Flying without Magic in D&D, or, Your Favorite Non-Pass/Fail System

[Ovinomancer]

Anything can happen. It's a game. (Thanks @Aldarc.) For example, you can cast magic missile even if there's nothing to attack:


My copy of Zweihaender (admittedly, an old one) says that a skill test should be rolled "any time an action is attempted." But you shouldn't roll a skill test if there's no dramatic consequence for failure. Since throwing one's self at the ground could be both hilarious and crippling, I'd call that dramatic. Given the game's attention to injury detail (and its dark nature in general), I can't say with certainty that I would try to fly in it!

You're missing the point. If I'm playing a grim and gritty game like Torchbearer, the idea that a whimsical Hitchhiker-esque flying scheme (HFS) is even genre appropriate is what I'm talking about. Similarly, a given D&D game may or may not allow HFS due to the agreed upon genre expectations. This "check" is not an application of game mechanics, so it's not Rule Zero, it's part of the basic agreement to even play.

The point is that your suggestion isn't just a matter of mechanical interpretation, but also the broader genre agreement the exists around the game. This only seems to be a point of contention because you seem to be pushing that a mechanical exploit to allow HFS is broadly universal. I contest that it's not -- it requires genre agreement first, mechanical adjustment second. If you've already made the genre agreement becessary for HFS, I don't think you're going to be stymied by pesky game mechanics.

In other words, you aren't really asking people to consider the mechanics, but instead adjust their genre expectations. This is why you have some agreement and some hard pushback.

 

[pemerton]

Anything can happen. It's a game.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

When we're playing Classic Traveller, the PCs aren't going to encounter skeletons and zombies that they turn away with the power of prayer. And the action declaration I cast magic missile is meaningless.

When we're paying Prince Valiant, the PCs aren't going to encounter Roswell aliens in flying saucers. And the action declaration I draw my ray gun and blast it away is meaningless.

Etc.

 

[MarkB]

There is that. In theory. But given the number of times I've seen amateur and professional DMs answer "do I see/hear that" with "roll Perception," I'd say that a PC has a pretty good shot at getting to make the miss-the-ground roll.

Maybe you were missing the point on those occasions. When a player asks if they can see or hear something, it's because they think the situation is uncertain. By letting them go ahead and roll, the DM maintains that sense of uncertainty and suspense for the player, enhancing the experience of play.

When it comes to missing the ground, there is no such uncertainty to be maintained.

 

[GMMichael]

The point is that your suggestion isn't just a matter of mechanical interpretation, but also the broader genre agreement the exists around the game. . .
In other words, you aren't really asking people to consider the mechanics, but instead adjust their genre expectations. This is why you have some agreement and some hard pushback.

I think the pushback is about proportion and positioning, of all things. 60% of the OP is about breaking the rules in D&D, and that part comes first. 40% points out that that's dumb, but the rules kind of allow for it, so let's explore some kind ofs in other games.

I could have kept it to 40%, but what's the crunch without the fluff?

PS- I appreciate your analysis and tone. XP for that.

 

[GMMichael]

Burn Bryte:

Succeed/fail. Sort of. If you roll doubles, you fail (sounds crazy, but I'm excited to see it in action). Your poor skills use the lowest die type: d4. When an attempt gets more complex, you roll more dice, but the lowest is 2. And you can use any skill that you can justify.

I love this: "the player and GM work together to create the consequence for failure." If a GM is running a fight, it's easy for a GM to say "you miss" and move on, because that keeps the tempo of the battle moving. But in Burn Bryte, something happens, and the player contributes to it. However, they can roll on a d100 table to get a random failure outcome (which probably necessitates adjudication with several of the results).

So I could make an argument, with my 1-in-4 chance of rolling doubles on a bad skill, that failing to hit the ground meant that I was instead flying. The GM, curse her, would probably disagree, but I would have a pretty solid case if we rolled on the failure table and I got number 27 - "You miss the mark."