Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Corinnguard]

Oh, and another thing I thought of: many people here use D&D as their sole frame of reference. That might be my fault because I started with a comparison with D&D. But the thread is in TTRPG General for a reason. I think getting D&D to abandon the zero-to-hero narrative (particularly in the fighting parts) is likely a lost cause, but there are plenty of other games around that for some inscrutable reason seem to think it is the only way to go.

D&D likes playing up that particular trope.

 

[Wolfpack48]

The chance to flub a difficult test in my area of expertise should be very small. You don't challenge Parker by giving her a difficult lock or a complicated laser grid to worm her way through. You challenge her, on occasion, by giving her a situation where she must talk her way out. And you provide plenty of opportunities for her to style when it does come to locks, pickpocketing, and acrobatics.

Yep and if you have high skill in something but it’s still a difficult or very difficult test you should still need to roll. If it’s a normal or easy test you shouldn’t have to roll at all or roll to see if it was a better than average result.

 

[GMMichael]

But are you saying your character should never have chance to flub a difficult test?

Never say never. "Flub" sounds like "critical fail" to me. In a controlled environment, a character might have an unfavorable outcome when doing something difficult. But not a critical fail - unless it's highly risky. Also highly risky: doing anything besides combat while in combat. And even the "combat" part is risky.

A person can't be competent all of the time.

I think you mean, "successful." And yes, "always" is a loaded term.

 

[Corinnguard]

Bards are free, though. All you have to do is promise them a "share" of the loot(lute?) inside.

"While you were trying persuade the Bard to go in first, the Rogue already went in and picked the place clean..."

 

[Maxperson]

"While you were trying persuade the Bard to go in first, the Rogue already went in and picked the place clean..."

All the better. Bard gets eaten and we get the loot.

 

[Corinnguard]

All the better. Bard gets eaten and we get the loot.

That's assuming that the Bard tastes good. Some monsters are rather picky on how they want their Bard.

 

[Maxperson]

That's assuming that the Bard tastes good. Some monsters are rather picky on how they want their Bard.

We just want the bard dead. We're not particularly concerned whether the monster eats him or not.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Never say never. "Flub" sounds like "critical fail" to me. In a controlled environment, a character might have an unfavorable outcome when doing something difficult. But not a critical fail - unless it's highly risky. Also highly risky: doing anything besides combat while in combat. And even the "combat" part is risky.


I think you mean, "successful." And yes, "always" is a loaded term.

In my own games (BRP) there are 2 levels of success, special success and critical success, and 2 levels of failure, failure and fumble. In a non-risky situation, a failure and a fumble could be the same result, a simple non-success. Combat has very defined results for all 4 levels.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think you mean, "successful." And yes, "always" is a loaded term.

Competent means more than accomplishing an aim or purpose (the definition of successful), it means having the necessary ability and knowledge to do something. A person can have the necessary ability and knowledge to successfully pull off something in RL or in a RPG, but they aren't going to be successful every time they do the same thing. Sometimes they are going to fall short of success. Then they get to role-play how their characters are going to react when they flub the skill check.

"You just rolled a Critical Humble."

 

[Corinnguard]