PDA

View Full Version : Perception and Stealth



Earthwalker
2015-04-17, 04:34 AM
I was playing some RuneQuest 4 this weekend. As we were walking in the wilderness the GM calls for perception tests and we all roll. Now we are “low level” characters so have about 40 / 50 % in perception. With all the characters rolling there is a real good chance one of us will make the perception test. We spot the trouble and work to avoid it.

Later on in the same game the GM wanted to see how quietly we were moving. So he calls for a stealth test. Again we all have about 40% in this. A few of us made it but one guy failed. As we failed we made too much noise and the elk we could have bagged for dinner ran off into the forest.

This got me thinking of the perception / stealth dynamic. Perception is general one pass all pass. Stealth is generally one fail all fail. With 4 players and about 40% skill you are looking at perception = pass. Stealth = fail.

Now there are ways to solve this as player, like sending a scout out up front who has good stealth. Of course then his pass and fail is on him. The first encounter we avoided was a dark troll. If in that situation you had failed a perception test and ended up in combat with a thing a single character would be dead before the rest arrived.

I have no real question just interested in peoples thoughts on this.

Also wondering how people would handle this or if they even see a problem at all.

Jormengand
2015-04-17, 05:28 AM
Yes, that's called reality. It's why assassins usually work alone - yes, two people are more likely to be able to kill someone in a fight, but one person is more likely to be able to get there. You cannot and should not be able to sneak an entire army of ninjas into a castle no matter how stealthy they are.

Yora
2015-04-17, 05:37 AM
My approach is to have one or two scouts sneak on ahead, but not very far. Just so much that the rest could come rushing to their aid within a round. If possible maintain line of sight with the scout, so he can signal the others to stop while he comes back to them to tell them what he saw.

Thrawn4
2015-04-17, 05:45 AM
I agree with the others, it's just common sense that an army is less sneaky than a single person. Of course that can pose a problem in an RPG, but that's why you usually just send a scout. A clever DM can also give an incentive for a single person to sneak past: Get a key, find the information and so on. Being caught by a powerful enemy is a huge risk for that person, but in most systems a rogue/whatever can fend for themselves for a combat or two. Also, not every encounter has to be deadly - maybe they want to interrogate or cook properly.

Earthwalker
2015-04-17, 06:11 AM
I can see what people are saying and I agree it is easier to sneak one person than an army. Not that we are an army but in fact three characters.

Even with 3 it was a case of

Perception = succeed.
Stealth = Fail.

I do think its harder to sneak with three people as opposed to one. I just found it was so much harder.

I could see handling both these tests as a team work test in fate for example.

So that you only ever roll one set of dice. In stead of rolling three sets of dice and checking pass / fail on each.

The same could be done in RQ as well I guess. Roll one perception test. +10 % for each other person there. Roll one Stealth test -10% for each person there.

Lord Torath
2015-04-17, 09:36 AM
I think the Expert or Companion D&D rulebook had rules for evading searchers, with smaller groups being better able to hide, and larger groups being better able to find hiders, up to a point of about 10 or so searchers in one group. After that, more searchers made it harder to find the hiding group.

I'm not sure how to apply this to specific individuals with differing Stealth skills, though. Maybe use one check at the level of the least-proficient PC in the group?

Or have the sneaking PCs each make their stealth test. Then each success penalizes the perception check of the group looking for them. That way, failing a stealth check doesn't mean you're automatically detected, just that you're more likely to be detected.

goto124
2015-04-17, 11:10 AM
Why is it annoying? Becauses it forces the party rogue to go work alone, leaving everyone else behind...

So we're trying to solve that problem. Someone suggested a while back for the rogue improving the entire party's stealth, fluffed as the rogue 'clearing' or 'finding' a suitable sneaky path for her friends.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-17, 11:40 AM
Regarding the Perception part -- this is why many prey animals travel in herds. More eyes means more Spot checks, making it harder for predators to stay hidden.

When predators are also hunting in packs they can game on this behavior. One or more individuals intentionally expose themselves to the prey. The prey is then Distracted and takes a penalty on Perception checks to detect the other hidden predators in the group. The predators use this to close distance or set up an ambush.

Animal behavior as explained through the medium of RPG's.

Mr. Mask
2015-04-17, 11:57 AM
There are a couple of elements which might help.

Bell curve dice rolls may be useful, particularly if you're trying to beat a certain score.

Different levels of success and failure would be helpful. If one person is spotted, are the others spotted or noticed? Perhaps the guy who is spotted still gets a surprise round because the spotters are surprised? Maybe the guy who was spotted doesn't even know he has been spotted, and is now "sneaking" into an ambush?


