Group Perception

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

I'm convinced that the majority of the time' date=' each character in a story is trying their best unless they have a reason to do otherwise. The game mechanics do allow for this.[/quote']

 

Interesting. Can we "push" a Perception roll?

 

On watch, the greatest danger is boredom. Too much time of nothing happening. Maintaining alertness for a very short span of time, now, that's easy. So, could you shorten the span of time further, and, in return, gain greater sharpness?

 

edit: Or, rather, push for greater awareness, but as a tradeoff, not be able to concentrate for as long?

 

In the example of making a PER Roll' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

True, it's no good to decide something through roleplaying and then roll dice to decide the outcome, not when they could contradict each other. But maybe they could be like the offsets in a file system; one covers the larger picture and another the nuances. Roleplaying can give bonuses or penalties to a dice roll, or the dice can affect how badly the roleplayed failure comes out.

 

I know, though, that if I wasn't letting the players have their PC's drop in awareness save through rolls, I wouldn't think it fair to use penalties in the plot threads where a villain tries to capture one of my hero's Dependant NPC's and hold her hostage to distract the hero. If the heroes are so mechanical that they can perform their duties even in the midst of the greatest distraction, it works both ways. I'd probably allow it, though, simply so that my villains' plots could actually work, too.

 

I know this, too: if some player asked me to omit their character's Perception rating from the group's roll, I would see if the group noticed something, then ask everyone to roll individually. Asking all of them to roll would have the nice benefit of not making anyone suspicious (if they hadn't known what she was doing already) of why that player wasn't being asked to roll, but that's just a side effect; the other players roll to see if they notice her zoning out with a smile on her face, and she rolls to see if she walks into a lightpost.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Group Perception

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Ah, so just a contingency plan then. Understood

 

Oh deary me. Sorry that I was unclear. I was trying to indicate when I felt it was appropriate to DISALLOW a character's refusal to share information. Which was basically at the very beinging of the campaign. Actually, before it really. You are right of course, there are DOZENS of reasons why a perfectly team oriented and eager team member can be legitimately considered "distracted" or short-sighted or whatever.

 

A poorly worded contingency plan, hehe.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

Interesting. Can we "push" a Perception roll?

 

On watch, the greatest danger is boredom. Too much time of nothing happening. Maintaining alertness for a very short span of time, now, that's easy. So, could you shorten the span of time further, and, in return, gain greater sharpness?

Sure: Looking +1; Long look +2. Conversely, bored guards might get a -1 to -3 as an ADD penalty.

 

Thanks for the feedback, gang - always good to see how other people are handling things.

[Derek Hiemforth]

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.

At risk of speaking out of turn for Lord Mhoram, note that he says he doesn't allow players to keep secrets from each other... not that characters can't have secrets. I would assume this is what he meant.

[Derek Hiemforth]

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.

This is an interesting take. The only issue I see with it is that a group of one perceptive guy and five nitwits would have the same chances as a group of six perceptive guys.

 

Maybe we could use a variation on the concept of "every five points in something doubles the effect." Since five points of INT equates to +1 PER, it seems at least reasonable to apply this idea to PER rolls.

 

If we were looking at STR, we'd find that adding multiple characters needs to continue doubling in order to keep adding +5 STR increments. For example, a single character with STR 15 acts as STR 15, two characters with STR 15 act as STR 20, four characters with STR 15 act as STR 25, etc.

 

So to do a group PER roll, maybe we could just start with the highest roll of any of the group's members (which we'll call the "Base Roll"), then total the PER rolls of all members of the group, and apply PER bonuses based on that as follows:

[u]If Group's Total PER Is...[/u]                  [u]Bonus Is...[/u]

Less than 2x the Base Roll                      +0
At least 2x the Base Roll, but less than 4x     +1
At least 4x the Base Roll, but less than 8x     +2
At least 8x the Base Roll, but less than 16x    +3
At least 16x the Base Roll, but less than 32x   +4
etc.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Group Perception

 

This is an interesting take. The only issue I see with it is that a group of one perceptive guy and five nitwits would have the same chances as a group of six perceptive guys.

