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

[Staffan]

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.

That's a nice sentiment, but it's often not how games (and/or adventures) work. For example, since I've been playing GURPS today and had occasion to check the Piloting skill, the skill description there specifically states that you need to roll for takeoffs and landings, with a failure of 1 indicating a "rough job", and a failure by more indicating some form of damage to the vehicle. There is some insurance against very good pilots (15+) crashing, where a critical failure requires a second check that's also a failure to actually crash. But that's a minimum of two checks per trip to "avoid damage". Identifying a creature in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2 requires a check with a DC determined by the creature's level/CR – because elephants are way more obscure creatures than leopards. And I can't recall ever seeing a lock in a published adventure for any game that you can open without either the proper key or some kind of skill check.

One way of handling this kind of thing is to step back from discrete task resolution and look at larger challenges that involves multiple skill checks, and where the aggregate determines your overall level of success. For example, the Swedish game Eon uses such a mechanic for certain things, and it involves rolling for three different skills and counting aggregate margins of success. For example, let's say you want to get into the Guard Captain's office to find a particular document. In most games, this would be something done in separate stages: first a Lockpicking check to get the door open, then a Search check to find the document, and then maybe a Stealth check to get out without anyone noticing. Failing any of those checks would be bad. But using the Eon challenge system, you'd still roll the same skills but you'd aggregate the results. So perhaps narratively, you fail your Lockpicking check, but that doesn't mean you don't get the door open – it just means it took longer than you had expected, but your extra successes on your Search check mean you compensate for that by finding the document really quick. Or maybe you didn't roll extra successes on your Search check so you only got a partial success on the whole challenge – maybe you found the document but left some stuff behind that can be traced back to you. This kind of stuff feels much better than "Nah, you failed your Lockpicking check so the door stays closed."

 

[Wolfpack48]

That's a nice sentiment, but it's often not how games (and/or adventures) work. For example, since I've been playing GURPS today and had occasion to check the Piloting skill, the skill description there specifically states that you need to roll for takeoffs and landings, with a failure of 1 indicating a "rough job", and a failure by more indicating some form of damage to the vehicle. There is some insurance against very good pilots (15+) crashing, where a critical failure requires a second check that's also a failure to actually crash. But that's a minimum of two checks per trip to "avoid damage". Identifying a creature in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2 requires a check with a DC determined by the creature's level/CR – because elephants are way more obscure creatures than leopards. And I can't recall ever seeing a lock in a published adventure for any game that you can open without either the proper key or some kind of skill check.

One way of handling this kind of thing is to step back from discrete task resolution and look at larger challenges that involves multiple skill checks, and where the aggregate determines your overall level of success. For example, the Swedish game Eon uses such a mechanic for certain things, and it involves rolling for three different skills and counting aggregate margins of success. For example, let's say you want to get into the Guard Captain's office to find a particular document. In most games, this would be something done in separate stages: first a Lockpicking check to get the door open, then a Search check to find the document, and then maybe a Stealth check to get out without anyone noticing. Failing any of those checks would be bad. But using the Eon challenge system, you'd still roll the same skills but you'd aggregate the results. So perhaps narratively, you fail your Lockpicking check, but that doesn't mean you don't get the door open – it just means it took longer than you had expected, but your extra successes on your Search check mean you compensate for that by finding the document really quick. Or maybe you didn't roll extra successes on your Search check so you only got a partial success on the whole challenge – maybe you found the document but left some stuff behind that can be traced back to you. This kind of stuff feels much better than "Nah, you failed your Lockpicking check so the door stays closed."

I’m speaking as a referee who knows how to augment (or skip) rolls for expertise and for difficulty but BRP gives good guidance as well on bonuses and penalties as well as when to skip trivial rolls or rolls for expertise. The GURPs rule sounds harsh but as a referee I’d have zero issue giving big bonuses if it’s a plane and airfield you are familiar with and another bonus if you are an expert (80% or higher) pilot. By the way, I've been rping since 1976, so I kinda know games and adventures 'work.'

But in more general terms it sounds like you are playing a bit too much “by the book”/RAW for my tastes. Your referee should feel free the modify what’s written with what makes sense for your table.

I'm not a big fan of combining rolls (I like the tension of the different steps and playing out each stage), but I am comfortable changing what 'failure' means if you are an expert lockpick. In my book I'd agree you just took a bit more time to unlock the door if it was a normal difficulty lock and you failed the test.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a nice sentiment, but it's often not how games (and/or adventures) work. For example, since I've been playing GURPS today and had occasion to check the Piloting skill, the skill description there specifically states that you need to roll for takeoffs and landings, with a failure of 1 indicating a "rough job", and a failure by more indicating some form of damage to the vehicle. There is some insurance against very good pilots (15+) crashing, where a critical failure requires a second check that's also a failure to actually crash. But that's a minimum of two checks per trip to "avoid damage". Identifying a creature in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2 requires a check with a DC determined by the creature's level/CR – because elephants are way more obscure creatures than leopards. And I can't recall ever seeing a lock in a published adventure for any game that you can open without either the proper key or some kind of skill check.

