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

[Aldarc]

Some people in this thread seem to be taking an absurd thought exercise regarding pass/fail far too seriously. It's okay to lighten up. We're talking about games here.

 

[pemerton]

By regulation, it would go like this: declare your intent to hit the ground. This is a Very Easy task, with a DC of 5.

<snip>

Do you use a non-pass/fail system? Does it allow for spontaneous character flight?

I mostly use systems that are pass/fail. But they don't have the problem that you describe, because there is a prior step before framing the difficulty of the check. The only system I know that gives it a formal lable is HeroQuest revised, where Robin Laws calls it the credibility check,.

That is, before a DC is set the action declaration has to be a credible one, given the established fiction, the logic of the genre, the known capabilities of the character, etc.

A practical example from actual play: when the epic tier chaos sorcerer in my 4e game wanted to use his magic to seal the Abyss, I set a DC and the check was made. If the player of a heroic tier character attempted the same action declaration, I wouldn't set a DC. That simply wouldn't be a permissible decllaration for that character. It's not something that is within the PC's capabilities.

Unless I was playing some sort of surreal scenario, the same would be true for missing the ground.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

What @DMMike has uncovered is actually a huge potential space for new rules. The FAIL rules. Cool unexpected and hilarious things that can happen when you fail to do something totally wacky.

I want to fail to hit the wall as I run at it full tilt. You Fail! You get the benefits of Passwall, but just for you, and just for an instant. On a Success, you take 1d8+STR bonus bludgeoning damage. You can only attempt to fail at hitting the wall once per short rest.

I want to fail to look threatening. I Fail! The opposite party, decides I look cute and pitiful instead, and decides to leave immediately so that they aren't burdened with taking care of me. On a success they find me threatening, and attack with advantage!


One last thing about the OP: you can fly because you missed hitting the ground (btw, if you succeed, take 1d6 bludgeoning). But can you control your flight?

 

[aramis erak]

Do you use a non-pass/fail system? Does it allow for spontaneous character flight?

Several, in fact. The thing is, rolling to hit the ground with yourself isn't even Easy. It's automatic.

Many games pay little attention to the two most important difficulty levels: Automatic and Autofail. Throwing oneself at the ground is automatic - you can't fail. Attempting to fly without, wings, magic or tech is autofail.

But there's also the other element: A GM should be asking not only "What are you doing?" but also, "To what end?"

Non-boolean systems range from 3 position (Fail, mixed, success), the old standard CF, F, S, CS, and not quite as standard CF, F, PS, S, CS (both in pendragon and many BRP flavors). and the CF, F, S, SS, CS of RQ 3... through qualitative result systems like Sentinel Comics (You always succeed on a reasonable action, the roll is for how well, how much effect).

It's also worth noting that D&D since 3E isn't boolean, either. Fail, Success, Crit Success. (And AD&D 1e/2e as played by many wasn't either, at least not after the "Good Hits and Bad Misses" in Dragon 39 (July 1980).

 

[pemerton]

I mostly use systems that are pass/fail. But they don't have the problem that you describe, because there is a prior step before framing the difficulty of the check. The only system I know that gives it a formal lable is HeroQuest revised, where Robin Laws calls it the credibility check,.

That is, before a DC is set the action declaration has to be a credible one, given the established fiction, the logic of the genre, the known capabilities of the character, etc.

Many games pay little attention to the two most important difficulty levels: Automatic and Autofail. Throwing oneself at the ground is automatic - you can't fail. Attempting to fly without, wings, magic or tech is autofail.

I prefer to frame this in terms of the pre-resolution "credibility check" rather than treat it as an option for action resolution as such.

I think this helps make it clear that what's going on is avoiding type of genre-violation rather than determining the success of something that is permissible within the fiction.

 

[GMMichael]

Hmm. The Genesys crowd has been suspiciously quiet here. Or did they get shut down with the rest of FFG's RPG department?

What @DMMike has uncovered is actually a huge potential space for new rules. The FAIL rules. Cool unexpected and hilarious things that can happen when you fail to do something totally wacky.

One last thing about the OP: you can fly because you missed hitting the ground (btw, if you succeed, take 1d6 bludgeoning). But can you control your flight?

You can go wild on the fail rules. Me, I'm more of a minimalist...

Arthur Dent (from Hitchhiker's) could control his flight, and do some other NSFW things... but as a PC, I wouldn't push my luck too hard if I were already such a colossal failure that I couldn't hit the ground.

Many games pay little attention to the two most important difficulty levels: Automatic and Autofail. Throwing oneself at the ground is automatic - you can't fail. Attempting to fly without, wings, magic or tech is autofail.