 

Perception Guy! As perceptive as six perceptive guys!

 

 

With apologies to Ben Edlund and the Tick!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

So to do a group PER roll' date=' maybe we could just start with the highest roll of any of the group's members (which we'll call the "Base Roll"), then total the PER rolls of all members of the group, and apply PER bonuses based on that as follows:[/quote']

I like this. In practice you probably wouldn't have to work out the math exactly, but use this as a general guideline.

[David Johnston]

Re: Group Perception

 

So to do a group PER roll, maybe we could just start with the highest roll of any of the group's members (which we'll call the "Base Roll"), then total the PER rolls of all members of the group, and apply PER bonuses based on that as follows:

 

 

Similar to my suggestion but more sophisticated. (I didn't consider it important since Hero characters who didn't get enhance perception have so little variation in their perception anyway) However I wouldn't recommend making that table open ended. In most situations when you have an actual crowd, they will actually get in each others way by drowing out the subtle things you need a perception roll to notice.

[input.jack]

Re: Group Perception

 

For Group Perception rolls Ive been using the PER roll of the character with the highest roll, and adding +1 per other person trying (actively) to look at the same area. This makes guards only -slightly- more likely to spot characters, as most places with multiple guards have them looking at different areas to try to cover everything at once.

 

Also, with regards to an earlier comment, in our groups PCs have widely varying PER rolls, even if they dont have Powers relating to perception. Most PCs have bought their INT up, usualy a Hero in our games will have between a 13 and 20 INT.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

Similar to my suggestion but more sophisticated. (I didn't consider it important since Hero characters who didn't get enhance perception have so little variation in their perception anyway) However I wouldn't recommend making that table open ended. In most situations when you have an actual crowd' date=' they will actually get in each others way by drowing out the subtle things you need a perception roll to notice.[/quote']

Good point.

 

Also' date=' with regards to an earlier comment, in our groups PCs have widely varying PER rolls, even if they dont have Powers relating to perception. Most PCs have bought their INT up, usualy a Hero in our games will have between a 13 and 20 INT.[/quote']

Sure, but the difference in PER between a 13 and a 20 INT is only 12- versus 13-. So it's probably not too much of an oversimplification to treat all PCs (when grouped together) as roughly equal unless someone has bought their PRE up significantly.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

Interesting. Can we "push" a Perception roll?

 

On watch, the greatest danger is boredom. Too much time of nothing happening. Maintaining alertness for a very short span of time, now, that's easy. So, could you shorten the span of time further, and, in return, gain greater sharpness?

 

edit: Or, rather, push for greater awareness, but as a tradeoff, not be able to concentrate for as long?

Since Perception isn't a Power and doesn't cost END, no it cannot be Pushed. But if you are actively looking/listening/sensing for something, you can take extra time and gain a bonus to the roll.

 

If there is a chance you can passively notice something though, there is no possibility of taking extra time. You either notice it or you don't.

 

 

 

True, it's no good to decide something through roleplaying and then roll dice to decide the outcome, not when they could contradict each other. But maybe they could be like the offsets in a file system; one covers the larger picture and another the nuances. Roleplaying can give bonuses or penalties to a dice roll, or the dice can affect how badly the roleplayed failure comes out.

 

I know, though, that if I wasn't letting the players have their PC's drop in awareness save through rolls, I wouldn't think it fair to use penalties in the plot threads where a villain tries to capture one of my hero's Dependant NPC's and hold her hostage to distract the hero. If the heroes are so mechanical that they can perform their duties even in the midst of the greatest distraction, it works both ways. I'd probably allow it, though, simply so that my villains' plots could actually work, too.

Yes, there is a big difference between an established distraction (one the GM would say gives the character(s) penalties to the PER roll), and just explaining away why the character failed a roll even though he was supposed to be paying attention.

