Player skill vs character skill?

[SableWyvern]

I thought this post was 100% spot on.

@SableWyvern I see you also liked it, so I think we are pretty much on the same page.

I partially disagree with the conclusion regarding metagaming, but not sufficiently so that I feel motivated enough to argue about it. Otherwise, yes, I think it's pretty spot on.

Overall, I don't think it's surprising you and I agree. I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, just with a strong difference in how we deal with the consequences of failure.

 

[Lanefan]

That automatically means that there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

In a manner of speaking, I suppose.

However, what I keep hearing here is that any situation where after a roll the DM narrates "nothing happens" is (or has somehow become) verboten; and I call BS on that.

 

[overgeeked]

In a manner of speaking, I suppose.

However, what I keep hearing here is that any situation where after a roll the DM narrates "nothing happens" is (or has somehow become) verboten; and I call BS on that.

Sorry. That's one I completely agree with. I'm so tired of rolling dice just to hear the sound they make when they hit the table. If the situation isn't going to change regardless of the result, don't bother rolling.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sorry. That's one I completely agree with. I'm so tired of rolling dice just to hear the sound they make when they hit the table. If the situation isn't going to change regardless of the result, don't bother rolling.

No one's saying roll if the situation can't change.

The dispute is whether to roll when change isnt guaranteed.

Everyone in this thread requires at least that success or failure has a meaningful consequence. Some expect that both success and failure have distinct and meaningful consequences, with every roll guaranteed to upset the status quo.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That "meaningful consequence of failure" is just a failure possibility that is distinct from a success possibility.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If "meaningful consequence for failure" is synonymous with "the opposite of success" then it exists for anything you attempt. Which would make it a meaningless term. Which suggests to me that this is not what the authors intended.

The examples, from that same meaningful consequences paragraph, of not using die rolls are:
1 "walk across an empty room"
2 "order a mug of ale"

Which seem to be examples of things where you just expect them to succeed, not of minor things that could be expected to succeed or not.

I think I get what you're saying here, but it seems like you are translating "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure" to mean "Only call for a roll if it's something that is not so trivial that you have no doubt they would succeed." But that is not what the words say.

In fact, the two examples in the paragraph, walking across a room and ordering a mug of ale, are better addressed by the first of the two questions, "Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?" than they are by the statement about meaningful consequences.

I'm looking at the words, and what they literally say is "only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure". Those words mean that even if it's something that has a high chance of failure, if the consequences of failing are not meaningful you shouldn't roll. I can't figure out how you are coming up with your interpretation, unless you think the writers said something they did not mean to say.

If the characters are alone and one of them is trying to juggle eight sock balls, which has a high chance of failure in most situations, I'll either say "You succeed", "You fail", or "You decide." It literally does not matter.

If the character is trying to do this to impress an NPC, and failing will worsen the NPC's impression of them, and impressing this particular NPC matters to the game, then I will either say, "You succeed", "You fail", or...if it seems plausible but not probable..."Roll the dice."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Meaningful consequences or not, @Micah Sweet has it right: if the outcome is in doubt it should be rolled for.

What gets lost here (and 5e's wording doesn't help any) is that oftentimes the meaningful consequence arises on success rather than failure; and the roll is to see whether or not that success-side consequence can occur.

Ok, why should those situations be resolved by a roll?

Let's pick a simple scenario: there's a locked door, and no time pressure. The thief has a 60% chance to pick the lock. If he succeeds he opens the door and the party finds a treasure room and gets loot. (Yay!) If he fails, there's no change to the status quo.

Why (other than history/tradition) should this be resolved by a roll, rather than just letting the thief succeed? What does that actually add to the game?

I think the answer might be, "Because it creates a branch in the narrative: if he succeeds the story goes one way, if he fails the story goes the other." That's true, but why it important to leave that to RNG? You have a GM and a bunch of players all contributing to the story, which creates lots of branches.

 

[Basic Expert]

No one's saying roll if the situation can't change.

The dispute is whether to roll when change isnt guaranteed.

Everyone in this thread requires at least that success or failure has a meaningful consequence. Some expect that both success and failure have distinct and meaningful consequences, with every roll guaranteed to upset the status quo.

I aspire to have only meaningful, interesting outcomes for dice rolls, regardless of the result, but sometimes it isn't always possible. Losing a potential advantage, asset or bit of knowledge is a legitimate consequence of a failed roll, even if "nothing happens" from the perspective of the character.

