Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Thomas Shey]

Unlike D&D, Mutants and Masterminds uses a point buy system for just about everything in the character creation process (ability scores, attack bonus, defense bonus, saves bonus, skills, feats and powers). The default power level was power level 10, which had a pool of 150 points.

However, if you were playing Green Ronin's equivalent of D&D, Warriors and Wizards, you had a much smaller pool to work from because fantasy characters aren't as powerful as supers. Something along the lines of power level 6 or power level 8 (90 to 120 points respectively). And in addition to buying all of the features I mentioned in the character creation process, you also had to throw in race. Each race in Warriors and Wizards had it's own power point cost.

Lastly, Mutants and Masterminds tended to front load your character from the very start. There was no gradual increase in what you had in terms of abilities, skills, feats and powers.

I'd have to disagree with the latter here; the default assumption was that PL went up every 15 points, so you would, indeed, get that gradual increase. It just started at a higher initial point.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I must not have been clear. I was answering a question about why games should include low levels, not high levels.

I guess I'm not clear what "includes" means in this context.

 

[Reynard]

I guess I'm not clear what "includes" means in this context.

A poster wanted to know why games like D&D should start at "zero." My answer was that they should include that "farm kid" option for those that want it but also provide clear guidelines as to where to start if you want "competent" or even "skilled veteran" to begin with. Point buy games do this all the time: use X build points with a Y cap, etc... it would be trivial for an edition of D&D to clearly lay out what different experience levels mean in the world, competence wise.

But I also want to reiterate my desire for a separation of "power" and "experience" here.

 

[pemerton]

The biggest mistake people make in running TTRPGs, broadly speaking, is calling for unnecessary rolls.

You call for a roll when the following 2 things are true:
1) The outcome is uncertain. That means you DON'T call for rols during routine activities.
2) The consequences of success or failure are interesting and further develop the current situation. That means thar even if the outcome is uncertain, if the actual results don't matter, don't call for a roll.

Key questions these guidelines raise are (i) who decides, and how, if the outcome is uncertain; and (ii) who decides, and how, what the consequences of failure are, and whether they're interesting.

I worked with someone who was an experienced horse rider, and then one day her horse threw her and she broke her back. I guess that's an interesting consequence, and not a certain one when you get up on your horse. But the circumstances were pretty routine.

So I don't think "routine", "uncertain", "interesting" and the like are objective properties of a given fictional circumstance. Someone has to decide, is this routine? or rather is this worthy of a roll?

I think bounded accuracy is intended more for combat-related things. It is pretty hard to push your AC above 20 in 5e, which means that large numbers of weak foes will be relevant at least into the mid-levels. This is in comparison to 3e and 4e (and later PF2) where escalating attack values and ACs mean that generally only foes in a relatively narrow level band will work well in combat.

The fact that it makes characters incompetent at their skills is, I believe, collateral damage. But then again I've seen people here complain that rogues with expertise pass too many skill checks so clearly some DMs like their PCs to bumble about.

That bit about "bumbling about" relates to my post upthread about my Burning Wheel play: I roll a lot of failures, but my character is not bumbling about. A failure in BW is a bit like a 6- roll in Apocalypse World: it licences the GM to introduce new stuff that thwarts or at least cuts across the player's hope/expectation for where things are going with their PC. It doesn't mean that the PC is incompetent.

I think the experience of incompetence becomes greater when player failure on rolls is narrated as PC bumbling; and also when the GM is using their own private conception of the situation (maybe guided by their notes) to decide what is routine, what is at stake, when failure is worth testing for, etc. In this sort of play, the meaning of success or failure is often quite opaque, and that contributes to a feeling of not being in control, which in turn contributes to a sense that the PC lacks compentence.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Key questions these guidelines raise are (i) who decides, and how, if the outcome is uncertain; and (ii) who decides, and how, what the consequences of failure are, and whether they're interesting.

I worked with someone who was an experienced horse rider, and then one day her horse threw her and she broke her back. I guess that's an interesting consequence, and not a certain one when you get up on your horse. But the circumstances were pretty routine.

That might be more of the problem of low-incidence events in RPGs. People have died literally falling off of chairs when they were getting up, but no game is liable to represent that. Some of the injuries that come with some physical activities have as much to do with the fact those activities are done so much that low probability events will just crop up sometimes--but the actual probability is probably lower than a given character would be likely to encounter in their entire played career.

I think the experience of incompetence becomes greater when player failure on rolls is narrated as PC bumbling; and also when the GM is using their own private conception of the situation (maybe guided by their notes) to decide what is routine, what is at stake, when failure is worth testing for, etc. In this sort of play, the meaning of success or failure is often quite opaque, and that contributes to a feeling of not being in control, which in turn contributes to a sense that the PC lacks compentence.