Perception rolls do need to be managed in some way. If you try to sneak through an army camp, do you roll perception 10,000 times? If you roll enough times, it won't represent the actual chances of the situation, but instead will be artificial chances. The main way to structure accurate perception rolls would be to compare real world chances, but that is difficult to estimate. You can to an extent by simplifying it. Like, how likely is a regular guy, a clumsy oaf, Batman, and Robin to infiltrate X scenario? You then work out reasonable %s, and arrange your perception and stealth system around that.

erikun
2015-04-17, 11:23 PM
This is a fairly common problem in many RPGs, called the "Roll Until Fail" situation. Basically, any non-100% chance of success a player has at any one task gets progressively more difficult the more times it is required to be rolled.

For example, if a player succeeds with a 2 on a d20 when climbing a cliff, then that's a 95% chance of success. If they need to roll twice for the climb check, that's 90% chance. If they need to roll three times, then 85% chance. By twelve rolls, the only-fail-on-a-1 character has only a 50% chance of succeeding the entire climb. Needless to say, the odds are a fair bit worse for a character who needs a 11 on d20 (50% chance) on the initial success.

There are a couple of solutions I've seen that try to fix the problem. One is to not make failure cause the entire situation to fall apart. Using the climbing example from above, tying a rope around everyone and using pitons would (at least somewhat) ensure that any one failure only means the loss of progress on that single roll, rather than forcing a restart from the very beginning. On a stealth check, it would mean alerting only the group of guards the party ran across, as opposed to alerting the entire enemy camp. Another option is to make a single roll and have it hold for the entire scene. That is, if a player rolls a 35 on their stealth check, then that 35 is tested against every single perception check they come across - although such a solution would need a "roll once and take that value" rule, to prevent players from just trying to adjust something minor for a chance at forcing a re-roll. And other people have mentioned other options, including just not having the PCs attempt to sneak around in a group. (One game session I've played involved a dwarven cleric just casting Silence on himself, sticking with the heavy-armor characters, and using darkvision to follow around the stealthy rogue outside the Silence spell.)


[Edit] I should also note that some games develop a sort of shorthand for perception checks, just to avoid situations where it's one group of five rolling against a single stealthy target. Generally, it's something like "a group gets a bonus based off the number of people working together to scan the area" and puts it down to one roll, and either just using one roll for the highest group's bonus, or splitting stuff into several large groups which roll separately.

e.g. A group with 10 people, with three scanning the area, one casually looking around, and the others eating would probably just use the perception on one of the three scanning the area, with bonuses for the other two assisting. The one casually looking around isn't assisting the others, so they wouldn't grant a bonus or assist the others. Although you might use theirs if their perception bonus is higher than the others put together.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-17, 11:59 PM
This is why I generally prefer group skill test dynamics. That is where either some form of group check with each player contributing dice/modifiers to a communal pool and making a single check is made for everyone, or where one player makes a check an additional people add/subtract depending on how good bad they are.
h
It's really not that hard to bolt on to systems that don't do it by default, which is what I typically I do.

Satinavian
2015-04-18, 02:59 AM
If this is a problem or not depends on the dice system used. When you use a system with somewhat consistent results and degrees of success/failure to compare, then it's not a problem. Yes larger groups will still spot more and be louder, but competence is the main factor and the differences are pretty realistic.

If you use other systems that try to bring uncertainty in all rolls, have a huge variance or similar, just use a single roll and modifiers for numbers of people.

erikun
2015-04-18, 03:13 AM
If this is a problem or not depends on the dice system used. When you use a system with somewhat consistent results and degrees of success/failure to compare, then it's not a problem.
It becomes an issue whenever something with a set chance of success gets called upon repeatedly, where a single failure is the only one that matters. It doesn't matter if the 90% chance of success comes from a d20, or a 3d6, or a 4dF, or whatever combination of dice are being used. If the roll gets tested repeatedly, then failure will happen at some point.

The only system I've really seen that tried to solve this was Burning Wheel, which takes one roll for the "scene" and uses that for all applications. I haven't seen a system yet that gives progressive bonuses upon each success (which would elimiate the problem) although with the climbing example above, there are situations where a single failure doesn't mean the complete loss of progress.

I am curious of what dice system you are talking about, though. Just in case there was something I missed.

Satinavian
2015-04-18, 04:07 AM
It becomes an issue whenever something with a set chance of success gets called upon repeatedly, where a single failure is the only one that matters. It doesn't matter if the 90% chance of success comes from a d20, or a 3d6, or a 4dF, or whatever combination of dice are being used. If the roll gets tested repeatedly, then failure will happen at some point.If you have to pass two rolls instead of one, a chance of 90% drops to 81%, but a chance of 60% drops to 36%, nearly half it's value. If you have a system, where a competent character gets a 95% chance and a less competent 5% on the very same task of moderate complexibility, an easy task leading to 98%/50% and a hard task to 50%/0%, the number of people rolling will not nearly matter as much as their abilities. But your average D%-system does't work this way because it uses a uniform distribution.
If you introduce dregree of successes and compared rolls, your statistic becomes even more complicated. For example a good scout will have a certain probability of achieving numbers that are impossible for the other side to overcome, rendering the number of opposed rolls unimportant while being subjected to them in the normal way, when he rolls low himself.

