Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8273711" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think this gets into the history of D&D. The original system did not envisage any sort of unified skill system, but obviously specific types of 'check' (BB/LG for example) were provided. In NO CASE was any explanation provided as to what success or failure entailed. This is also true of the Thief Skills introduced in Greyhawk. AD&D 1e doesn't clarify this. Some people did use various ability check procedures all through this era, but AD&D again doesn't document this, and doesn't clarify anything about success or failure, or even describe how checks work within the system, except for a few specific cases. Even then failure is never explained.I'm not sure exactly what 3.x says. It obviously has a unified check mechanic and skill system. I just haven't actually read the rules much. I suspect various possibilities are entertained at different points, but the basic stock default that I have always seen in play is that a failure is a 'hard fail' and you cannot try again, except if you gain a level. This is obviously going to be modified for some types of situations (IE where the check leads to entirely new fiction naturally so that trying again doesn't even make sense). 4e is the first time D&D actually builds mechanics which don't treat skills as binary pass/fail on the specific action the check maps to, and then builds another process.So, basically, historically, the rules were that you hard fail, that a check represents the specific physical action invoked in the fiction, and that a failure thus MUST logically equate to that action not having its desired effect. I believe, reading between the lines of thief abilities explanations in the DMG, that failures were intended to be 'default soft', so you could just try again (which is why lock picking takes 1-10 minutes for example, the time is a penalty for failing in effect). This pretty much explains why we mostly see binary pass/fail today as the 'default mode' of the game, and concrete association of the mechanical check to a single physical action, as the 'default process model'. I think it is fair to say that most educated GMs today know that there are other ways, that 5e even discusses (though barely/optionally supports) a couple of these, etc. Given how clumsy that support is though, my experience is it isn't really used. Instead GMs sort of 'wing it' and apply a '2e-like sensibility' which basically says "fudge things until it comes out right" so if you failed your stealth check during the heist, then they're not likely to instantly ring the big master alarm, instead this type of GM will likely do something less drastic. OTOH you cannot count on that, and I have no idea how prevalent this type of DM is vs any other type 'in the wild'. Also it is surely true that there are 'violently traditionalist' GMs (at least online) who insist that AD&D 1e was the right way and presumable DO raise the master alarm when you fail a check.</blockquote>

Verification