>Player: "I want to do X so Y happens!"
>DM: "Roll Wits/Wisdom/whatever."
>player fails the roll
>DM: "You proceed to do X, but you fail to notice a flaw in your plan that I've already noticed before I made you roll, so Y doesn't happen."
>player succeeds the roll
>DM: "You suddenly realize that even if you do X, Y won't happen unless you also do Z. Do you still want to proceed with X?"
Is this acceptable?
So uuuh. So what about that?
It's a good method to help players play characters that are smarter than they are.
Sure, may be warn them ahead of time saying 'this is going to be complicated though, but roll away'.
Geez, I dunno OP, the issue with incredibly vague questions is usually that you can argue without end for on side or the other since you lack the intel to make an informed choice.
Depends on the X, Y and Z, and also the tone of the game.
Examples.
>I want to jump on the copter to plant a magnetic mine on it.
fails the roll
>You jump on the copter, but the magnetic mine fails to adhere on the aluminium/composie fiber body of the helo, falling on the ground below.
succeeds the roll
>It won't adhere, it's not made of amagnetic materials. You have to throw it inside or find a way to stick it for that plan to work.
Besides, I'd make a roll to jump successfully on the aircraf.
This a hypothethical general question, user.
Your example is exactly what I'm talking for.
The thing is, I just briefly saw a thread about "I drop a brazier on the floor, so the buiding catches on fire and everyone inside burns" and I thought that in that particular situation, I'd make the player roll Wits and if he succeeds, inform him that the fire won't spread quick enough, unless he has some means for making it spread quicker, like spilling oil on the floor.
Basically, Wisdom as GM hints for the optimal course of progression. Yes or no?
...
Good thinking, just don't forget the most important thing for innovation; make sure the players agree to it, or at least know about it.
>Basically, Wisdom as GM hints for the optimal course of progression. Yes or no?
Well, in that case, 100% yes.
You have three other options in that kind of situation if you don't roll.
1)Tell the player that it won't work.
Problem is, even Thrugg the dim-witted barbarian can't commit mistakes with that system.
And in the worst of cases, you may have to rein your players in constantly, as they will do stupid things to see what is allowed.
2)Don't tell the player, don't make it work.
Very frustrating for the player, since he doesn't have exactly the same understanding of the setting as you or his character.
Imagine Amiel the fantasy elf player being told by his GM that his character failed to contact the space station with his cellphone, and that the entire plan failed as a result. I'd be pretty pissed off.
3)Don't tell the player, make it work
Can be dangerous in the long-term, since your players will make more ridiculous plans each time, knowing that you'll let them do it. That effect can be mitigated by making the rolls needed to execute the most far-fetched plans nearly impossible to succeed.
And it puts a bit of focus on non-physical stats, that is always nice and prevents too much metagaming.
That said, though, it's better to go with option 3 in some kind of games, like pseudo-freeform and collective narration or comedic games like Toon.
Sorry if I was a bit snappy in my previous answer; I just visited the alignment thread, I'm afraid I hadn't vented correctly before posting.
This raises an interesting question - does a high Wisdom character almost always know an optimal course of action?
If so, are they only limited by their abilities? Like, let's say, high Wisdom, low Charisma might know that the easiest way to charm someone, but he can't execute it, because he lacks social talent for it.
>does a high Wisdom character almost always know an optimal course of action?
Well, yes, that's sort of what Wisdom is for. Its how sensible you are. Knowing your limits and such.
Sure.
>Player wants to do something that couldn't work
>DM throws him a bone, letting him know why that is and what he can do about it.
That is the way tabletop RPGs should be played. My group does it all the time, and it leads to a much greater perception of fairness. It feels like the DM is playing more fairly when he does that.
This. Though its always difficult, some times you have the right to think for your players if their characters are smarter than they are.
I think there should be a roll in there to see if their character (or anyone's character) would KNOW if something will or wont work before they try it.
The only pitfall there is when everybody is playing stupid characters AND are themselves stupid. I ran into this problem more than once in highschool.
But that actually means that the GM is the one actually playing during that part, not the player.
>I think there should be a roll in there to see if their character (or anyone's character) would KNOW if something will or wont work before they try it.
As the user you're responding to, I think a roll should happen when there's any doubt as to whether the character would know. If it's something that should be painfully obvious to a person of his experience and background, then you might as well just give it to him.
I agree, obviously. I should have been more specific.
Its not like I make players roll for things they should probably know. Somebody who's spent time on a ship should know how much weight a rope will hold, and a blacksmith should just know how long a shield can block a flame before it gets too hot to hold. etc.
This seems like a failure of the GM to provide enough information. It seems like a "gotcha!" to suddenly reveal that there aren't enough combustibles for the fire to spread at the pace of their plan and the sort of GM style that stifles innovation and enforces a "I hit it with my sword" level of engagement with the game.
Really?
Fucking really, user?
DM isn't required to describe absolutely everything about the surroundings, just like you don't have absolute awareness of everything that surrounds you.
If player asks a question, you can elaborate, because it's the same as searching for something - an active perception roll.
If player does something stupid, because he didn't ask to elaborate, you give him a perception/wits roll - because it's the same as suddenly noticing something - a passive perception roll.
You say that like tabletop players didn't come with retarded ideas all the time.
>failure on the part of the GM
There is literally nothing stopping the player from asking questions about their surroundings before they take action. The GM can't possibly reveal every single piece of relevant
information for every single possible plan that the players could come up with. The GM's job is to provide quick, concise descriptions of the surroundings of the players, and it's
their job to clarify whenever their understanding of their surroundings is crucial to their plan. Seriously, as a player currently playing a cunning trickster, I ask a shitload of
questions about my surroundings any time that I'm about to pull off a plan. It saves everyone a lot of time and resources, and it's not that fucking hard. Stop being such an
entitled player, user.
You're absolutely correct but man, what happened to your formatting there?
I know right? It looks like he wanted to make it double spaced, which is an admirable goal, but he did it in the weirdest way possible.
Why not just do 2 line breaks after every sentence?
Depends on how well the pass or how horrible they fail. Just having two possible outcomes seems boring and too black and white.