So yes, the system does matter a lot for this question.

One of the system i play atm uses a pretty atrocious and complicated four-parameter-three-dice probability distribution which is difficult to explain. But in many cases it can be approximated roughly as a Gaussian with the mean as on of its parameters (the others influence mostly higher momentums and yes, skewness is a thing). I found, that the above problem does not really arise in that system and i can let everyone roll. While it is still important to let everyone behind who can't sneak if you are scouting, an additional scout doesn't hurt much and that additional sentinals provide more benefits due to being able to distribute them to all important places, less because of multiple rolls. I am sure, you could have similar effects with e.g. a 5d6+x system or even some xd6+y, if you account for degree of success.

I really dislike uniform distribution based systems.

nedz
2015-04-18, 05:00 AM
I have played / run games with an all high stealth party. This had a different mechanic in that the chance of individual failure was tiny and if someone did screw up then they would just pull out and cause a distraction elsewhere. It is possibly to sneak an entire party into position, albeit with the occasional hilarious result.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-18, 06:55 AM
It becomes an issue whenever something with a set chance of success gets called upon repeatedly, where a single failure is the only one that matters. It doesn't matter if the 90% chance of success comes from a d20, or a 3d6, or a 4dF, or whatever combination of dice are being used. If the roll gets tested repeatedly, then failure will happen at some point.

The way we handle this in my IK game which is more house rule than RAW in that system, but kind of uses a framework found elsewhere in the engine is this:

For any given check to which people might contribute I first establish exactly how many people it's plausible would contribute. Then I'll tell the group "Hey make a detection check against 15, with one primary and 3 assists". They'll talk among themselves about who should be primary (generally, but not always the person with the highest modifier).

The secondary characters make the check against the DC -2 to -4, and if they pass the primary gets +1 for each assistant that passed.The primary's result is then the only one that counts. Note that the system is 2d6+mod, so a -2 actually makes the secondary checks much easier.

The idea here is that the dice represent a combination of luck, local conditions, timing and other factors that aren't encapsulate perfectly in an ability score. If players are all doing mostly the exact same thing, in mostly the same way, at the same time, in the same place opposed to the same target much of the "Dice" factors are going to be similar or the same for most of them. This means that on the abstraction layer we really only want a single die-roll "Counting".

In practice it means:

Primary: 14 vs 15
Secondary: 13 vs 13 (Pass: +1)
Secondary: 14 vs 13 (Pass: +1)
Secondary: 12 vs 13 (Fail)

Is a success, even if nobody in the group got 15. And

Primary: 6 vs 15
Secondary: 18 vs 13 (Pass +1)
Secondary: 12 vs 13 (Fail)
Secondary: 11 vs 13 (Fail)

Is a failure for the group, even though making four rolls managed to fish an 18 by rolling double sixes at some point.




However having only the highest stat player roll is kind of boring and doesn't consider that having more people is an advantage (just not as big a one as independent rolls would make it). So other players still get to make rolls but only as part of a contribution to the total effort.

nedz
2015-04-18, 07:00 AM
The way we handle this in my IK game which is more house rule than RAW in that system, but kind of uses a framework found elsewhere in the engine is this:

For any given check to which people might contribute I first establish exactly how many people it's plausible would contribute. Then I'll tell the group "Hey make a detection check against 15, with one primary and 3 assists". They'll talk among themselves about who should be primary (generally, but not always the person with the highest modifier).

The secondary characters make the check against the DC -2, and if they pass the primary gets +1 for each assistant that passed.The primary's result is then the only one that counts. Note that the system is 2d6+mod, so a -2 actually makes the secondary checks much easier.

The idea here is that the dice represent a combination of luck, local conditions, timing and other factors that aren't encapsulate perfectly in an ability score. If players are all doing mostly the exact same thing, in mostly the same way, at the same time, in the same place opposed to the same target much of the "Dice" factors are going to be similar or the same for most of them. This means that on the abstraction layer we really only want a single die-roll "Counting".

However having only the highest stat player roll is kind of boring and doesn't consider that having more people is an advantage (just not as big a one as independent rolls would make it). So other players still get to make rolls but only as part of a contribution to the total effort.

So 1 stealthy character and 3 clutzes can sneak into Mordor ?

For characters helping each other do something your system is fine, but for one where the question is: "does anyone make a mistake" I'm not so sure.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-18, 07:08 AM
So 1 stealthy character and 3 clutzes can sneak into Mordor ?

For characters helping each other do something your system is fine, but for one where the question is: "does anyone make a mistake" I'm not so sure.

In cases where I need to account for "Idiot ****s it up for everyone" I'll generally say something like this:

"This is an opposed stealth check. Whoever is leading you is primary and rolls first. Everyone else is secondary. If you get within 2 of the primary's score you manage to help keep things even stealthier and give the primary check +1. If you get 4 or more below the primary, you mess things up and reduce groups score:"

So in the stealthy guy and three clutz scenario you might get.

