Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3703588" data-attributes="member: 3608">It's not! Most of what I wrote applies equally to combat, because attack bonus is a skill even if 3e doesn't put it in its "skill" system. But it is interesting to look at how the use of combat skills often differs from the use of other skills.Failing a single combat skill check usually doesn't mean total failure in the combat. It means only a minor setback. (You failed to damage your opponent for one round.) Failing a single jump, balance, craft, or knowledge check can mean falling to your death, ruining a creation (& loss of the 100% of the time & money spent on the attempt), or complete ignorance of an important fact. (Of course, the important word there is "can".)During combat, not only do you make several combat skill checks, but you have decision points between them. You have the chance to refine your tactics based on new information & unexpected developments. You can correct mistakes. You can thus continue to tilt the odds in your favor. You can choose to cut your losses. With a "one roll task", you have to make all the right decisions up-front.Combine the "one roll task" with the tendency to set difficulties, IMHO, too high too often; & you get a session that consists mostly of PCs failing tasks with no partial credit. And the players feeling more out-of-control because of the one-decision-point→one-roll→total-success-or-total-failure model.Note, I'm not claiming this is the fault of 3e. I'm saying that these are trends I've noticed under many systems. The expansion of skill systems have generally not meant new challenges for the players, but rather the PCs seeming more & more incompetent. If you haven't seen even a hint of these problems at your table, bully for you. But this is something I have seen.So, what should I do about this?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Set lower difficulties</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The more peripheral a skill is to the focus of the current campaign, the more I should consider making success/failure be more GM fiat than a roll. (Predisposed towards success.) Thus, I may--may--want to drop the skill completely. (Skill levels can be handy for informing GM fiat even if you never call for a check against it.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the skill isn't peripheral, consider using more of an "extended task" model like combat. (Not a new idea there, but very seldom applied in my experience.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Give partial credit on "one roll tasks". Consider using adequate-success/exceptional-success rather than success/failure.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Do something along the lines of Tweet's "there is no try" article: Failing a roll means that the PC knows not to attempt the task. There should probably be a minor setback associated with this. (Like losing your action for that round.) Also, I like the idea of giving the PC a karma/action/drama/fate/whatever point if the player chooses to go ahead & have the PC actually fail after a failed roll. This is something I hope to try next time I GM.</li> </ul>Note that some of my fixes don't require changing mechanics, just how you use the mechanics. (So, arguably, these aren't problems with the rules but problems with their application.)</blockquote>

Verification