How do you define character "weakness?"

[billd91]

This is definitely not the thread I expected. <Looks at the world around him and sees plenty of weakness of character>

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

In regards to the part above....
= Any game system that thinks a 'competent skill' of the character is below 70% chance of roll success base.

Don't waste my time with characters who can't roll a success to do their designated job...

Unless the character is punching meaningfully above their ability/skill/danger set, rolling should be to see how things get interesting, not to see if nothing happens...

The usual 'fix' to a <70% chance for a 'competent skill' was "In routine circumstances, the character gets a big (>30%) bonus." Except somehow that bonus never got applied in practice.

And that's why I glommed onto Take 10 as one of the Genuinely Good Ideas of D&D 3.x It solves this and a related issue as well: "Even if you have a 100%+ modified skill, the rule for rolling always hands you at least a 5% chance of failure."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I suppose you could argue that random chance forces players to deal with perceived weakness and outside their comfort zone, but most of the time it seems to just discourage players. Maybe in the old days it mattered less because everything was new, and nobody had thought of any other way.

How someone reacts to less than ideal stats is partly unique to them. In my case, it opened my eyes to playing unlikely heroes. IOW, I wasn’t just making due, I started rethinking who could be heroes.

For instance, instead of thinking of every PC as young and just starting out & learning new things, certain non-optimal stat arrays suggested older characters- some resuming an adventuring life after retiring long ago, and remembering how to do things they haven’t done in a while.

 

[Wolfpack48]

How someone reacts to less than ideal stats is partly unique to them. In my case, it opened my eyes to playing unlikely heroes. IOW, I wasn’t just making due, I started rethinking who could be heroes.

For instance, instead of thinking of every PC as young and just starting out & learning new things, certain non-optimal stat arrays suggested older characters- some resuming an adventuring life after retiring long ago, and remembering how to do things they haven’t done in a while.

Those are all great points. I could definitely see asking players if they prefer to pick/craft a character or whether they’d like random generation to see what it suggests to them. Random can be a great route for ideas if players don’t have a strong concept in mind.

 

[payn]

How someone reacts to less than ideal stats is partly unique to them. In my case, it opened my eyes to playing unlikely heroes. IOW, I wasn’t just making due, I started rethinking who could be heroes.

For instance, instead of thinking of every PC as young and just starting out & learning new things, certain non-optimal stat arrays suggested older characters- some resuming an adventuring life after retiring long ago, and remembering how to do things they haven’t done in a while.

For me, that distinction in D&D is just not sharp enough. Other systems just do the age difference a lot better. Although, I'll say I've stopped trying to envision what x,y,z stats at a,b,c numbers actually mean becasue they are not agreeable to any two people for D&D. With SAD design of modern D&D+PF2, it just seems like a baseline representation of capability and in what forms. I dont particularly use the stats for any role play or defining characteristics anymore in D&D+PF2. YMMV.

 

[CreamCloud0]

For instance, instead of thinking of every PC as young and just starting out & learning new things, certain non-optimal stat arrays suggested older characters- some resuming an adventuring life after retiring long ago, and remembering how to do things they haven’t done in a while.

It’s just like riding a dire-boar, once you learn you never truly forget, even if it takes a little while for the specifics to come back!

 

[aramis erak]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you are driving at here with all that. But it sounds neat so...

More simply:
Most people complaining about not hitting enough? their characters are already beating out the best of the best of real life.

 

[Umbran]

In regards to the part above....
= Any game system that thinks a 'competent skill' of the character is below 70% chance of roll success base.

Hm.

Some games are designed that you roll for everything. Some are designed to only roll in particular circumstances (like, "there is uncertainty in the result, and there are notable consequences for failure").

A GM who takes a system like the second, and uses it like the first, is going to generate issues. A game that is not clear about which pattern is expected is going to generate issues.

Which, I suppose, shows that character apparent strength or weakness is defined only relative to a particular process of play, not by merely the chance of success on an isolated roll.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Hm.

Some games are designed that you roll for everything. Some are designed to only roll in particular circumstances (like, "there is uncertainty in the result, and there are notable consequences for failure").

A GM who takes a system like the second, and uses it like the first, is going to generate issues. A game that is not clear about which pattern is expected is going to generate issues.

Which, I suppose, shows that character apparent strength or weakness is defined only relative to a particular process of play, not by merely the chance of success on an isolated roll.

This goes to another point of character power. I think in at least one skill check system it says that say, a "Riding" (or any skill, really) roll would only be necessary if trying to perform a tricky or difficult maneuver on a horse. Simply riding a horse in a normal, unstressful way doesn't need a roll. Even so, I am willing to bet many GMs (probably unnecessarily) call for a 30% skill roll just to get on a horse, making characters feel "weak" for being unable to something simple.

This also flies a little bit in the face of systems where using your skill is needed to advance that skill. So basically, if I don't do a difficult maneuver on a horse, my Riding skill doesn't increase. Which leads to skill use fishing.

It really does require the GM to be aware of these system nuances and exercise fair judgment.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Hm.

Some games are designed that you roll for everything. Some are designed to only roll in particular circumstances (like, "there is uncertainty in the result, and there are notable consequences for failure").

A GM who takes a system like the second, and uses it like the first, is going to generate issues. A game that is not clear about which pattern is expected is going to generate issues.

Which, I suppose, shows that character apparent strength or weakness is defined only relative to a particular process of play, not by merely the chance of success on an isolated roll.

That's a fantastic point!

And I think you highlighted something that desperately needs to go away in all RPGs = "there is uncertainty in the result, and there are notable consequences for failure"

Failure is the worst thing an RPG can do or model, and it always ruins stories. And it should never be in a single given die roll.

The better way any game should address character challenge is = "there is uncertainty in the result, and there are notable consequences. FULL STOP"

This poor choice for games to say "you failed your roll, you failed your action" is the actual and real core of why players get frustrated at weakness, power level, action results.

Story/scene : "Doctor is in a wartime battlefield, has to do field surgery on a soldier to save their life."
- Least interesting roll result = "you needed a 10, you rolled an 8. you failed your roll, the patient is dead."

- Much better roll result: "you needed a 10, you rolled an 8, you are helping the patient but there is a complication. You are trying to close up the last artery, but there is a bullet wedged against a bone and artery that needs a special tool you don't have to remove it safely, what do you do?"

Failure comes from "the overall result of the scene", it comes from a series of rolls/actions. Which all lead up to overall success or failure of whatever was going on.

In the better roll result scene, the complication lets the player choose the risk of consequences they want to taken on. send runner for special tool? create makeshift tool? do some odd surgery technique? all different consequences, and all open up the door for player input creativity!

• By letting the doctor work through several rolls to save their patient, they feel like they are competently working on the task. (and keeps the pressure on so the scene feels more interactive too!
• By letting any one single full failure roll, just fail the whole effort, the doctor character feels helpless and incompetent.

It's ok if the patient dies in either case. It's just that "consequences" of player character Risks taken, and complications from rolls that didn't meet the difficulty rating, give an overall picture of the challenge at hand.

...

This can be applied to combat too!

A single swing of a sword, need 10 to hit, rolls 8 = "You hit, but it left an opening for the enemy to slice your hip, if your next action is not to address this opening, they will get free attack on you!"

instead of the really lame/boring/incompetent swing and a miss junk: need a 10 to hit, rolls 8 = "nothing happens, you missed."