Stealth-Man: 15
Klutz A: 8 (Bad Check, -1 for primary)
Klutz B: 10 (Bad check, -1 for primary)
Kltuz C: 12 (Failure, but not enough to penalize)


In this case the groups final stealth score would be: 13, much easier to find than 15. For a regular mook guard (2d6+6) this means the difference between 9+(27%) and 7+(58%).


I could also go "If anyone rolls below 8, even on a secondary the group's cover is blown". However I'd be afraid that approach would just lead to party-splitting and more feel-bads than is needed (simply providing a penalty already feels pretty bad).

Mr. Mask
2015-04-18, 07:11 AM
Mr. Moron's description fits what I've heard from guerilla teams. Even without training, it's possible to follow the other's lead, and do fairly well.

goto124
2015-04-18, 09:57 AM
So 1 stealthy character and 3 clutzes can sneak into Mordor

When the alternative is splitting the party?

Calen
2015-04-18, 11:04 AM
Why is it annoying? Becauses it forces the party rogue to go work alone, leaving everyone else behind...

So we're trying to solve that problem. Someone suggested a while back for the rogue improving the entire party's stealth, fluffed as the rogue 'clearing' or 'finding' a suitable sneaky path for her friends.

I often let my players, stealthy characters apply the excess of their rolls to help out their teammates. (4e game If the player exceeds the stealth check by a significant margin and they are trained in stealth then they give an ally a +2 on their check.)
- Rogue quietly points out loose stones and dry branches so that Sir Clanksalot doesn't blunder on to them. The party successfully avoids attracting the trolls notice.

By extension you can apply this to a wide variety of "All must Pass" checks.
Endurance - The barbarian takes part of the mages pack and helps him over rocks as they climb the forbidding mountain pass.
Diplomacy - The bard quickly turns her companions social blunders into jokes or the lead-in to a clever story.

goto124
2015-04-18, 11:15 AM
Ooo, nice, never thought it could be extended to Diplomancy. That should help other party members to speak up, instead of having fears of failing checks and messing everything up.

Earthwalker
2015-04-21, 10:29 AM
In cases where I need to account for "Idiot ****s it up for everyone" I'll generally say something like this:

"This is an opposed stealth check. Whoever is leading you is primary and rolls first. Everyone else is secondary. If you get within 2 of the primary's score you manage to help keep things even stealthier and give the primary check +1. If you get 4 or more below the primary, you mess things up and reduce groups score:"

So in the stealthy guy and three clutz scenario you might get.

Stealth-Man: 15
Klutz A: 8 (Bad Check, -1 for primary)
Klutz B: 10 (Bad check, -1 for primary)
Kltuz C: 12 (Failure, but not enough to penalize)


In this case the groups final stealth score would be: 13, much easier to find than 15. For a regular mook guard (2d6+6) this means the difference between 9+(27%) and 7+(58%).


I could also go "If anyone rolls below 8, even on a secondary the group's cover is blown". However I'd be afraid that approach would just lead to party-splitting and more feel-bads than is needed (simply providing a penalty already feels pretty bad).

I am thinking when I am running things I am going to use something similar to this for alot of group tasks. Make it so one poor roll out of a group doesnt have to cause the whole group to fail.

Thanks Mr Moron.

Jay R
2015-04-21, 12:14 PM
I agree with the observation, but disagree that there is a problem to fix.

A group of ten people are far more likely to spot something. A group of ten people do have an extremely difficult time sneaking.

That's why the sneak role (2E Thief) is crucial, and why he always gets a bit more solo action, which helps balance the fact that he's worth less in melee.

King of Casuals
2015-04-21, 12:25 PM
I always liked the idea of group stealth rolls, with one roll for the entire party. It usually happens when a stealthy rogue character gives the party advice on how to sneak, and they all follow his lead.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-21, 12:42 PM
I agree with the observation, but disagree that there is a problem to fix.

A group of ten people are far more likely to spot something. A group of ten people do have an extremely difficult time sneaking.

EDIT (I'll be using d20 numbers in the examples in this post, just because that is what people are likely most familiar with)
The issue is the matter of a degree. A group of 10 people are generally going to have more eyes open (assuming everyone is being equally vigilant) but the dice abstract out a lot of things, and not all of the things in that abstraction are going to be different for every observer in group at the exact same moment.

For the sake of argument, lets assume we have a group of 10 folks resting after a long day on the trail. They're sitting around the campfire in a circle, enjoying dinner. They're all equally observant (+5). The skillful spy "Señor SneakPantys" sneaks up on them sneakily with his superior +10 and rolls well: 12. For a total of 22.

