PDA

View Full Version : Getting the PC to use their skills?



Guinea Anubis
2008-04-30, 09:29 AM
So I am running my PCs through The Tomb of Haggemoth, But they never use there skills much.

What I mean by this is that they do not use spot, search, or sense motive unless prompted to do so. Because of this they have missed 2 or 3 things just in the first town.

So any other GMs have this problem? How can I encourage them to use there skills with out leading them by the hand?

CTG
2008-04-30, 09:32 AM
Well, spot is something they are suppose to use only when prompted to if you are not rolling for them.

As far as the others, oh well, sucks to be them.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-30, 09:33 AM
If they're not using their skills there is a problem.

...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

perpetualnoise
2008-04-30, 09:37 AM
Get a stun gun or a big stick and each time they miss something, hit them. it doesnt have to be to hard or anything, just enough to make a point. eventually they'll learn... unless they like being hit with a stick or something...

if you want a more "humane" method... i dont do humane.

the stick will work, trust me

SamTheCleric
2008-04-30, 09:40 AM
You could go the "passive aggressive" route... when tallying XP or Loot...

"Hmm, no you didn't notice him and he got away, so you don't get that. And no, you didn't know he was bluffing, so you lost out on that...

Ok, nope, no one leveled."

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-30, 09:41 AM
Set 'em up traps (or THE BOMB) and have them fall into them, no save or trick, and mention how spot checks, listen checks, and sense motives could have averted this. They'll catch your drift eventually.

Duke of URL
2008-04-30, 09:52 AM
Any skill is only as useful as you, the DM, determine it to be. If you emphasize to players that certain skills are valuable, they will put ranks there and use them. If you tell them the opposite, then no one will (except maybe that one guy who intentionally un-optimizes because he thinks he has to to truly "roleplay").

As for spot/listen and sense motive -- these are generally passive anyway. I'd suggest that you roll them when appropriate, so that the players don't OOC realize that their IC character might have just missed something if they got a low roll.

its_all_ogre
2008-04-30, 09:57 AM
i use sense motive every time pcs interact with npcs, if they fail they realise nothing and npc seems genuine.
if they pass most of the time the npc seems genuine.
but it keeps them guessing!

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-30, 10:01 AM
Well, spot is something they are suppose to use only when prompted to if you are not rolling for them.

There's reactive and active Spot checks, so not really.


Anubis1179:
Players use their skills when they 1. learn to take the initiative (asking about their environment, etc. and 2. learn that it's useful. Create situations in which they will suffer obviously and explicitly because they did not use their skills. (No-save traps and ambushes, details in rooms they don't notice if they neglect to ask but which come back to bite them in the ass literally or metaphorically, etc.)

Teaching players to use other skills - Climb, Jump, Hide, Bluff, Diplomacy, Swim, etc. - to create advantage and achieve success is trickier, especially in a game like D&D, where combat is approximately eight million and six times more common and useful than skills. I have to admit that aside from creating environments and situations where skills can be put to great use and be used to gain clear advantages over enemies (complicated and variable terrain is a good idea; if enemies make use of it first, maybe the PCs will do so later), I've got nothing on that front.

Mando Knight
2008-04-30, 10:12 AM
You could make the next "blundering on ahead" encounter a trap consisting of a small army of rogues... getting Sneak Attacked several times each turn will disable the frontliners, and Evasion and high Reflex saves will allow them to avoid death by blaster mages...

Sholos
2008-04-30, 01:00 PM
Any skill is only as useful as you, the DM, determine it to be. If you emphasize to players that certain skills are valuable, they will put ranks there and use them. If you tell them the opposite, then no one will (except maybe that one guy who intentionally un-optimizes because he thinks he has to to truly "roleplay").
I object to the last sentence. You don't have to always be optimized. You can sacrifice optimization for roleplaying and have it be a good thing. It's okay to not be the best possible character out there. In fact, optimizing is almost always closer to roll-playing than roleplaying.


As for spot/listen and sense motive -- these are generally passive anyway. I'd suggest that you roll them when appropriate, so that the players don't OOC realize that their IC character might have just missed something if they got a low roll.

I agree with rolling them behind a screen if your players aren't good at separating character knowledge from player knowledge.

As to getting your characters to use skills more, I agree with the suggestions of showing them how they're useful. However, Spot and Listens are frequently reactive (Spot moreso). Most of the time I only see Spot and Listen used actively while scouting or as a follow-up to a barely missed Spot check (where I tell the player that their character thinks he saw something but isn't sure).

As to other skills like Climb, etc.; put them in situations where they have to use them. At least to start with. And reward them for said uses, whether with tactical advantages or plain old loot. That'll get them used to the idea that skills are a good thing.

