Whenever the Game Master decides that a creature must overcome some sort of obstacle, defeat an opponent, or perform some action which is beyond the ordinary, a check will be called for. Note that if a character is simply doing something ordinary, under conditions where an ordinary person could predictably get good results, then no check is required. Checks resolve, or help to resolve conflict, they aren't intended as a mere randomization mechanism. When a check is made, something is at stake
Is it OK to get hyper-analytical?
(If not, disregard what follows!)
I've been reading, and doing some play of, Vincent Baker games:
In a Wicked Age a couple of weeks ago; Murderous Ghosts with my kids (the required PG aspect given the other player really dials the game down, but it's interesting to see the mechanics - a card-driven, choose-your-own adventure variant of PbtA - at work); and reading DitV, Poison'd and Kill Puppies for Satan. My PDF copy of the latter is annotated, and its interesting to see Baker criticising his own earlier work. From p 6:
now let’s see, oh yeah mechanics. here they are: roll a d6 and add your stat. if they add up to at least a 7 you succeed. if you’re doing something easy, gm’s call, they only have to add up to at least a 6 to succeed. if you and somebody else are both trying to do something, and only one of you can do it, whoever rolls higher wins.
And here's the annotation on p 7:
i’m sure you noticed, those aren’t really resolution rules. they’re just like some sh*t for people to do while the gm resolves everything by fiat. they suck.
Baker has said a similar thing about task resolution rules on his blog: that task resolution is just a distraction from the reality of GM fiat. What about the conflict part of the rules? It's still based on an in-fiction rather than at-the-table notion of conflict between two characters.
Contrast In a Wicked Age. From p 12:
When do you roll dice?
Roll dice when one character undertakes to do some concrete thing, and another character can and would try to interfere. Every player with a character involved, including you as GM, rolls dice for their own character. If you have more than one NPC involved, roll separate dice for each.
Don’t roll dice when two characters are having a conversation, no matter how heated it becomes; wait until one or the other acts.
Don’t roll dice when a character undertakes to do some concrete thing and no other character can or would try to interfere.
Now there's a rule: actions succeed unless they're opposed; and there is a rule for when they are opposed ("another character can
and would try to interfere"). The GM still has control over framing (eg can determine that no other character can interfere) but it is the "best interests" of a character, decided as part of setting up the session, that will determine whether or not that character would try to interfere.
The HoML guidance on when to roll the dice has some possible tensions in this respect: the GM calls for checks, but what if the
playerp thinks something is at stake? What guides these decisions? (In standard 4e it can be tricky because there are overt no Belief/"best interests" rules.) And what if there is something at stake, but the task is ordinary? Check or no check? Burning Wheel calls for a check in these circumstances, but its mechanics allow for an ever-decreasing likelihood of failure (eg 5 dice against Ob 1 - ie roll 5d6 and hope that at least one comes up 4 or better - is a 97% chance of success before spending fate points). In a Wicked Age calls for a check in these circumstances, with the likelihoods determined purely by the contest of stats between characters (although the framing may be relevant to the outcome - if something is easy, then it may cost a player less to initiate conflict, or to allow another to get what they want without contesting).
I'll post this and then try and read some more. (Maybe some of your later posts address some of what I've talked about.)
I look at it this way, cladding yourself in plate armor is a way of saying you are a tough walking tank of a guy, and if that means you don't chicken out easily, well, is that so crazy?