Taken as a whole the group has a 90% to spot him. This seems extreme to me. They're all in the same location, with the same lighting conditions, at mostly the same angle to the approaching Señor SneakPantys. Virtually all the variables that the die is used to abstract are the same but collectively spotting someone nearly invisible to any one of them is a sure-fire thing!

What I'm trying to say here is that I like to be able to represent the fact there are diminishing returns on additional participants for some types of group efforts.

it works similarly for stealth.

Imagine you have "Rebdar, The Supreme Commando" with +20 Stealth, leading a group of civilians past an enemy encampment, he's also got a solid +15 in his commanding people skill (which is sadly irrelevant if we're playing things straight).

The civilians (4) are untrained and have a +0. There is only one guard on duty, "Chip, the Incompetent" who has managed a whopping -4 to his perception rolls. He has also rolled poorly, getting an 8 for a total of 4.

My basic expectations would be that for Rebdar and his group this is a happy day. They've got a crack leader and the only one looking for them can barely spot his own nose.

Rebdars group has a 87% chance of being found by Chip who promptly signals (he manages to avoid fumbling is perform[Horn] check, depsite a -10) the more component soldiers in the fort to turn them into swiss cheese.

goto124
2015-04-21, 06:58 PM
the only one looking for them can barely spot his own nose

I tried to look at my own nose. Pretty sure it's a DC 17 check.

Grinner
2015-04-21, 08:30 PM
There's one element to this search/hide dynamic that hasn't been addressed. Unless you have some kind of telepathic connection in the group, one individual may spot a band of forest goblins waiting in ambush, but communicating anything more complex than their presence may prove difficult. ("Look! A goblin! Behind that tree!" "Wait...which tree?") Furthermore, when a guard hears Sir Clanksalot, that doesn't necessarily mean he automatically notices Sir Clanksalot's companions.

goto124
2015-04-21, 08:35 PM
But when Sir Clanksalot gets attacked, the entire party must reveal themselves to save him.

Grinner
2015-04-21, 08:38 PM
But when Sir Clanksalot gets attacked, the entire party must reveal themselves to save him.

Do they? :smallamused:

Mr.Moron
2015-04-21, 09:04 PM
Do they? :smallamused:

In most games, generally yeah. The basic assumption is something of a team dynamic and a spoiled stealth check usually pulls the entire group into whatever they were hiding from. There are exceptions even in the team setting, and games that are exceptions to the team assumption. However they are exactly that, exceptions. I'm not sure they're useful for examining the broader issue.

Earthwalker
2015-04-22, 02:55 AM
I agree with the observation, but disagree that there is a problem to fix.

A group of ten people are far more likely to spot something. A group of ten people do have an extremely difficult time sneaking.

That's why the sneak role (2E Thief) is crucial, and why he always gets a bit more solo action, which helps balance the fact that he's worth less in melee.

I agree a group of 10 people are far more likly to be found. The situation that got me asking this question was a group of three people.

Is a group of three people far more likly to be spotted than a single person.

If they all have some skill in stealth. The multiple roll thing just doesnt seem to map out. The rules still seemed to go its a one fail all fail event, you all fail. If its a one pass you all pass event you all pass.

There is no one person in the party that can sneak, we are all barbarian Orlanthi with reasonable stealth (for our level) yet we can't stealth as a group. It seems more odd when the test is, can you all move forward quietly. So its just about moving in a forest, most likly someone will fail a roll then step on a twig letting the enemy know we are there.

Grinner
2015-04-22, 05:06 AM
In most games, generally yeah. The basic assumption is something of a team dynamic and a spoiled stealth check usually pulls the entire group into whatever they were hiding from. There are exceptions even in the team setting, and games that are exceptions to the team assumption. However they are exactly that, exceptions. I'm not sure they're useful for examining the broader issue.

That was a joke.

It occurs to me, however, that instead of blindly rushing to the offending character's aid, it may, in fact, be better for the others to remain hidden, especially if the words "Sneak Attack" appear on their character sheet.

The cleric may want to go though, as he's of little use hidden.

Lapsed Pacifist
2015-04-22, 06:36 AM
The thing is, confrontation is the default and usually more interesting / dramatic result of a stealth / perception contest. If you pass all of your stealth rolls, everything goes according to plan, and that's usually less interesting. This is why stealth should be a specialised / harder skill to use whereas perception should be a generalised / easier skill to use.

Jay R
2015-04-22, 07:31 AM
Is a group of three people far more likly to be spotted than a single person.

Yes, of course. Have you ever tried to sneak in a group? Or turn it around - is it easier for you to see one person or three? A tree that is one person wide isn't three people wide.


If they all have some skill in stealth. The multiple roll thing just doesnt seem to map out. The rules still seemed to go its a one fail all fail event, you all fail. If its a one pass you all pass event you all pass.

As a kid, I could sneak past someone fairly often, but a group of four of us rarely could. Specifically, Mrs. Sullivan hated for anybody to run through her yard. I could often get away with it, but a group of us never did. And yes, it's a one fail for all event. If one kid caught her attention, she yelled at all of us.