Riffington
2008-05-01, 04:50 AM
I object too. A skill is as useful as a DM *allows* it to be, not *determines* it to be. Is Forgery useful? Well, if a player is creative with it and the DM lets them run with it, it can be incredibly useful. But the onus there is on the player - not the DM. And it's got little to do with optimization - just on what kind of game you enjoy playing.

Godna
2008-05-01, 06:12 AM
Diplomacy is another one that might not be useful unless the DM makes it that way. I find with my DMs that despite that fact i do put points in it they never have me roll it and are instead letting anything i say and do dictate if i get an axe, spear, mace, sword, or any number of things placed through over or into any number of bodily targets.

Rutee
2008-05-01, 06:42 AM
I object to the last sentence. You don't have to always be optimized. You can sacrifice optimization for roleplaying and have it be a good thing. It's okay to not be the best possible character out there. In fact, optimizing is almost always closer to roll-playing than roleplaying.
Au contraire; Optimizing, within reasonable limits, is usually closer to role-playing then one may think; Does your /character/ care so much about stylistic choices that they'll risk their lives on it? DnD isn't a game that divorces style from effectiveness, which in this sense leaves a good deal of optimization being done by the character, for their own survival.

Jayabalard
2008-05-01, 06:44 AM
What I mean by this is that they do not use spot, search, or sense motive unless prompted to do so. Because of this they have missed 2 or 3 things just in the first town. You should be rolling spot and sense motive as appropriate.

Rutee
2008-05-01, 06:54 AM
Do remember that you need to mention at some point, not necessarily when you're rolling, that you're rolling Spot/Sense Motive. I don't know when, doesn't matter; We're talking about getting players to use skills, and this'll let 'em know that despite not doing the rolls themselves, /those/ skills are being used.

kamikasei
2008-05-01, 06:54 AM
I object to the last sentence. You don't have to always be optimized. You can sacrifice optimization for roleplaying and have it be a good thing. It's okay to not be the best possible character out there. In fact, optimizing is almost always closer to roll-playing than roleplaying.

I don't think Duke of URL was claiming that "you always have to be optimized". If the DM says that there will be next to no opportunities to use Gather Information in a campaign, and the player keeps Gather Information maxed, that's not just not optimizing, but "intentionally un-optimizing" as he said.

Duke of URL
2008-05-01, 07:44 AM
I don't think Duke of URL was claiming that "you always have to be optimized". If the DM says that there will be next to no opportunities to use Gather Information in a campaign, and the player keeps Gather Information maxed, that's not just not optimizing, but "intentionally un-optimizing" as he said.

Exactly. There's a small school of folks who believe that you have to intentionally build weaknesses into characters in order to make them "interesting" to play. I think that's just as wrong of an approach as min/maxing. Personally, I see absolutely no correlation between character power and the ability to roleplay -- a good role player can play a "weak" character and a "strong" character equally as well.

Curmudgeon
2008-05-01, 08:23 AM
For things that a normal character would be expected to react to, just use their "take 10" numbers. It's not reasonable to expect the players to roll for every 6 seconds of their characters' lives.

nargbop
2008-05-01, 03:32 PM
Passive-aggressive DMs just tick everyone off. Do NOT take away XP for poor use of the system.
This is kind of like something a drum teacher told me : You either have rhythm, or you don't have it yet. Your players will eventually get used to playing actively, using the system and your group dynamic effectively. In teh beginning, you may have to encourage them. Encourage, like the carrot, not the stick. I've had a DM who almost took away my samurai's powers because I taunted an evil dragon with the bones of his cousins, trying to draw him out of his cave.

hylian chozo
2008-05-01, 04:15 PM
Show your players how the skills work in action. For example, you could put the party up against a Rogue that picks their pockets. When they catch him, he tumbles around and starts casting spells from wands or scrolls.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-02, 03:34 AM
Exactly. There's a small school of folks who believe that you have to intentionally build weaknesses into characters in order to make them "interesting" to play. I think that's just as wrong of an approach as min/maxing. Personally, I see absolutely no correlation between character power and the ability to roleplay -- a good role player can play a "weak" character and a "strong" character equally as well.

It sounds like a gross misinterpretation of a true and important maxim for creating characters: characters with faults are more interesting than ones who are perfect. But this doesn't apply to game mechanics. Your character can be optimized and still have faults - they're supposed to be "character faults", matters of personality, motivation, and history.

hamishspence
2008-05-02, 06:57 AM
Champions of Valor had a big list of personality flaws. Not all of them were what most people would call flaws, though taken to an extreme they might cause problems for the character.

