D&D General Testing Players

[Campbell]

I think both only Rogues take the skill and all rogues maximize it bits are incredibly wrong in modern D&D (5e as well PF2). I do not mind leaving picking a lock or disarming traps as areas of player skill in OSR play, but I think you have to not include thieves if you are going to do so. Not a fan of it in modern D&D.

 

[tetrasodium]

I’ve wanted to learn more about lock picking just to be able to better describe what’s going on when a PC tries to pick a lock. Especially in a game that relies on description rather than an ability test (like b/x), I feel this would be useful. Not sure how I’ll gain similar practical information about finding secret doors though…

There are a lot of great links to youtube videos in this post from various channels & presenters that can give you a good enough splash in the pool to get a feel for things enough to be descriptive on the lockpicking & perhaps a bit of the secret doors depending on your campaign world.

 

[Mort]

Yeah....no...Next up...players are forced to march 20 miles in a day carrying 50 pounds of gear before they can play a char Fighter with the Outlander Background.

Whenever the threads come up re: using the players own charisma vs. persuasion checks etc. I always joke - next time the fighter wants to break out of a prison cell, toss the player a steel bar and say "let's see how you do..."

Someone actually implemented a version of that!

But, yeah, not really my thing!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Absolutely not.

Why is it only skillful characters get subjected to this stuff? Nobody's asking the Wizard to learn how to perform actual magic tricks (let alone literal magic) in order to cast spells. Why do people keep inventing extra hurdles for the mundane characters in the party?

Why are so many people so dead-set on making everything stupidly difficult unless it's solved by magic? And why do so many people then complain that magic is too prevalent and needs to be nerfed or made foolishly dangerous?

I just...I don't get what people are getting out of all this. What's the point? Why is it fun to have to jump through hoops (perhaps literally?!?) before you're allowed to enjoy the cool stuff your character is capable of doing?

 

[Mort]

Absolutely not.

Why is it only skillful characters get subjected to this stuff? Nobody's asking the Wizard to learn how to perform actual magic tricks (let alone literal magic) in order to cast spells. Why do people keep inventing extra hurdles for the mundane characters in the party?

Why are so many people so dead-set on making everything stupidly difficult unless it's solved by magic? And why do so many people then complain that magic is too prevalent and needs to be nerfed or made foolishly dangerous?

I just...I don't get what people are getting out of all this. What's the point? Why is it fun to have to jump through hoops (perhaps literally?!?) before you're allowed to enjoy the cool stuff your character is capable of doing?

Well, I can give the the long version. But it boils down to:

WAY too many people just don't believe martial/skill characters can have nice things.

 

[tetrasodium]

Absolutely not.

Why is it only skillful characters get subjected to this stuff? Nobody's asking the Wizard to learn how to perform actual magic tricks (let alone literal magic) in order to cast spells. Why do people keep inventing extra hurdles for the mundane characters in the party?

Why are so many people so dead-set on making everything stupidly difficult unless it's solved by magic? And why do so many people then complain that magic is too prevalent and needs to be nerfed or made foolishly dangerous?

I just...I don't get what people are getting out of all this. What's the point? Why is it fun to have to jump through hoops (perhaps literally?!?) before you're allowed to enjoy the cool stuff your character is capable of doing?

I think that the point is more subjecting skilless PCs to it

 

[Mort]

I think that the point is more subjecting skilless PCs to it

IF that's the case - that's equally terrible except as a (for some) fun one off!

 

[ersatzphil]

This channel.

...in a weird intersection of "things I know about", I'd actually recommend BosnianBill over LPL if you wanted to know the basics of bypassing common locks, as amusing as LPL is to watch. That being said, if the goal was to make the rogue character feel cool rather than try to challenge them in an out-of-the-game sort of way, you could pick up a set of skeleton keys and a cheap warded padlock, and let them feel like an absolute ninja for a session:


Warded locks were also known since the Roman era and really came to historical prominence during the monastic period in the middle ages, so it's arguably more like what a D&D rogue would be picking anyway. Pin tumbler locks were known in ancient Egypt, but didn't really come to prominence until Linus Yale popularized them in the 1800s.

edit: If anyone actually wanted to do this, cheap warded lock picks: link.
A cheap warded padlock: link.

edit 2: This additionally has the benefit of allowing you to say to your player, "Congratulations, $name, you've now multiclassed into rogue in real life!"