There is no one person in the party that can sneak, we are all barbarian Orlanthi with reasonable stealth (for our level) yet we can't stealth as a group. It seems more odd when the test is, can you all move forward quietly. So its just about moving in a forest, most likly someone will fail a roll then step on a twig letting the enemy know we are there.

If each of you has a 20% chance to step on a twig, sneeze, rustle leaves, etc, then the fact that the first one didn't doesn't affect whether the second one will.

Part of it is whether the other person will look your way and notice you. A group of three either walks along a wider path, or takes more time doing it, by going single file. Either way, the probability of getting caught goes up.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-22, 08:19 AM
If each of you has a 20% chance to step on a twig, sneeze, rustle leaves, etc, then the fact that the first one didn't doesn't affect whether the second will

Except it really does. In a group sneaking situation (at least any one that's sensible enough to be worth trying to model), you aren't all just walking abreast of each other with each member going at their own pace in a vacuum. You'll be acting as a team. With the most experienced or skill member(s) taking point, directed others, altering them to dangers.

Spotting all those twigs and leaves are random factors the dice abstract out and they're not equally random the more members you add. If most experienced member of them is aware, they'll be doing their best to stop the others from spoiling the check.

The usual "Everyone Rolls" method for stealth only does a decent job of modeling mindless robots with no ability to coordinate or follow someone's lead. On the flip side the "Everyone Rolls" method for perception only does a decent job of modeling near perfectly coordinated observers with no overlap in terms of field vision or attention division. In BOTH cases the amount of random factors for each additional participant goes down as they join a group under similar circumstances and face the upper/lower limits of reasonable assumptions on coordination.

Lord Torath
2015-04-22, 08:48 AM
I think part of it is deciding what a failed stealth check means. In original D&D, you had a 1-in-3 chance of surprising your opponent, without using Move Silently/Hide in Shadows (assuming, of course, that your group was not loudly shouting, or using a bright light source in a dark area). So even if your thief completely botched his stealth roles, detection was not automatic. If he passed his stealth roles, he was automatically not detected (assuming it made at least minimal sense - Hiding in Shadows in an empty, well-lit room never works).

So if three of four people pass their stealth checks, they should automatically not be detected. Any observes should be able to make a regular perception check to notice the one who failed.

DigoDragon
2015-04-22, 08:49 AM
Stealth is generally one fail all fail.

My past D&D groups tended to spread out when using stealth. This made some sense in that if one person rolls poorly and is spotted, the others could still remain hidden and catch the spotter unawares. Sometimes the least stealthy member of the party purposely fails to draw out the spotters into an ambush by the rest of the party. Anyway, point is that I don't play with the 'One-fail-all-fail' concept unless the entire party is huddled together in one place.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-22, 09:04 AM
My past D&D groups tended to spread out when using stealth. This made some sense in that if one person rolls poorly and is spotted, the others could still remain hidden and catch the spotter unawares. Sometimes the least stealthy member of the party purposely fails to draw out the spotters into an ambush by the rest of the party. Anyway, point is that I don't play with the 'One-fail-all-fail' concept unless the entire party is huddled together in one place.

Even if the others remain hidden a conflict has been had. The attempt at stealth has been spoiled. Consider it less "one-fails-all-fail" and "one-fails-and-scene-type-transition". You go from narrative movement/stealth mode of play, to an armed or social conflict depending on the specifics of where/why/how you're sneaking.

At the end of the day it remains that with flat rolls, and 4-6 people getting the entire group through anything hidden is basically impossible against even grossly incompetent opposition.

Even if we say everyone in the group is equally stealthy and only needs a 4 or more to stay hidden, there is still over a 70% chance of someone blowing cover. This defies narrative expectations and flies in the face of real world examples.

Certainly groups are easier to spot than an individual but groups where everyone is stealthy, or least where the group leader is experienced in such things should have a meaningful chance of evading detection. However, this isn't the case and past maybe two people it's basically impossible for someone in the group not to be discovered even if there's only one potential observer and he couldn't spot the broad side of a barn 20ft away.

Earthwalker
2015-04-22, 09:11 AM
I am not saying that it should not get harder when you add more people I am just questioning how much harder tests get when they hit the one fail all fail situation.

Or the same with how things get easier when its on succeed all succeed.

If you have stealth of 40%. then you can succeed 4 times in 10.
When you add another person this drops down to only succeeding 16 in 100.

Its a step drop for one extra person.

Then when you have 3 people it drops into a world of maths I cant deal with. I am thinking its like 64 in 1000. so you have gone from

40%
16%
6.4%

Its a wierd set up the drop from a 4 in 10 chance to a 16 in 100 just seems too steep.

Of course it might be the relative lower levels of skill involved that is causing the problem.