Riffington
2008-05-02, 06:13 PM
It sounds like a gross misinterpretation of a true and important maxim for creating characters: characters with faults are more interesting than ones who are perfect. But this doesn't apply to game mechanics. Your character can be optimized and still have faults - they're supposed to be "character faults", matters of personality, motivation, and history.

Incidentally, characters should also have mechanical faults. Now, that fault can be "I'm a rogue and as such cannot survive a slugfest with a knight" - most classes have mechanical faults already built in, and you probably don't need to add more.

But if your DM has to think long and hard about how to challenge you (without presenting the other players with death-in-a-can), then you need to rethink your character. If you play Superman, then Walmart better stock Kryptonite. If you have a "combo" that includes Timestop+Foresight+ then you need to change your spell list.

Sholos
2008-05-02, 08:41 PM
Unless of course you're entire party is playing at that power-level. Then it's probably okay.

rockdeworld
2008-05-02, 10:09 PM
True dat :smallbiggrin:

I find it challenging to build landscapes that are skill-heavy. If you can do it, more power to you. A gradual transition from bad-effects-without-checks to good-effects-with-checks (aka a "learning curve") will help your players catch on easily.

Sholos
2008-05-04, 11:57 PM
Another idea. Start using ambushes for random encounters. Say they're walking down a road. That's it, they're just walking down it. Start an ambush. When they complain that they didn't get their spot checks, explain how their characters (by their descriptions) were simply walking down a road and not looking for anything. That'll get them to at least see that using skills can avoid trouble. The next step is to get them to avoid saying, "I make a Spot check" and instead actually describe it in character.

Reinboom
2008-05-05, 12:14 AM
I make it known to my players that
"You are always taking 10 on passive skill checks such as sense motive or spot unless you tell me otherwise"

This is not providing them too much benefit, but it does allow NPCs to just outright 'fail' against a PC by mistake. Which makes for amusing situations.
Still, with even this, it is more beneficial to the PCs to roll most of the time. Since, only 1 PC has to detect the lie or see or hear the thief in many cases, a series of rolling, alongside noting that the average would still be 0.5 higher anyways, the probability of successfully knowing is drastically increased when a group of players all roll spot checks.

Just make it known.

Now, for nonpassive skill checks, such as search...
I generally force feed them with metagame knowledge once or twice, then let them make the mistake in the future.
Not give them the free information, but something more along the lines of:
"Well, this should be a tough fight. Since you all haven't been using your search checks to actually get the treasure I put out for you, you are quite behind the point I was expecting for you all."

Cuddly
2008-05-05, 12:15 AM
Spot should be automatically rolled by the DM, and sense motive too.

Kantolin
2008-05-05, 01:25 AM
How can I encourage them to use there skills with out leading them by the hand?

Ask them?

Like, sit down with them before/after game and say, "Hey, I note you guys aren't using your skills a whole lot. Can you please start attempting to use them more often - I'm waiting on you guys to tell me 'I'd like to spot' or something"

leperkhaun
2008-05-05, 06:21 AM
Another idea. Start using ambushes for random encounters. Say they're walking down a road. That's it, they're just walking down it. Start an ambush. When they complain that they didn't get their spot checks, explain how their characters (by their descriptions) were simply walking down a road and not looking for anything. That'll get them to at least see that using skills can avoid trouble. The next step is to get them to avoid saying, "I make a Spot check" and instead actually describe it in character.

Na because in situations like that the DM needs to either roll the spot check for them or tell them to roll it, thats a reaction.

If that happens then the players just say "We keep an eye out around us as we travel to town x."

in which case the DM still tells them to roll or rolls the dice himself.

Spot checks for the most part should be called for or rolled by the DM.

However search checks are another matter. Try to have them sneaking around places, having to listen at doors to see if there is anyone on the other side.

include hidden areas you have to get to to finish the dungeon, that will help them out.

Sholos
2008-05-05, 01:23 PM
Na because in situations like that the DM needs to either roll the spot check for them or tell them to roll it, thats a reaction.

If that happens then the players just say "We keep an eye out around us as we travel to town x."
Exactly! This at least gets them realizing that skills are valuable and to start thinking about using them. Nothing says characters can't be careless and miss the opportunity for a Spot check.


in which case the DM still tells them to roll or rolls the dice himself.

Spot checks for the most part should be called for or rolled by the DM.
Agreed, with a caveat. The players need to at least make a mention that their characters are being something other than careless.


However search checks are another matter. Try to have them sneaking around places, having to listen at doors to see if there is anyone on the other side.

include hidden areas you have to get to to finish the dungeon, that will help them out.

Agreed.