 

I know this, too: if some player asked me to omit their character's Perception rating from the group's roll, I would see if the group noticed something, then ask everyone to roll individually. Asking all of them to roll would have the nice benefit of not making anyone suspicious (if they hadn't known what she was doing already) of why that player wasn't being asked to roll, but that's just a side effect; the other players roll to see if they notice her zoning out with a smile on her face, and she rolls to see if she walks into a lightpost.

It gets complicated when there is one player that is actively trying to hinder the group, or just not helping. For the most part, unless that character is a really good actor or otherwise good at deceiving his companions, it's usually fairly obvious to the others who's not helping. At least given enough time.

[Robyn]

Re: Group Perception

 

It gets complicated when there is one player that is actively trying to hinder the group' date=' or just not helping. For the most part, unless that character is a really good actor or otherwise good at deceiving his companions, it's usually fairly obvious to the others who's not helping. At least given enough time.[/quote']

 

I would rule that "player cannot lie to player" - the character can give their own explanations for what is happening, and the player can smile and say nothing and let the other players draw their own conclusions, and the player can even let slip misleading truths to passively deceive the other players (by pointing their minds in the right directions), but the player cannot sit there at the table and say "My character is . . . " when that isn't the case, without being called on it.

 

I see this sort of thing being done when the character is not usually distracted, but is affected by recent events that do not happen all the time.

[David Johnston]

Re: Group Perception

 

 

Also, with regards to an earlier comment, in our groups PCs have widely varying PER rolls, even if they dont have Powers relating to perception. Most PCs have bought their INT up, usualy a Hero in our games will have between a 13 and 20 INT.

 

That would be 12 and 13. (And 11 for the guys who don't) Not what I'd call a wide variation.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

Not to derail my own thread, but are there any other situations where you might do group rolls? What about stealth: does each player make or break their own stealth roll, or do you allow one roll for the whole group?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

Not to derail my own thread' date=' but are there any other situations where you might do group rolls? What about stealth: does each player make or break their own stealth roll, or do you allow one roll for the whole group?[/quote']

 

For Stealth specifically, I usually just have the character with the worst roll make the roll. If he succeeds, everyone else (because they are better at it) is assumed to make their rolls as well. If he blows it, doesn't really matter if any one else does.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Group Perception

 

Yeah. Stealth is typically more like a logical AND operation rather than an OR. Therefore it's the weakest link that's important, rather than the strongest. I suppose I'm a bit inconsistent here, as I usually do have every character make a Stealth roll and consider individual results whereas I fudge Perception rolls a little (mostly in the PCs favor, it turns out), but whatever.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

Puts a lot of pressure on the guy with the lowest Stealth roll, tho. I mean just because Joe has a 12- an everyone else has 13-, should it always be Joe's fault they get caught? Unless of course, the goal is to convince everyone to buy up their Stealth scores...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Group Perception

 

Yeah. Stealth is typically more like a logical AND operation rather than an OR. Therefore it's the weakest link that's important' date=' rather than the strongest. I suppose I'm a bit inconsistent here, as I usually [i']do[/i] have every character make a Stealth roll and consider individual results whereas I fudge Perception rolls a little (mostly in the PCs favor, it turns out), but whatever.

 

Yeah... it really comes down to this.

 

If you (as GM) fish for the blown Stealth roll... you should allow players to fish for the successful perception roll.

 

Consistency, rather than a right way or wrong way, tends to be more important.

[David Johnston]

Re: Group Perception

 

Puts a lot of pressure on the guy with the lowest Stealth roll' date=' tho. I mean just because Joe has a 12- an everyone else has 13-, should it [u']always[/u] be Joe's fault they get caught? Unless of course, the goal is to convince everyone to buy up their Stealth scores...

 

I've never run into a situation where an entire superhero team tried to sneak up

on anyone. All the sneaking I've seen has been individual, except of course for the attacks by the disposable ninja.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Group Perception

 

I've never run into a situation where an entire superhero team tried to sneak up

on anyone. All the sneaking I've seen has been individual, except of course for the attacks by the disposable ninja.