Jay R
2015-04-22, 12:44 PM
I am not saying that it should not get harder when you add more people I am just questioning how much harder tests get when they hit the one fail all fail situation.
...
Its a wierd set up the drop from a 4 in 10 chance to a 16 in 100 just seems too steep.

Of course it might be the relative lower levels of skill involved that is causing the problem.

Turn it around. The sentry has a 60% chance of spotting somebody. Give him enough somebodies to spot, he will eventually see one.

Also, if you want to affect the probability, role-play.

If each character snuck by separately, and the sentry only saw the third one, then I'd rule that the first two are safely there. If the second and third one said, "I watch where he goes, to find an ideal path and more hiding spots along the way," I'd give them each a +2 circumstance bonus.

But if they roll together, without coordination or thought, then if one of them catches the sentry's eye, the sentry is suddenly vigilant while all three are visible, and will likely spot all three. If one of the ones who rolled safely immediately says, "I freeze or hide behind a bush to not be seen with him," I'd allow that player to roll again to avoid being caught with the exposed one (with a -2 circumstance penalty since the sentry is now vigilant).

And if the one who was spotted immediately waves to the sentry and says, "Hi! I didn't mean to disturb you. Can you tell me where the nearest privy is?", I'd give him a Bluff check to distract the sentry from the others.

Don't complain about the probabilities - overcome them.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-22, 12:50 PM
Turn it around. The sentry has a 60% chance of spotting somebody. Give him enough somebodies to spot, he will eventually see one.
..
Don't complain about the probabilities - overcome them.

If the mechanics don't really make for a sensible abstraction, it's only right to complain about them. The solution to having busted brakes in your car is not "Learn how to duck and roll when you have to jump out" it's "Fix the damn brakes".

Jay R
2015-04-22, 09:06 PM
If the mechanics don't really make for a sensible abstraction, it's only right to complain about them. The solution to having busted brakes in your car is not "Learn how to duck and roll when you have to jump out" it's "Fix the damn brakes".

But in this case, the mechanics do make sense. A group of people has a much harder time sneaking than an individual does.

Don't complain that the rules accurately describe the hard thing you're doing as hard; learn to do hard things.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-22, 09:31 PM
But in this case, the mechanics do make sense. A group of people has a much harder time sneaking than an individual does.

Don't complain that the rules accurately describe the hard thing you're doing as hard; learn to do hard things.

It's harder to sneak as a group but it isn't borderline impossible feat the "All Roll" model provides us with. Barring huge (+/- 10) skill levels, A group stealth check is tantamount to an automatic failure in that model, which is unreasonable. '

There isn't just "Easy" and "Hard", such that if you're doing something more challenging than normal it must be "Hard" and therefore any level of near-impossibility must be acceptable.

The amount of extra difficultly added to a group check is unreasonable when compared to the narrative expectations of groups using stealth, and historical examples of groups evading detection. That is to say: Yes it's harder. Yes it makes sense that the task would be more difficult to pass. However it would not be as difficult as an "All Pass" system tends to make it. This is because efforts are coordinated and therefore the overall or average result is more heavily weighted towards the best result possible result.

tomandtish
2015-04-22, 10:38 PM
There is no one person in the party that can sneak, we are all barbarian Orlanthi with reasonable stealth (for our level) yet we can't stealth as a group. It seems more odd when the test is, can you all move forward quietly. So its just about moving in a forest, most likly someone will fail a roll then step on a twig letting the enemy know we are there.


Later on in the same game the GM wanted to see how quietly we were moving. So he calls for a stealth test. Again we all have about 40% in this. A few of us made it but one guy failed. As we failed we made too much noise and the elk we could have bagged for dinner ran off into the forest.


Never played RuneQuest, so if I get some of this wrong, I apologize.

Others have said parts of most of this throughout. Some of the problem you are experiencing may be expectations, some can be handled by deciding what a stealth check means, and some is roleplaying.

Looking at your numbers, it is important to note that even if any of your characters were alone, they still had a better chance of failure than not. IE: It's more unlikely that two of them made it than that the third blew it for them. The problem you are describing becomes more significant when the chance of failure is much smaller. If all three of you had a 90% chance, then is it reasonable that your odds go down because there are three? And if the odds do go down, how and why?

There are advantages and disadvantages to stealthing as a group or individuals. A lot depends on whether or not someone is much better at it than the others.

If one person is clearly superior (and I don't mean just 5% - 10%), then that person may be able to offer some advice that provides a bonus. But that advice might not provide a huge bonus by itself. There's a big difference between telling someone to do (or not do) X, and actually showing them how it is done. Your expert might be able to take the group across, whispering "Don't step there, step there", or "Watch out for that". Of course, if/when one of the less skilled blows it, the group as a whole is compromised. But if they go as individuals, then depending on the distance a verbal description is going to provide minimal help.

