Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reliable Talent. What the what?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7295431" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>BWAAAA! Dude, you just got a honest belly laugh and a tear from me. You can't be serious, right? You do know that theoretical physicists review their own work over and over and have colleges review their work over and over and then submit to peer reveiw and then whole world review and that, occasionally, even simple algebra mistakes still make it through, right?</p><p></p><p>I'm an engineer, and I proof my stuff for simple arithmetic errors all the time, much less algebra and calculus ones (surprisingly few calculus errors, as that's most application that creates algebra to screw up). Why? Because I <em>make </em>them. And I'm a professional.</p><p></p><p>This idea that someone highly trained in a skillset doesn't constantly make mistakes within that skillset is really, really inhuman thinking. Have you never watched a pro-basketball game? Those are the top 300 or so athletes in the world at that sport, chosen in a brutally Darwinian selection process, and highly paid. They make mistakes at their skill all the time. The hit percentage for free-throws is staggeringly low when you consider that these are literally the best of the best at that sport.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You'd be very surprised. My brother is a woodworker, and turns out furniture worth thousands of dollars at sale. He screws up simple stuff all the time -- but he knows when to toss a piece and start over or if he can still salvage it. He knows how to do the complex and hard things that other people don't, and has the experience to pull it off. He can do things that are amazing with wood. But he still makes mistakes, and sometimes at very easy tasks.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We also aren't often walking in high stress environments. The fall and injure rate during high stress events is much higher than average, and we aren't exactly simulating a stroll in the park when we're playing our elf game. Stress is a big reasons why basketball players make mistakes in games, why are we discounting it as a factor?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, in a six second task resolution window, it's hard to see how a mistake made doesn't cost at least another round of effort.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Despite feeling these two paragraphs actively fight each other, let's look at the guidance in the rulebook -- DC 20 is hard. DC 25 is very hard. DC 30 is nearly impossible. There aren't DCs over that, and there's a strong argument that they shouldn't exist (not going to relitigate that). If we're stating up DCs based on the average guy, how many DC 25+s are you going to have out there? A skilled, modestly attributed commoner can't hit a DC 25 at all until they get a +3 proficiency, and then it's 1 in 20 times. A first level rogue, well attributed, will hit a DC 25 about 30% of the time. So, yeah, that seems very hard. A DC 30 is impossible for a non-expertise person of even the highest attribute until they get a proficiency of +5, or 13th level. For the expert, it becomes feasible, again at highest attribute, at 5th level, at a 10% chance. So the expert will still almost always fail at that task for quite some time. At best, they achieve a success rate of worse than 50% (at max proficiency). </p><p></p><p>Enter reliable skill. At 11th, that same character suddenly has no chance to fail a DC 20 check, but still has the same chance to fail a DC 25 and DC 30 check. Reliable? Maybe, depends on the goal.</p><p></p><p>Reliable talent doesn't mimic actual expertise in a skill. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, you're wrong. A medieval lock is ridiculously simplistic by today's standards. The real barrier is knowing how to pick locks at all. Once you know how, an average medieval lock is almost trivial. Now, a master's piece lock, well, those were really tricky because many didn't function as key in lock style locks at all, but as puzzle locks. </p><p></p><p>But, to return to your point, you're setting DCs too high based on your assumptions and not the guidance from the ruleset (which sets lock DCs much lower). When I judge the usefulness of a rule, I do it in the context of the rules it was written to work with, not on how you might interpret the actual difficulty of medieval style locks and your preferred house method of setting DCs. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I generally am not writing a movie script with my games, though. Also, I like using fail forward, so a failure doesn't cause the action to stop, it increases the tension or has a cost. A failure resulting in a picked but broken lock is good in a 'we didn't want anyone to know we were ever here' heist. A picked lock that results is a slip and a loud knock on the door is a good 'we're sneaking in and hope to not alert the guards' heist. A failed pick that still allows for the barbarian to kick the door in is good for, well, places where the barbarian kicking the door in is cool.</p><p></p><p>Failure doesn't mean the story stops, it means the players have to find a new path or deal with consequences of an unintentional side effect. Failing a skill check, in my games, adds to my game, it doesn't cause it to crash to a stop.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not my problem, really, as I often allow an approach appropriate to a challenge to succeed. It actually the rules that are inhibiting my ability to set tension moments in this case. But reducing most DCs to automatic, I can't decide that an approach has a chance of failure and a penalty so a check is needed because the rules have taken that away.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, this really is my problem -- reliable talent removes things from the list of what can be a tension moment. It limits the possible fiction. And that's my problem, because of my playstyle choices.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If there's no cost to making noise or destroying property, there is no drama, I wouldn't even ask for a check. My players would announce their actions, they'd be successful, I'd narrate the success, and we'd move to a bit that has some drama.</p><p></p><p>If, though, as it would usually be, knocking or bashing in the door, or breaking a window would alert those in the building, then there's some drama. The rogue can pick the lock quietly on a success, and that's a tension filled moment -- a failure means going loud. But, reliable talent tells me I can't do this without artificially jacking up the DC on a lock put in a kickable door. It's not limiting the tension points in the game because the rogue can pretty much always pick the locks. While I can deal with this, it's irritating.