Group Perception

[bigdamnhero]

Sure, two sets of eyes are better than one. But how much better?

 

Let’s say a PC has an opportunity to spot something out of combat – a hidden clue, a suspicious character in the crowd, whatever. Say it’s difficult enough to rate an 8- roll: Our Hero has roughly a 26% chance of spotting the clue, right?

 

Now if there’s more than one PC in the party, normally each player gets to roll. (For simplicity, assume everyone has the same PER roll and same modifiers.) The more PCs, the greater the odds that at least one player will roll an 8 or less:

 

Chance of at least one player rolling 8-

1 PC => 26%

2 PCs => 45%

3 PCs => 59%

4 PCs => 70%

5 PCs => 78%

6 PCs => 83%

 

(Note: I haven’t done probabilities in a long time; someone feel free to correct me if my math is off.)

 

So the effect is that a decent-sized group has an excellent chance of spotting even hard-to-spot things. At 6- six PCs still have a 44% chance; at 11- the odds approach 100%. To some extent this is as it should be, of course… but to what extent? It's one thing in combat, where a character's PER rolls generally only benefit themselves, but out-of-combat one lucky roll benefits the entire paryt.

 

Do these numbers seem about right to you? Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how they deal with group perception? Or is it all in my head (again)?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

The reason I got thinking about this is that I have sometimes used group PER rolls instead of individual rolls, giving a +1 bonus for every additional observer. Oddly, for a 8- roll, the math comes out about the same:

 

Chance making an 8- roll with +1 per additional observer:

1 PC => 26%

2 PCs => 37%

3 PCs => 50%

4 PCs => 62%

5 PCs => 74%

6 PCs => 84%

 

This method gives slightly better odds for harder rolls (62% for six observers at 6-) and slightly lower odds for easier rolls (98% for six observers at 11-). So I’m thinking now I’m better off just letting everyone roll. But since I’d done the math, I thought I might as well share it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Group Perception

 

I think "group perception rolls" are just fine.

 

As with all rolls, the question is "Are they necessary?"

 

Example: If there is a slim chance the players might spot the guard before he spots them, thus avoiding him sounding the alarm... a roll is great.

 

Example 2: If there is a hidden trap door in the floor that is really friggin' hard to find (and you don't have any elves ) but the game isn't going to move forward until the PCs discover this door... do you really make them roll? Why? Does it really help to have the PCs finally... after 30 minutes of exasperation on what to do next, say "Ok... I take out my axe and start chopping the entire room into pieces and toss them into my bag of holding so that I eventually find anything and everything in the room!" before they find the room?

 

IMO, no. The GM simply says, "It is an exhausting search, and you are amazed how many times you overlook the door before you find it. It takes the thief's dagger of sharpness to slip into the crack... but eventually you realize that the floor is not solid and there is door into the depths!"

 

So... percentages tend not to be the real issue. The issue is whether or not a roll in necessary in the first place.

 

If the plot/story is at a turning point, "They see the guard and A happens, they don't see the guard and B happens" that tends to be the time a roll is used.

 

If the situation is one that "just is" then roll be damned... just tell 'em what they find and get to the real story, which is "What do they do now?"

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

I agree with RDU Neil as to when a PER Roll is preferred and not preferred, but as to the specific suggestion...

 

I usually handle group perception the same way as Complimentary Skills. One character is declaired the perceiver, and all other character may make their normal PER Rolls (as per the rules for Complimentary Skills) in an effort to give the perceiver a bonus to his roll. The perceiver makes his roll then and I dish out the results.

 

Now, I only use this in situations that would equate to using Complimentary Skills (actually, now that I think of it, that's not the right term, but I'll continue using it as I can't remember the correct one). Everybody has to be working togeter with the same goal. The goal could be "search the room", "find the hidden lever" or something like that. It must be something that a group of people working together can accomplish as a team. Nothing like "identify that speck on the horizon" or similar.

 

Sometimes though, I just ask for one PER Roll from whichever character (that's looking or can otherwise perceive it) has the higher chance and let it represent the group. This is just to save time though.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

If the plot/story is at a turning point, "They see the guard and A happens, they don't see the guard and B happens" that tends to be the time a roll is used.

 

If the situation is one that "just is" then roll be damned... just tell 'em what they find and get to the real story, which is "What do they do now?"

I totally agree with this. It's the former situation I'm looking for help with. In the later case, I might make them do a PER roll just to see how long it takes them, but that's all.

 

I usually handle group perception the same way as Complimentary Skills.

...

Sometimes though, I just ask for one PER Roll from whichever character (that's looking or can otherwise perceive it) has the higher chance and let it represent the group. This is just to save time though.

Yeah, I've used both those methods too. The former takes longer than I'd like, and the later seems a bit too...I dunno, arbitrary? I'm looking for some kind of middle ground.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

Be careful which parties you use this in. One PC might decide to not say anything, depending on where their true loyalties lie

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

Yeah, I've used both those methods too. The former takes longer than I'd like, and the later seems a bit too...I dunno, arbitrary? I'm looking for some kind of middle ground.

