Losing dice because of unknown factors, Unelegent rules? Options

[Summerstorm]

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

Oh... kay:

I just note the stealth factor for my NPC's and thingies and remember their equipment/situational modifiers.

If someone makes a perception check, i can just see how he rolled and quickly see if his roll+/- equipment >= stealthfactor+/- equipment.

For example someone with a ruthenium-polymere-suit (12 cameras) is hiding: throws a 8, i note 8(+v12)

Players come in and look around, i say: roll perception: Dude say: 9, 5, 5, 4, 3. Normaly no hit for perception... but if he has infrared. BANG hits. Easily done in 2-3 seconds after i've seen the dice falling.

And now (4th edition) i have to note: threshold (say... 3) -6v.

Players come in and want to look around; I have to say: Sure throw...X dice +/-(+3 for active searching, and -4 visual and -2 for a bit farther away and so on blahblah). He says: but i have Ultrasound. Me (calculating.. hmmm then its Y dice). Just this one back is just time wasted.

So back on the track: Hm... yeah even if it is maybe a bit unfair, rolling against the player/npc with the dice he lost may be possible too. but i think i am keeping the +threshold. then i can note just like before: Threshold 3(+1V) or 3(-1V+1far) and be done with it. So the notations behind the base threshold will be nullified with right equipment on the side of the "attacker". Same thing on other tests. Of course than fewer "glitches" will occur... but meh no one ever critical glitches anyways at anything important *g*.

[Draco18s]

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.

Uh.

Observing in detail qualifies as "actively looking" which grants a +2 DP modifier (+3?). So there's clearly a middle ground.

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, I'd say if you're walking down the street just to get from point A to point B or trying to creep about a facility undetected you shouldn't get the distracted penalty. You need something actively going on that would divert your attention. For example, if you're walking down the street while doing an AR hack or have had a couple drinks and are dancing at a noisy club without a care in the world, you should get the -2 penalty.

[Ascalaphus]

As I understand it, Perception is basically always modified; if you're actively looking you get a bonus, and in almost all other cases you get the penalty for not paying attention.

[Medicineman]

Players come in and look around, i say: roll perception: Dude say: 9, 5, 5, 4, 3. Normaly no hit for perception... but if he has infrared. BANG hits. Easily done in 2-3 seconds after i've seen the dice falling.

Maybe your Group should work with Threshold Successes
Transform every -2 to -3 Dice to 1 more Success
and any +2 to +3 to one less Success
Discovering the Heavy Pistol 1 Success
" the Holdout Pistol 2 Successes
" the Ninja in Cameosuit in the Background 3 Successes
and the Mage hidden by his Spirit 3 Successes
let your Player roll his normal Perception (+/- any Obvious Dice for Light and Observing,etc) than simply count his Successses and tell him everything

You can either Change the # of Dice or the # of Successes or even both

with both Dances
Medicineman

[Karoline]

As I understand it, Perception is basically always modified; if you're actively looking you get a bonus, and in almost all other cases you get the penalty for not paying attention.

Not really. If you're just walking down the street not really doing anything, you're going to notice stuff fairly well, but not as well as if you're scanning the street trying to find your friend or money on the ground or whatever. You're also going to notice stuff alot better than you would if you were trying to read a book/notes or look in your backpack or are texting on your cellphone or even just talking on your cellphone. Oh, and don't forget playing a gameboy or something like that.

So yeah, I think there is a no modifiers middle ground between being distracted and actively looking.

Or in a guard situation. You have three guards. One is sitting at his desk watching the mini-TV, the other is sitting at his desk kinda watching the hall or whatever while his mind wanders to what he'd rather be doing, and guard three is sitting at his desk, eyes peeled, focused on making sure no one and no thing gets past him.

For the first guard you could just about go "Hey joe!" as you walk past and he wouldn't notice you, the second guard you likely couldn't get past, but maybe a flyspy or something small might be able to slip his notice, but the third guard is going to notice an ant trying to sneak past him.

Here is an example

[Draco18s]

Here is an example

Bah, watch this one instead. So much better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Karoline]

Bah, watch this one instead. So much better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Yeah, that is good. I got one.

[Draco18s]

Yeah, that is good. I got one.

I got 8 and speculated on a 9th that time, but I knew what some of them were.

Just out of curiosity, which one did you notice?

[Karoline]

I got 8 and speculated on a 9th that time, but I knew what some of them were.

Just out of curiosity, which one did you notice?

I noticed the bear to suit of armor, mostly because I expected the bear to start dancing. Also think I saw the armor move just a bit as they were finishing setting it up. I noticed a bunch of other 'hey, why do they look like they've moved' sort of things, but didn't really connect for me.

[Draco18s]

I noticed the bear to suit of armor, mostly because I expected the bear to start dancing. Also think I saw the armor move just a bit as they were finishing setting it up. I noticed a bunch of other 'hey, why do they look like they've moved' sort of things, but didn't really connect for me.

Yeah, the armor wiggles just a titch. I think its the only real mistake. Probably should have done the armor first and swapped to the bear...