In regard to the "bumbling" bit, I'm very much of the opinion that most of that should be represented as unexpected outside influences.

 

[aramis erak]

Is there any way to adapt this for 5e in order for the players to know how competent their characters really are?

Kind of.
Total range of modifiers for PCs, excepting barbarians: -4 to +11. For Barbarians and Str Skills, -4 to +13.
Thats attributes 3 to 20, and 3 to 24, unskilled to level 20 skilled. Noting that maximum attribute is 20 for PCs, excepting Barbarians.
THe typical range (8-16) is -1 to +3, plus 2 to 6 if skilled.
< ± 0: incompetent.
+1 to +3 minimal competence
+4 to +6 professional
+7 to +8 elite
+9 to +10 best in the nation
≥ +11 best in the world to superhuman

 

[Reynard]

Key questions these guidelines raise are (i) who decides, and how, if the outcome is uncertain; and (ii) who decides, and how, what the consequences of failure are, and whether they're interesting.

I worked with someone who was an experienced horse rider, and then one day her horse threw her and she broke her back. I guess that's an interesting consequence, and not a certain one when you get up on your horse. But the circumstances were pretty routine.

So I don't think "routine", "uncertain", "interesting" and the like are objective properties of a given fictional circumstance. Someone has to decide, is this routine? or rather is this worthy of a roll?

That is a random event, not a function of a "routine skill check." It would certainly be possible for the GM to hit the PC with a potentially deadly turn in a otherwise routine activity, bit I can't imagine it being very popular.

To answer your broader question: who calls for checks depends on the game rules and table rules. In traditional games like D&D, it is usually the GM in response to action declarations by players, but there is always some variation.

 

[Cadence]

Kind of.
Total range of modifiers for PCs, excepting barbarians: -4 to +11. For Barbarians and Str Skills, -4 to +13.
Thats attributes 3 to 20, and 3 to 24, unskilled to level 20 skilled. Noting that maximum attribute is 20 for PCs, excepting Barbarians.
THe typical range (8-16) is -1 to +3, plus 2 to 6 if skilled.
< ± 0: incompetent.
+1 to +3 minimal competence
+4 to +6 professional
+7 to +8 elite
+9 to +10 best in the nation
≥ +11 best in the world to superhuman

I think my only problem with something like this in practice is how it maps to different activities/activity groups when using a single mechanic. Say it is contested d20 rolls.

Do I have it right that a +11 will beat a +1 about 86% of the time? Is that reasonable for something like first person to miss a free-throw in basketball? On the other hand is it completely non-sensical for who wins a game of chess where the chance of winning/losing corresponds to what the ELO ratings say about a top 10 player in the world vs. an international master.

I don't need something that maps to every activity in the universe, but some guidance on what to roll based on level of randomness might be helpful. Consider a single point in tennis vs. game vs. match vs. game in chess vs. hand in poker vs. playing out an entire night of poker (but in terms of activities that show up in the RPG). When should it be done using a single d20, vs. both roll with advantage, vs. both take best of 3d20, etc... to help control the amount of randomness.

 

[Reynard]

I think my only problem with something like this in practice is how it maps to different activities/activity groups when using a single mechanic. Say it is contested d20 rolls.

Do I have it right that a +11 will beat a +1 about 86% of the time? Is that reasonable for something like first person to miss a free-throw in basketball? On the other hand is it completely non-sensical for who wins a game of chess where the chance of winning/losing corresponds to what the ELO ratings say about a top 10 player in the world vs. an international master.

I don't need something that maps to every activity in the universe, but some guidance on what to roll based on level of randomness might be helpful. Consider a single point in tennis vs. game vs. match vs. game in chess vs. hand in poker vs. playing out an entire night of poker (but in terms of activities that show up in the RPG). When should it be done using a single d20, vs. both roll with advantage, vs. both take best of 3d20, etc... to help control the amount of randomness.

There are games that try and simulate reality in these areas, but D&D isn't one of them. The game's rules don't represent the way the world works, the provide a system for resolving uncertainty in a hopefully consistent and fun way. It is for this reason the GM has so much authority. No reasonable GM should give a novice a chance to beat a master in chess -- or swordplay for that matter.

 

[Cadence]

There are games that try and simulate reality in these areas, but D&D isn't one of them. The game's rules don't represent the way the world works, the provide a system for resolving uncertainty in a hopefully consistent and fun way. It is for this reason the GM has so much authority. No reasonable GM should give a novice a chance to beat a master in chess -- or swordplay for that matter.

Do the rules encourage the GM to roll for it in the case of sword play, regardless of the difference in skill level, because combat is (apparently) so central to the game?

5e has two toggles right now - contested so the schlub has a decent chance of winning against the GOAT, and uncontested where the GOAT just wins. I just find myself wondering sometimes if having one extra level of randomness in the middle would help.