 

I like arbitrary. Saves time and tends to move the story along faster. I'd never deny a character a legitimate chance of success or failure though. I only arbitrate when either success or failure would lead unquestionably to an undesired (meaning it won't be enjoyed by anyone) situation.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

Be careful which parties you use this in. One PC might decide to not say anything' date=' depending on where their true loyalties lie [/quote']

 

Players aren't allowed to keep secrets from the GM, so I'll always know if a particular character has loyalties that conflict with the other PCs. In such cases, I treat those characters as a seperate group. It's a trick to handle if the player wants to keep secrets from the rest of the group though, but it mostly occurs in games where secrets, subterfuge and conspiracies among the players/character is an expected element of the campaign.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

Players aren't allowed to keep secrets from the GM' date=' so I'll always know if a particular character has loyalties that conflict with the other PCs.[/quote']

 

True . . . oddly enough it was your post I was looking at, where you said declare one of them as the perceiver and have them roll. If they know what they roll, and can figure out what the combined perception chance would be, but just miss it, they know someone's holding back.

 

. . . okay, or that there are hidden modifiers. I guess it would be okay if you just told them that

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Group Perception

 

Players aren't allowed to keep secrets from the GM' date='.[/quote']

 

 

Heck in my games I don't allow players to keep secrets from each other. I do no note taking, nor solo play that is not then recapped for the other players. Keeps down the interparty conflict, which I don't want in my games.

 

I mean, I post all the character sheets online, for ease of me checking them out, so any other player could look at that sheet as well.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Group Perception

 

I might not like interparty conflict, but I don't know how I would feel about restraining the player's RPing by forbiding it. It's one thing to say that "Ok, for this campaign, characters with a team orientied disposition are strongly encouraged, and lone wolfers/turncloaks are forbidden."

 

It's another to prevent an established character from taking an action that is IN character.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

I might not like interparty conflict, but I don't know how I would feel about restraining the player's RPing by forbiding it. It's one thing to say that "Ok, for this campaign, characters with a team orientied disposition are strongly encouraged, and lone wolfers/turncloaks are forbidden."

 

It's another to prevent an established character from taking an action that is IN character.

 

"My team oriented PC is daydreaming about the hot guy from that club she went to the other night, so she's utterly oblivious to her surroundings."

[prestidigitator]

Re: Group Perception

 

I will sometimes do this like a Complimentary Roll as well. I have the character with the highest (modified; perhaps one character is closer or able to see/hear better in the circumstances due to unusual senses, etc.) Perception make the Primary Roll. Everyone else in the group makes a Secondary Roll before this, and the highest is used to modify the Primary Roll (at the usual rate). Who actually notices is determined partly by story/drama/whim and partly by whether the Secondary Roll was the deciding factor.

 

Of course, there are some situations where individuals noticing something are not going to help the whole party. For example, if ambushed out of the blue with little time to react, every character may be on their own for surprise tests (even so if a success is outstanding, it may still be enough to help others...).

[Markdoc]

Re: Group Perception

 

I do a single roll for the party with bonuses depending on what the group as a whole do and base the result off the highest PER roll in the group.

 

Any other approach, IMO makes no sense. After all, when the party is hiding, do you give the bunch of 50 mooks they are about to ambush, 50 PER rolls? As noted, allowing the group to make multiple PER rolls inevitably leads to the "fishing for a 3" syndrome. One roll is faster, as well.

 

As for the "hidden trapdoor that *must* be found" if I'm foolish enough to put such a thing in, in the first place, I roll myself and voila! it's found after an appropriate amount of searching.

 

cheers, Mark

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

True . . . oddly enough it was your post I was looking at' date=' where you said declare one of them as the perceiver and have them roll. If they know what they roll, and can figure out what the combined perception chance [i']would[/i] be, but just miss it, they know someone's holding back.

 

. . . okay, or that there are hidden modifiers. I guess it would be okay if you just told them that

 

And isn't that how it happens in the movies? Later on everybody is on the one guy's case for keeping info from the group.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

"My team oriented PC is daydreaming about the hot guy from that club she went to the other night' date=' so she's utterly oblivious to her surroundings."[/quote']

 

Rolled an 18 did you?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Group Perception

 

Rolled an 18 did you?

We generally refer to that as "I take a moment to stop and pick up my eyeballs."

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Group Perception

 

In regards to the purpose of the thread, though:

 

In that kind of situation, I'd either (as has been suggested by several people already):

 

1) Use the various PCs rolls as Complimentary ones or

 

2) If it's absolutely necessary for them to find something, use the Perception rolls to see how long it takes them to find it, not determine if they find it or not.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

Rolled an 18 did you?

 

No, that would be putting mechanics before SFX and relegating SFX to the role of explaining the mechanics. I was thinking more that it's possible to be roleplaying a character who, despite her devotion to the team, has other personality elements which distract her from doing the best job she could.

 

And that's good. If the PC's always did the best possible jobs they could, they'd basically be robots or computers or something; no life but their work, and all that. Okay for a "government agent" campaign, but hardly interesting other than that. I wouldn't hold it against another player if they did something like this, even if it did hurt the team's chances of success/survival (my characters might chew her out over it, though ).