 

[James Gasik]

Whenever the threads come up re: using the players own charisma vs. persuasion checks etc. I always joke - next time the fighter wants to break out of a prison cell, toss the player a steel bar and say "let's see how you do..."

Someone actually implemented a version of that!

But, yeah, not really my thing!

What I always like hearing about are tales of DM's who insist on players who cannot have their characters perform better than they themselves can...and then have the players outperform their characters!

"See Mr. DM, I can do backflips in full plate, can we get rid of my penalties now?" "You say I can't trick the King into accepting me as his long lost heir, but I tricked you into buying pizza tonight." "I'm tired of you telling me how fireball works. VAS FLAM!"....kids, don't try this at home.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is why I want to implement Double Date style physical challenges into my game...

 

[jmartkdr2]

A bad solution to a problem that I am not sure really exists.

If all the locks are boring because there's no time pressure or other consequences of failure... there's a problem. Of course, that doesn't make this a good solution.

On the other hand, if it's cheap enough I might buy this for it's own sake - it's still a fun-sounding toy, even if it's not a good game aide.

 

[Reynard]

Well, I can give the the long version. But it boils down to:

WAY too many people just don't believe martial/skill characters can have nice things.

I don't think that discussion has anything to do with this. Someone could just as easily come up with a way to have to use a grade school chemistry set for alchemist characters.

 

[Reynard]

This is why I want to implement Double Date style physical challenges into my game...

Man, I really hope you meant Double Dare.

Or do I?

 

[Mort]

I don't think that discussion has anything to do with this. Someone could just as easily come up with a way to have to use a grade school chemistry set for alchemist characters.

The question was an offshoot of the thread - @EzekielRaiden asked why so many people are fine with magic doing whatever but want things to be SO HARD for PCs who use skills. I responded a bit tongue in cheek, but not that much.

IME a large number of people are fine with "because magic" but fight skill accomplishment tooth and nail.

 

[Guest 7034872]

So the following ad came across my feed:

[...]
What do you think?

I am opposed. I don't think you should try and test a player versus their character's ability. We abstract for a reason. I once presented a player with a Sodoku puzzle as a proxy for their character trying to disarm a melting down nuclear reactor in Mutant Future. They balked, and were right to, IMO.

Suppose in real life I'm not too clever (a plausible enough supposition); further suppose in the game my character has INT 20 and massive proficiency in the skill in question. Should success on a check depend on my actual cleverness?? I'm inclined to say, "No," much as I gather you are.

Or to take another analogy, suppose in real life I'm not very strong (which is true); further suppose in the game I'm playing an STR 20 barbarian who can break F250 trucks off his back while sipping a beer. Should my character's ability to kick in a door depend on us actually setting up some big, heavy physical door that I have to try to kick in? That just doesn't seem right to me; it seems to run directly against the whole business of make-believe, which is the absolute essence of D&D.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It's fun once or twice. I had a player work through a Complexity 4 IFGS lock, which is threading a metal loop along a twisted coat hanger type wire. But it was something I new she would get a kick out of and I presumed she would be good at. (She was.)

Certainly not as a regular thing in any way.

 

[Blue]

God DANGIT. You mean all of the shady characters I've played who were good with traps and locks but weren't rogues didn't take it? I cheated on a bunch of rolls then.

Oh, and I'm still playing 3.x where you can take 20? DANGIT, I though my bounded-accuracy numbers were low.

And my DM uses PLOT LOCK to make it either unpickable? Or PLOT-anything where you can't advance the plot unless the character make a specific roll (or fail a specific roll).

As you can tell, just their advertising has set me on edge. Now add that unless they also sell things that can make my wizard players actually cast spells, and my fighter players mostly ignore a solid axe hit to the stomach, this is the exact opposite direction I want to go.

 

[Reynard]

And my DM uses PLOT LOCK to make it either unpickable? Or PLOT-anything where you can't advance the plot unless the character make a specific roll (or fail a specific roll).

Man, I hope no one still gates progress behind a die roll anymore.

 

[Blue]

Man, I hope no one still gates progress behind a die roll anymore.

If your entire plot can come to a standstill because the characters can't find a secret door, or some other one off roll, then yes, there is a problem. It's basically the reason why Fail Forward for some checks is a thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Solution in search of a problem. Literally, it seems like they started from the (honestly pretty cool) idea of a lock picking dexterity game and the awful “test the players instead of rolling a check” is just the best they could come up with for how to market it.