But there's also the other element: A GM should be asking not only "What are you doing?" but also, "To what end?"

Non-boolean systems range from 3 position (Fail, mixed, success), the old standard CF, F, S, CS, and not quite as standard CF, F, PS, S, CS (both in pendragon and many BRP flavors). and the CF, F, S, SS, CS of RQ 3... through qualitative result systems like Sentinel Comics (You always succeed on a reasonable action, the roll is for how well, how much effect).

Yeah? Ask Buckaroo Banzai if crashing into a mountain is automatic.

Final Fantasy RPG 4th Ed (ffrpg4e.wikidot.com) defines the Fail condition as a "punishment" created by the GM. So if (we're all on board with how this "if" works now, right?) the player rolls too low on her attempt to hit the ground, she doesn't just fail or make no progress. In FFRPG 4e, she (and the party) would suffer a punishment with (according to the rules) a "storytelling impact." That's what I call non-boolean.

Side note: FFRPG4e players can choose to fail, and then they get to "describe how his character fails." One ticket to the moon, please!

I prefer to frame this in terms of the pre-resolution "credibility check" rather than treat it as an option for action resolution as such.

A valid tool, especially if you're prone to the problem of assuming that there's a die roll in each action's future. I'm not sure that it bears on this particular thread, though, because the Credibility Check is basically falling back on Rule Zero, which is similar to falling back on Because God - it removes the utility of (rules) discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hmm. The Genesys crowd has been suspiciously quiet here. Or did they get shut down with the rest of FFG's RPG department?


You can go wild on the fail rules. Me, I'm more of a minimalist...

Arthur Dent (from Hitchhiker's) could control his flight, and do some other NSFW things... but as a PC, I wouldn't push my luck too hard if I were already such a colossal failure that I couldn't hit the ground.


Yeah? Ask Buckaroo Banzai if crashing into a mountain is automatic.

Final Fantasy RPG 4th Ed (ffrpg4e.wikidot.com) defines the Fail condition as a "punishment" created by the GM. So if (we're all on board with how this "if" works now, right?) the player rolls too low on her attempt to hit the ground, she doesn't just fail or make no progress. In FFRPG 4e, she (and the party) would suffer a punishment with (according to the rules) a "storytelling impact." That's what I call non-boolean.

Side note: FFRPG4e players can choose to fail, and then they get to "describe how his character fails." One ticket to the moon, please!


A valid tool, especially if you're prone to the problem of assuming that there's a die roll in each action's future. I'm not sure that it bears on this particular thread, though, because the Credibility Check is basically falling back on Rule Zero, which is similar to falling back on Because God - it removes the utility of (rules) discussion.

The "Credibility check" is to make sure the action is in genre and adheres to the established fiction. It checks action declarations like, "I pull a Ring of 3 Wishes from my pocket," against whether it's either established in fiction you actually have one or if it's genre appropriate to establish this now. It's less a resolution tool and more a "are we playing the game we agreed to play" tool. That puts it outside Rule 0 or GM fiat and more at the level of the table's social contract. Anyone at the table should have a voice on credibility.

 

[aramis erak]

Hmm. The Genesys crowd has been suspiciously quiet here. Or did they get shut down with the rest of FFG's RPG department?

Hardly. It just feels like the whole topic is a trolling; I responded how I did because I was giving the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trolling. I guess I shouldn't have.

 

[pemerton]

the Credibility Check is basically falling back on Rule Zero, which is similar to falling back on Because God - it removes the utility of (rules) discussion.

The "Credibility check" is to make sure the action is in genre and adheres to the established fiction. It checks action declarations like, "I pull a Ring of 3 Wishes from my pocket," against whether it's either established in fiction you actually have one or if it's genre appropriate to establish this now. It's less a resolution tool and more a "are we playing the game we agreed to play" tool. That puts it outside Rule 0 or GM fiat and more at the level of the table's social contract. Anyone at the table should have a voice on credibility.

I don't see that the credibility check is anything like Rule Zero. It's no more Rule Zero than a referee of Tomb of Horrors resonding to a player who says "I walk through the wall" asking How?

It's about adjudicating the fiction. I agree with Ovinomancer that the view of the whole table is relevant, but I'm enough of a traditionalist to suggest that, in the ordinary course, the GM has the last word because the GM is the participant at the table who has a special duty to adjudicae the fiction.

 

[GMMichael]

It's about adjudicating the fiction. . . the GM has the last word because the GM is the participant at the table who has a special duty to adjudicae the fiction.

. . . Anyone at the table should have a voice on credibility.

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!