[David Johnston]

Re: Group Perception

 

Do these numbers seem about right to you? Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how they deal with group perception? Or is it all in my head (again)?

 

Do it using the same kind of doubling strength uses. Take the best perception in the group, and add one if there another person, 2 if there are three other persons, and 3 if there are 7 other persons.

 

And bear in mind that you only count people in a position and equipped to perceive what might be detected.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Group Perception

 

No, that would be putting mechanics before SFX and relegating SFX to the role of explaining the mechanics. I was thinking more that it's possible to be roleplaying a character who, despite her devotion to the team, has other personality elements which distract her from doing the best job she could.

 

 

I was only speaking against MAKING a character do something against that character's true nature. If the character has a good reason to be crafy or sneaky, the GM has no one to blame except the GM for allowing that character/player in, and has no justification to interfere with any interparty drama. If the behavior is an aberration, then obviously the characters have hit upon a truly interesting RP situation, and it is an even worse idea to interfere.

 

If you don't like the premise of how a character will be RPed, don't let it in. If you realize later what you didn't understand, arrange to alter or remove the presence. But do NOT control the character instead of the player. Either change its nature, remove it, or let it do what it is SUPPOSED to.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

I was only speaking against MAKING a character do something against that character's true nature. If the character has a good reason to be crafy or sneaky, the GM has no one to blame except the GM for allowing that character/player in, and has no justification to interfere with any interparty drama. If the behavior is an aberration, then obviously the characters have hit upon a truly interesting RP situation, and it is an even worse idea to interfere.

 

If you don't like the premise of how a character will be RPed, don't let it in. If you realize later what you didn't understand, arrange to alter or remove the presence. But do NOT control the character instead of the player. Either change its nature, remove it, or let it do what it is SUPPOSED to.

 

Whoa, hold on, Manic. Why don't you try taking a closer look at who's been saying what? I've said nothing that calls for such a response. All I did was point out that there are perfectly valid reasons other than playing a character who has reason to conceal things from the group why your character's Perception might not count toward the group's.

 

edit: In fact, I don't believe anyone's suggested that we go "MAKING" a character do something "against their nature". Dust Raven asked about rolling an 18, and you can hardly say that "rolling an 18" (an out of character act) goes "against the character's nature".

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

No' date=' that would be putting mechanics before SFX and relegating SFX to the role of explaining the mechanics. I was thinking more that it's possible to be roleplaying a character who, despite her devotion to the team, has other personality elements which distract her from doing the best job she could.[/quote']

Possible. Agreed.

 

And that's good. If the PC's always did the best possible jobs they could, they'd basically be robots or computers or something; no life but their work, and all that. Okay for a "government agent" campaign, but hardly interesting other than that. I wouldn't hold it against another player if they did something like this, even if it did hurt the team's chances of success/survival (my characters might chew her out over it, though ).

If the PCs all did their jobs half-***ed, it's not necessarily fun. In any case, "life" is more than performing tasks. I'm convinced that the majority of the time, each character in a story is trying their best unless they have a reason to do otherwise. The game mechanics do allow for this. In the example of making a PER Roll, a really bad roll could mean the character got distracted or wasn't paying attention, just didn't feel into or up to the task, was busy thinking of something he thought was more important, etc. The trick is for the player and/or GM to decide what reason the character performed so poorly; something that supports the character concept/personality or vice versa.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Group Perception

 

No vitrol intended Robyn, but I could offer the advice to yourself. I was merely quoting to you to explain how I had intended my original post, because I had believd (incorrectly?) that you had misunderstood my post and had been referring to it.

 

Heck in my games I don't allow players to keep secrets from each other. I do no note taking, nor solo play that is not then recapped for the other players. Keeps down the interparty conflict, which I don't want in my games.

 

 

 

This is what I wrote my response towards. I was not directly say that anyone was actually advocating this, but in case they were, I felt compelled to speak.

 

This sounded to me like the GM would say "Sorry, nope, I'm not gonna let you hide that." That I disapprove of.

 

If I have implied that anyone has said this, directly, or have misrepresented someone's words, then I sincerely apologize. Seriously.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

No vitrol intended Robyn' date=' but I could offer the advice to yourself. I was merely quoting to you to explain how I had intended my original post, because I had believd (incorrectly?) that you had misunderstood my post and had been referring to it.[/quote']

 

I thought you were implying, with your original post (here, let me quote it so we don't get more confused trying to figure out which "post" we're talking about).

 

It's one thing to say that "Ok, for this campaign, characters with a team orientied disposition are strongly encouraged, and lone wolfers/turncloaks are forbidden."

 

It's another to prevent an established character from taking an action that is IN character.

 

I thought you meant this to imply that it was only for the other thing, for situations other than a campaign in which teamwork is all but guaranteed, where an established character could claim "lack of teamwork" as a valid action. I wanted to point out that it could still be possible for a campaign to have a strong focus on teamwork, but the player might ask to have their perception withdrawn from the group's because they weren't paying attention.

 

This is what I wrote my response towards. I was not directly say that anyone was actually advocating this' date=' but in case they were, I felt compelled to speak.[/quote']

 

Ah, so just a contingency plan then. Understood