If the group (like yours) is all about the same, then there's no real benefit to going as a group. Person one goes, you watch where they went, and if they make it follow their footsteps. Each of you knows about the same amount about being stealthy, so there's not much you can impart to each other in the way of knowledge.

Roleplaying comes in in deciding how you cross, and what actions you take prior to doing so. Your GM can give you bonuses or penalties based on what actions you are taking.

I was trying to think of a good movie example that I could use to show this, and came up with one that I can twist a little to make work: The 13th Warrior. In it you have two similar stealth scenes.

In the first, they are swinging across the underground chasm. Note that while it is a short distance, it is an individual action. Each can go one at a time. Note that this is an individual action. The one who is going to be seen if they blow it badly enough is the one actually crossing. The ones who have already crossed will probably be quickly found if that happens, and the ones who haven't crossed may be found if they don't retreat.

If they have someone with a much higher stealth rating than the others, that person might have been able to show the others how to muffle their armor to minimize the noise when they hit the wall. He may have been able to tell them (and show them once) how to swing to minimize splashing. He can tell them (but they probably can't actually see it) how to grip wet rock to minimize falling. A GM could piece all that together, decide what circumstance bonus it gave (and also figure out what a distracted, not paying a lot of attention penalty to spot the enemy got). And note that while our hero did bobble his stealth, it wasn't bad enough for them to be discovered.

This is going to be individual rolls. Especially considering that there aren't just stealth checks, but also DEX and STR checks as well.

A few minutes later they are creeping on hands and knees below a shelf of rock with the enemy on the shelf (some just feet away). This is a group sneak, and certainly a case of all or none get caught. Again, if you have an expert, they could show how to muffle the armor and scabbards. They could provide a quick demonstration of how to quietly lift your hands and knees and put them back down (and those who are the closest following will be constantly seeing this). They could also work out hand signals for "Don't put weight here" since they are actively leading the group.

Again, a GM can decide what all this is worth in the way of a bonus (as well as any penalties to the enemy for not watching at all, really), and decide what it is worth.

Now, here's my own thought for something like this. The group as a whole is pretty closely intertwined. I'd take one roll for the group, but the base for that roll is the worst stealth player, not the best. That is, work under the assumption that if you can get your worst through, you can get them all through. I'd allow the best at stealth to add half the difference between him and the worst, before applying any penalties.

So, let's say our best is 70% and our worst is 30%. That means we're starting at a base 50% chance (30% = ½ of 40). Any bonuses or penalties based on the enemy? Well, they have set no watch at all, some are awake, some are asleep. Let's call them casually distracted (+10%). Any other factors based on our group? Well, it is a group. Let's call it a 2% penalty for each person after the first, so 18% penalty altogether. I'm sure we could come up with others if we wanted to (both positive and negative)

We're now at a 42% chance the group makes it. If not, I'd rule that 43%-60% the error was on someone other than the worst. 61%-100% the worst stealth person in the group did something wrong.

I just grabbed these numbers off the top of my head, but they illustrate the point. There are certain activities that it makes sense that the more people helping, the better the odds for everyone. Perception is generally one of those (unless you've decided that each person is responsible for a specific area, which is something different). But there are some skills where odds go down, at least for some. Note that in my example above, if the most skilled stealth person is only a 40% compared to the worst one being at 30%, then the odds for the group are even lower than 30% (27%). You just can't get past the fact that it is a large group.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-22, 10:58 PM
Whether or not it's realistic or should be realistic, this seems to be the product of the fact that you have a roll for spotting something trying to hide AND a roll for hiding. So, if we're always preferring to have players rolling dice, you get a group of characters who excel at spotting things when they're all together, but whose ability to spot something isn't impacted by how many of the thing there are - and who are very likely to be seen when together, regardless of how many eyes are looking for them. Unless you're rolling for both? I'm not familiar with the rules in question either.

I'd also like to point out that this is why people inflitrating places like to do it in single file - by all taking the same route and presenting as few of themselves as possible to view at a time, they can compensate for numbers. Otherwise, you've got a great "everyone is separately forging their own path" simulator.

goto124
2015-04-22, 11:21 PM
Groups in real life don't suffer from Never Split The Party, including the GM trying to juggle multiple separate situations with all the players at the same table.

It's why I didn't really care for realism. Playability's at stake here.

Jay R
2015-04-23, 10:21 AM
Yes it makes sense that the task would be more difficult to pass. However it would not be as difficult as an "All Pass" system tends to make it. This is because efforts are coordinated and therefore the overall or average result is more heavily weighted towards the best result possible result.

The "All Pass" system can be coordinated as well, but only iof you bother to role-play. I already said that if players make a point of saying they are watching the first one through to locate hazards and hiding places, I would give a circumstance bonus.

Co-ordination isn't hard if you think. But if each of you tries to sneak, alone, without using any teamwork or role-playing, then that represents a group that isn't working together, and it shouldn't be very likely that they will get by.

Try to improve your odds by role-playing well, rather than by changing the rules.