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because I want to retain the ability to determine if the circumstances allow for automatic success (something I'm actually quite generous on, given appropriate approaches), not have the rules tell me that this class of thing can't be a challenge anymore. Reliable talent doesn't make the rogue better at his craft, it restricts the challenges the DM can use in the narrative. Another reason I like the advantage option rather than the floor option for reliable talent. It still allows for a challenge to be failed, if remotely, across a broader range of possibilities while actually improving the rogue's craft against <em>all </em>possibilities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7295431, member: 16814"] BWAAAA! Dude, you just got a honest belly laugh and a tear from me. You can't be serious, right? You do know that theoretical physicists review their own work over and over and have colleges review their work over and over and then submit to peer reveiw and then whole world review and that, occasionally, even simple algebra mistakes still make it through, right? I'm an engineer, and I proof my stuff for simple arithmetic errors all the time, much less algebra and calculus ones (surprisingly few calculus errors, as that's most application that creates algebra to screw up). Why? Because I [I]make [/I]them. And I'm a professional. This idea that someone highly trained in a skillset doesn't constantly make mistakes within that skillset is really, really inhuman thinking. Have you never watched a pro-basketball game? Those are the top 300 or so athletes in the world at that sport, chosen in a brutally Darwinian selection process, and highly paid. They make mistakes at their skill all the time. The hit percentage for free-throws is staggeringly low when you consider that these are literally the best of the best at that sport. You'd be very surprised. My brother is a woodworker, and turns out furniture worth thousands of dollars at sale. He screws up simple stuff all the time -- but he knows when to toss a piece and start over or if he can still salvage it. He knows how to do the complex and hard things that other people don't, and has the experience to pull it off. He can do things that are amazing with wood. But he still makes mistakes, and sometimes at very easy tasks. We also aren't often walking in high stress environments. The fall and injure rate during high stress events is much higher than average, and we aren't exactly simulating a stroll in the park when we're playing our elf game. Stress is a big reasons why basketball players make mistakes in games, why are we discounting it as a factor? Well, in a six second task resolution window, it's hard to see how a mistake made doesn't cost at least another round of effort. Despite feeling these two paragraphs actively fight each other, let's look at the guidance in the rulebook -- DC 20 is hard. DC 25 is very hard. DC 30 is nearly impossible. There aren't DCs over that, and there's a strong argument that they shouldn't exist (not going to relitigate that). If we're stating up DCs based on the average guy, how many DC 25+s are you going to have out there? A skilled, modestly attributed commoner can't hit a DC 25 at all until they get a +3 proficiency, and then it's 1 in 20 times. A first level rogue, well attributed, will hit a DC 25 about 30% of the time. So, yeah, that seems very hard. A DC 30 is impossible for a non-expertise person of even the highest attribute until they get a proficiency of +5, or 13th level. For the expert, it becomes feasible, again at highest attribute, at 5th level, at a 10% chance. So the expert will still almost always fail at that task for quite some time. At best, they achieve a success rate of worse than 50% (at max proficiency). Enter reliable skill. At 11th, that same character suddenly has no chance to fail a DC 20 check, but still has the same chance to fail a DC 25 and DC 30 check. Reliable? Maybe, depends on the goal. Reliable talent doesn't mimic actual expertise in a skill. Well, you're wrong. A medieval lock is ridiculously simplistic by today's standards. The real barrier is knowing how to pick locks at all. Once you know how, an average medieval lock is almost trivial. Now, a master's piece lock, well, those were really tricky because many didn't function as key in lock style locks at all, but as puzzle locks. But, to return to your point, you're setting DCs too high based on your assumptions and not the guidance from the ruleset (which sets lock DCs much lower). When I judge the usefulness of a rule, I do it in the context of the rules it was written to work with, not on how you might interpret the actual difficulty of medieval style locks and your preferred house method of setting DCs. I generally am not writing a movie script with my games, though. Also, I like using fail forward, so a failure doesn't cause the action to stop, it increases the tension or has a cost. A failure resulting in a picked but broken lock is good in a 'we didn't want anyone to know we were ever here' heist. A picked lock that results is a slip and a loud knock on the door is a good 'we're sneaking in and hope to not alert the guards' heist. A failed pick that still allows for the barbarian to kick the door in is good for, well, places where the barbarian kicking the door in is cool. Failure doesn't mean the story stops, it means the players have to find a new path or deal with consequences of an unintentional side effect. Failing a skill check, in my games, adds to my game, it doesn't cause it to crash to a stop. Not my problem, really, as I often allow an approach appropriate to a challenge to succeed. It actually the rules that are inhibiting my ability to set tension moments in this case. But reducing most DCs to automatic, I can't decide that an approach has a chance of failure and a penalty so a check is needed because the rules have taken that away. Ultimately, this really is my problem -- reliable talent removes things from the list of what can be a tension moment. It limits the possible fiction. And that's my problem, because of my playstyle choices. If there's no cost to making noise or destroying property, there is no drama, I wouldn't even ask for a check. My players would announce their actions, they'd be successful, I'd narrate the success, and we'd move to a bit that has some drama. If, though, as it would usually be, knocking or bashing in the door, or breaking a window would alert those in the building, then there's some drama. The rogue can pick the lock quietly on a success, and that's a tension filled moment -- a failure means going loud. But, reliable talent tells me I can't do this without artificially jacking up the DC on a lock put in a kickable door. It's not limiting the tension points in the game because the rogue can pretty much always pick the locks. While I can deal with this, it's irritating. Because I want to retain the ability to determine if the circumstances allow for automatic success (something I'm actually quite generous on, given appropriate approaches), not have the rules tell me that this class of thing can't be a challenge anymore. Reliable talent doesn't make the rogue better at his craft, it restricts the challenges the DM can use in the narrative. Another reason I like the advantage option rather than the floor option for reliable talent. It still allows for a challenge to be failed, if remotely, across a broader range of possibilities while actually improving the rogue's craft against [I]all [/I]possibilities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reliable Talent. What the what?
Top