D&D General Testing Players

[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.