he won't be able to "Observe in Detail".

[Medicineman]

@Summerstorm
How would you've done it if you were Gamesmastering 3rd Ed ?

with a Curious Dance
Medicineman

[The Jopp]

Isn't "Observing in Detail" a simple action?

Sorry, my bad.

Still, having to state that "I observe in detail" every few minutes to the GM so that they not loose 2D6 can be a pain in the arse.

The same should go for corp security. How often are corp security NPC's "on their toes" as they should also have penalties for not observing in detail for the right things.

Corp security in a shopping mall expects burglars, not watchers, spirits or infiltration drones for example (except their own drones or watchers).

[Ascalaphus]

I think a PC with some Perception training could be on lookout all the time, but that does mean that PC is preoccupied keeping an eye; moving somewhat slower, and he can't do much else, because he's spending simple actions keeping the observation going.

Not a bad choice, if you're not alone, to have someone monitoring the surroundings. It does require good concentration however.

[Serbitar]

Easy solution:

Roll the dice to be subtracted by yourself and subtract hits from the hits your player got. Mathematically this is about the same as subtracting dice form the initial roll.
For more information see my house rules (SHP) in the signature (but beware, they are 1-2 years old).

[Aerospider]

Easy solution:

Roll the dice to be subtracted by yourself and subtract hits from the hits your player got. Mathematically this is about the same as subtracting dice form the initial roll.
For more information see my house rules (SHP) in the signature (but beware, they are 1-2 years old).

Interesting idea and it does give you the same mathematically expected (read: average) result, but my Pedantry(+2) specialisation is kicking in again.

First, what if the net result is a negative number of hits? It's not a big issue as it will only happen in a few % of tests, so perhaps just treat it as an automatic glitch (or upstaging a natural glitch to a critical).

Second, although the average stays the same (assuming negative net hits has a meaningful implication of relative magnitude) the probabilities are shifted. For example, for a DP of 3 being 'counter-attacked' by 1 die the player is more likely to get 2 or 3 hits (than with a DP of 2) but less likely to get 0 or 1 hits (than with a DP of 2). Suppose the player needed 2 net hits – his chances are now 5/27 instead of 1/9=3/27, a 67% increase in the chance of success.

Third, the player now has the ability to score more hits than with RAW, which for tests where extra hits mean a better success (e.g. more detailed information learned) means he is able to do better than should be possible. For example, a DP of 5 with a -2 penalty shouldn't be able to score 5 net hits, it should be capped at 3, but including this cap would make the penalty harsher than it should be.

You could decide that the second and third points balance out the first, so long as everyone is aware of the implications. Or you could say that the difference is minimal and it's just a game, shut up Aero.

[Stahlseele]

@Summerstorm
How would you've done it if you were Gamesmastering 3rd Ed ?

with a Curious Dance
Medicineman

In 3rd Ed, have them rolling, have them rolling the 6's again as needed.

[Medicineman]

In 3rd Ed, have them rolling, have them rolling the 6's again as needed.

I know that ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) I've been playing 3rd Ed for Years. I'm up to something different.I'm seeking simmilaritys instead of separations
Now get out and let Summerstorm answer !

HougH!
Medicineman

[Warlordtheft]

It's probably easiest to make a sheet of paper with everyone's Perception pools, along with the various bonuses they get from enhancements. You can check for applicable enhancements without alerting them that they're needed.

For added convenience, also print the relevant Perception/Visibility tables on the same sheet of paper.

Just remember to update it on occasion. The only problem with the GM rolling is when edge is used.

The other issue is the deadliness of the game. Failed perception = suprise= no full dodge = very well placed sniper shot = dead runner = well fed Ghoul or a new look for a shedhim.

[Shinobi Killfist]

This is one of my biggest problems with 4e. Variable dice pools slow down the game a great deal, and dice pool penalties can easily knock most skills into the can't make a roll range or way to easy to fumble range. IMO the best solution in only give bonus dice, never give penalty dice.(mark me as agreeing with the poster who 1st suggested it) It is not as slow, and it removes the silly situations of 0 dice and fumble heavy pools. I think they started moving in the right direction with cover against ranged attacks in 4A, bonus dice to your reaction/dodge test. My gun shouldn't jam more often when someone is behind cover, and the players more often knowing what dice they have to roll before they even state there action speeds things up incredibly.(also can remove the metagmaing if that is an issue). Also if the player is rolling 5 dice for his dodge test and gets 2 successes, it is a lot easier(mostly psychologically) for me to say you have+4 dice because his recoil is out of control or you have cover and have him add the successes than have him re-roll entirely, especially if he got a good roll.

Sure penalty dice make more sense in some cases like recoil, you don't dodge better because the guy has recoil he shoots less accurately. But it is statistically the same and avoiding 0dice pools and fumble situations is more important and avoids those logical problems.

Take your example, if I were to be writing that adventure(assuming I was not caught off guard with the we raid a warehouse request) I'd give bonus dice to all the hiding checks of the guys in the warehouse, and I could roll in advance so I would know how many successes would be needed to spot them and it would be written down on my cheat sheet. Charlie(chameleon suit) 4 hits, Bob(behind crate)2 hits etc.