Well, more common IMX is the whole group trying to sneak by someone rather than up on them, but I've had ambushes before where the latter was also a factor. When they're being smart they usually split up so they don't give each other away easily, but sometimes players don't think through things so carefully, or have other reasons (such as validly not wanting to be split up in a dangerous or highly confusing situation) that contribute to the decision.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

I've never run into a situation where an entire superhero team tried to sneak up on anyone. All the sneaking I've seen has been individual' date=' except of course for the attacks by the disposable ninja.[/quote']

True, most superheroes -- or at least most superhero players --don't tend to be that subtle. Far more common in other genres, tho.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Group Perception

 

Puts a lot of pressure on the guy with the lowest Stealth roll' date=' tho. I mean just because Joe has a 12- an everyone else has 13-, should it [u']always[/u] be Joe's fault they get caught? Unless of course, the goal is to convince everyone to buy up their Stealth scores...

 

In my experience there's a much wider gap than that. For example, the one guy who didn't buy Stealth and only has an 8-, the ninja who's bought Stealth up to 16- and everybody else who's around a 13-. If everybody goes, it's gonna be the guy who ain't stealthy's fault. If they are smart and leave him behind (for the moment anyway), it could be anyone's fault but the ninja's.

[David Johnston]

Re: Group Perception

 

True' date=' most superheroes -- or at least most superhero [i']players[/i] --don't tend to be that subtle. Far more common in other genres, tho.

 

Even then no matter what the genre, I haven't seen a heck of a lot of groups trying to sneak more than two people past the opposition. The standard approach is to send out Sneaky Pete and Sneaky Sue, they creep up on the potential observers, take them out and then the rest of the crew just walk in or out. Trying to avoid more potential observers than that is more a Tactics roll than a Stealth roll.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Group Perception

 

Even then no matter what the genre' date=' I haven't seen a heck of a lot of groups trying to sneak more than two people past the opposition. The standard approach is to send out Sneaky Pete and Sneaky Sue, they creep up on the potential observers, take them out and then the rest of the crew just walk in or out. Trying to avoid more potential observers than that is more a Tactics roll than a Stealth roll.[/quote']

You don't put your PCs in the right situations then.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Group Perception

 

Even then no matter what the genre' date=' I haven't seen a heck of a lot of groups trying to sneak more than two people past the opposition. The standard approach is to send out Sneaky Pete and Sneaky Sue, they creep up on the potential observers, take them out and then the rest of the crew just walk in or out. [/quote']

I see it all the time, actually. The "send the two sneaky people to take out the sentries" tactic works great if taking out the guards is part of the plan. But if the idea is for the whole party to get into or out of someplace without being detected, then the whole group's going to have to be sneaky. Ditto if the guards have a decent alert system where you can't take out one guard without the rest knowing about it fairly quickly.

 

Trying to avoid more potential observers than that is more a Tactics roll than a Stealth roll.

Agreed. Or arguably Security Systems, depending on the situation. I typically use that as a complimentary roll to subsequent stealth roll: in other words, good planning & prep makes the actual sneaking easier. But it doesn't typically eliminate the need to be stealthy, unless the guards have a big hole in their perimeter. (Which also happens, of course; sometimes because the NPCs screwed up, sometimes because the GM did. )

 

Hmm...maybe the difference is in when we require stealth rolls. I don't tend to have the PCs roll for every individual set of guards they come within range of. I normally have them roll once when the sneaking starts, and keep that number until/unless the situation changes. Not saying that's the best or only way; just noting how I do it.

 

In my experience there's a much wider gap than that. For example' date=' the one guy who didn't buy Stealth and only has an 8-, the ninja who's bought Stealth up to 16- and everybody else who's around a 13-.[/quote']

Fair enough. In most of my games, stealth tends to be one of those skills that you really can't do (or at least do well) without, so the gap tends to be much narrower. Especially after a couple games, when Clumsy Clyde gets tired of always being the one who gives the whole party away and finally decides to put a couple XP into Stealth.