[Ascalaphus]

I was watching the people.. didn't see any of it coming because I expected something about the people to be significant.

[Karoline]

I was watching the people.. didn't see any of it coming because I expected something about the people to be significant.

And thus you had the -2 for being distracted.

Personally I was looking for something in the background to happen, especially movement, so I got the +2 or +3 or whatever for the armor, and simply failed to notice the other stuff with no penalty or bonus.

[ker'ion]

But that was actually more of a case of -0 penalty for normal observation, not distracted. Add on an exceptionally high difficulty for some of the changes.
Two to five successes, depending on the changes, with the armor being the easiest to notice.

-2 for a limited vision range, +2 for being observant and you're still getting a normal pool if you're watching.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

I didn't get any of them, even after reading your comments. I had to watch it a second time, just to figure out what was going on. *points to sig* Once I knew what I was looking for, several became obvious, but there were still many I don't think I ever would have noticed. I'd say the test had a high threshold.

I don't like the increased chance of glitching, due to the penalties for a well-hidden opponent. I guess you'd have to make that glitch appropriate for the well-hiddenness.

[Draco18s]

but there were still many I don't think I ever would have noticed. I'd say the test had a high threshold.

Oh certainly, the changes ranged the gamut between easy ones and hard ones, but if you're just watching the video (distracted) you're not going to see any of them. If you're sitting back and viewing but not really paying attention, you'll pick up on one or two. If you're focused on picking up every change you'll get more of them (the flowers, rolling pin, different pot, clock, bear, dead guy and carpet likely).

[Neraph]

I got both the paintings, I noticed something different about the flowers, I got the bear/armor (it would have been cooler if they put the armor on the bear), I noticed the change with the clock and dead guy, and the table in the backround. I can't believe I missed the drapes and the rug the dead guy was on. But in my defence I was just watching it expecting something from the stories the guys were saying.

[Karoline]

Now that it has been mentioned, I realize I noticed that some of the weapons changed but I disregarded it, figuring I had remembered what they were wrong.

[Cardul]

Ah, the old "Perception test" conundrum.
"If I ask for a surprise test, then there goes the surprise!" Really? Party is walking down the street,
SURPISE TEST! Yay! They are not surprised by the Devil Rat chasing a cat across the street! Or you can
just ask them to roll X dice at random throughout the night, roll some dice behind the screen occasionally,
and nod knowingly. Maybe look at one of the players and just smile sadistically after a roll...

[Neraph]

Ah, the old "Perception test" conundrum.
"If I ask for a surprise test, then there goes the surprise!" Really? Party is walking down the street,
SURPISE TEST! Yay! They are not surprised by the Devil Rat chasing a cat across the street! Or you can
just ask them to roll X dice at random throughout the night, roll some dice behind the screen occasionally,
and nod knowingly. Maybe look at one of the players and just smile sadistically after a roll...

When I do things like that it's hard not to smile because nothing is happening and the PCs think something is. That always makes them edgy.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Ask them for a surprise test, then write down their numbers. Forty-five minutes later, when something happens, you already have their rolls.

[Ascalaphus]

Ask them for a surprise test, then write down their numbers. Forty-five minutes later, when something happens, you already have their rolls.

That's fairly elegant, except you need to have a fair way of applying modifiers after the fact.

[Smokeskin]

If you want players to roll and not reveal the number of dice, you can use a binomial distribution sheet.

In Excel, you have dice rolled horizontally.
Vertically, you have number of hits (remember zero).

In the cells you write:
=BINOMIALDISTRIBUTION($E14;F$12;1/3;TRUE)*60

Then have players roll a d6 and a d10 for a number from 1-60 (a d6 roll of 6 is 0, 00=60), run your finger along the column with the number of rolled dice - the first time you see a number higher than what you rolled, that row has the number of hits.

The cool thing about the 1-60 table is that you can check the second hand on your watch then look up number of hits, without rolling anything, the ultimate in stealth GM rolls (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

You can also add a glitch line: =1-BINOMIALDISTRIBUTION(ROUND.UP(F12/2;0)-1;F$12;1/6;TRUE) It doesn't consider the number of hits you get, so even if you rolled it independently it wouldn't be correct, but I still use it before the 0 hits line, and if it says glitch they roll again at one third or the dice for number of hits.

PS: My Excel version isn't in English, so I guessed the function names, you might need to adjust it.

[Draco18s]

Use this in cell C3, which would be your 0 dice, 0 hits cell.
Copy and paste for all other cells.
=BINOMDIST($A3,C$1,1/3,TRUE)*60

Will return an error in cells where you're asking for more hits than dice.


Use this in cell C2, which is your glitch row
=BINOMDIST($A3,C$1,1/3,TRUE)*60

Cell C3 will return an error (there are no dice, so 1/2 of them can't come up ones), but you can copy it horizontally.


It however looks like you'll never get more than 6 hits on 9 dice unless you start counting fractional seconds (60 > 59.5 -> 6 hits, 7 hits would need 59.94 and 8 would need 59.99)

[Neraph]

That is genious, and I have absolutely no skill with Excel at all.