In my mind, these are go towards framing the situation for the players. A perceptive character might spot a secret door, which allows me to frame the scene differently. A knowledgeable character might know an important bit of lore. And so on. Optionally, if I think they should just have this information, I give it to them. Either way, it's a quick aside and we move on.

Why leave framing up to chance (or RNG)? Well, I find it fun to take my hands of the GM-wheel now and again and see what fate serves up. Much as it can be stifling to ask for too-many skill checks, mandating everything that happens in the campaign can make things feel too scripted. It helps to remind me that I shouldn't be in total control of the game--it's a game, not a novel!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok, why should those situations be resolved by a roll?

Let's pick a simple scenario: there's a locked door, and no time pressure. The thief has a 60% chance to pick the lock. If he succeeds he opens the door and the party finds a treasure room and gets loot. (Yay!) If he fails, there's no change to the status quo.

Why (other than history/tradition) should this be resolved by a roll, rather than just letting the thief succeed? What does that actually add to the game?

I think the answer might be, "Because it creates a branch in the narrative: if he succeeds the story goes one way, if he fails the story goes the other." That's true, but why it important to leave that to RNG? You have a GM and a bunch of players all contributing to the story, which creates lots of branches.

For me, what it adds to the game is verisimilitude. If an action has a chance of failure, and particularly if success and failure lead to potentially different results, then IMO by world logic they shouldn't auto-succeed (or auto-fail). Within the setting (which is my priority) there's no good reason not to roll.

Serving the "story" is not my problem.

 

[cbwjm]

Ok, why should those situations be resolved by a roll?

Let's pick a simple scenario: there's a locked door, and no time pressure. The thief has a 60% chance to pick the lock. If he succeeds he opens the door and the party finds a treasure room and gets loot. (Yay!) If he fails, there's no change to the status quo.

Why (other than history/tradition) should this be resolved by a roll, rather than just letting the thief succeed? What does that actually add to the game?

I think the answer might be, "Because it creates a branch in the narrative: if he succeeds the story goes one way, if he fails the story goes the other." That's true, but why it important to leave that to RNG? You have a GM and a bunch of players all contributing to the story, which creates lots of branches.

I'm with you on this, it's where the take 10/take 20 rules of 3e were a great addition because it gave an actual rule for it. Otherwise, for a 5e game, if there was no time pressure and there was someone trained in thief tools who could spend time working on the lock, I'd do the exact same thing as you and just make it automatic.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If "meaningful consequence for failure" is synonymous with "the opposite of success" then it exists for anything you attempt. Which would make it a meaningless term. Which suggests to me that this is not what the authors intended.

In this context, no meaningful consequence of failure is being taken as, "no meaningful difference between success and failure".

I roll to walk across the room. If success means, "I walk across the room" and failure means, "I walk across the room, but slightly less gracefully," then, in most circumstances, there are no meaningngful consequences and it's pointless to roll.

Similarly, a task you will succeed at eventually, when there is no time pressure and you get unlimited retries, has no meaningful difference between success and failure. However if, for some reason, you only get one try, then the opposite of success is meaningful, because you're now stuck dealing with that outcome.

Let's pick a simple scenario: there's a locked door, and no time pressure. The thief has a 60% chance to pick the lock. If he succeeds he opens the door and the party finds a treasure room and gets loot. (Yay!) If he fails, there's no change to the status quo.

Why (other than history/tradition) should this be resolved by a roll, rather than just letting the thief succeed? What does that actually add to the game?

If multiple attempts are allowed and there is no reason to care how long it takes, then I would not roll.

I think the answer might be, "Because it creates a branch in the narrative: if he succeeds the story goes one way, if he fails the story goes the other." That's true, but why it important to leave that to RNG? You have a GM and a bunch of players all contributing to the story, which creates lots of branches.

I mean, to me, using dice to resolve uncertainty is the whole point. Asking, "Why use RNG when there are already lots of branches?" is completely missing the point.* Creating branches is an outcome, but it's not necessarily the point. I'm using RNG to resolve uncertainty because that's fundamental to the game I'm playing -- we do stuff, and when we reach a moment where the outcome matters and is also uncertain, we turn to the dice. I've just been reading Mythic GM Emulator recently, and it's not dissimilar to the Oracle questions there. You can ask "Is the angry ogre in this room?" and the answer may well just be, "No."

We can argue back and forth about what constitutes a situation where it matters, but I'm not terribly interested in locking it down to a particular set of inviolable rules. I've got a pretty good feel for when it matters to me, and that feel seems to work well for our group, which is all I need.

*To be clear, it's missing the point with respect to my game style. I presume that, within the context of your own style, it's entirely the point.