One way of handling this kind of thing is to step back from discrete task resolution and look at larger challenges that involves multiple skill checks, and where the aggregate determines your overall level of success. For example, the Swedish game Eon uses such a mechanic for certain things, and it involves rolling for three different skills and counting aggregate margins of success. For example, let's say you want to get into the Guard Captain's office to find a particular document. In most games, this would be something done in separate stages: first a Lockpicking check to get the door open, then a Search check to find the document, and then maybe a Stealth check to get out without anyone noticing. Failing any of those checks would be bad. But using the Eon challenge system, you'd still roll the same skills but you'd aggregate the results. So perhaps narratively, you fail your Lockpicking check, but that doesn't mean you don't get the door open – it just means it took longer than you had expected, but your extra successes on your Search check mean you compensate for that by finding the document really quick. Or maybe you didn't roll extra successes on your Search check so you only got a partial success on the whole challenge – maybe you found the document but left some stuff behind that can be traced back to you. This kind of stuff feels much better than "Nah, you failed your Lockpicking check so the door stays closed."

Gosh, you could just use 4e SC as the example, probably less obscure and uses the same idea, more or less.

 

[GrimCo]

I'll talk about 2 games i'm most familliar with. D&D and WoD.

In WoD you start as more or less competent character. Yeah, sometimes you give some extra freebee points at character creation, but that's it. Since you spend xp to raise your stats, you get modest xp per session, and the better you are at something the more expensive it is to raise it higher, characters don't really become more powerful, they usually tend to develop new skills and become more diversified. Horizontal, not vertical growth.

D&D 5e on the other hand has more of vertical growth. You get all your skills and proficiency at lv1 ( unless you multiclass into a bard or a rogue, then you get tool/instrument and 1 skill). With levels you grow in power every level. But your competencies (skills) get bumps every few levels by 1 ( prof bonus). I tend to think of background skills and tools as competencies you transferred from your past job to your new job. Yes, you may have been merchant for 10 years and from your merchant years you learned how to haggle and read people. And now, at your new job as a fighter, you transfer those skills, learn some new ones. FE i worked through HS in retail store and in college in customer support. When i started my job as an engineer, i transferred skill of dealing with abrasive and rude people from previous job to new one.

 

[MarkB]

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

That's the advantage of high Charisma. No matter whether they actually taste good, they always look appetising.

 

[Corinnguard]

That's the advantage of high Charisma. No matter whether they actually taste good, they always look appetising.

Wouldn't this make the Bard, an appetizer, and the rest of the party as the main course?

 

[MarkB]

Wouldn't this make the Bard, an appetizer, and the rest of the party as the main course?

That's why you need to bring more bards. It's hard to stop at just one.

 

[Corinnguard]

That's why you need to bring more bards. It's hard to stop at just one.

So which subclass of Bard tastes better? A College of Whispers Bard has something of a subtle taste. A College of Swords Bard is just the opposite with a stronger, sharper taste (they even come with a metal toothpick! )A College of Lore Bard makes you think rather fondly of your last meal. A College of Glamour Bard tricks your taste buds into thinking you are eating someone else. A College of Spirits Bard has hints of rum (Spirits= alcoholic beverage. ). A College of Eloquence Bard goes down rather eloquently. A College of Valor Bard has a rather bold taste about them. And lastly, a College of Creation Bard creates new taste opportunities with every bite.

 

[Maxperson]

So which subclass of Bard tastes better? A College of Whispers Bard has something of a subtle taste. A College of Swords Bard is just the opposite with a stronger, sharper taste (they even come with a metal toothpick! )A College of Lore Bard makes you think rather fondly of your last meal. A College of Glamour Bard tricks your taste buds into thinking you are eating someone else. A College of Spirits Bard has hints of rum (Spirits= alcoholic beverage. ). A College of Eloquence Bard goes down rather eloquently. A College of Valor Bard has a rather bold taste about them. And lastly, a College of Creation Bard creates new taste opportunities with every bite.

I guess it depends on what you want out of the meal. If you want a quiet meal, go with Whispers. If you're anemic, Swords is the way to go as it has more iron. If you don't know what you want, the obvious choice is Lore. If you're trying to impress your date, it's Glamour all the way. If you want to get drunk, choose Spirits. If you're having a work meeting with all your monster buddies, Eloquence! And lastly, like trying new things, Creation it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Wouldn't this make the Bard, an appetizer, and the rest of the party as the main course?

That's why you always have the bard carry the poison.