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

[Reynard]

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.

I would actually have to look up the GM advice and see what it actually says, but in my memory it says the GM decides whether a roll is called for, even in combat.

What D&D needs, I think, is more explicit nonbinary outcomes in resolutions: success at a cost, complications, partial successes and failing forward. The DMG mentions these briefly but there is little actual support or advice.

I want to expound on the idea of not giving the novice swordsman a chance against the master. It sounds wrong at first because fighting is so central to the game and players often feel there should always be a chance. In this case, the point isn't a fight. There is some other narrative purpose behind presenting the PCs with this master swordsman. It could be anything from.establishing a villain to world building to foreshadowing a future duel. In any case, it isn't a "challenge" and therefore the PCs don't get a check (or a fight).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would actually have to look up the GM advice and see what it actually says, but in my memory it says the GM decides whether a roll is called for, even in combat.

What D&D needs, I think, is more explicit nonbinary outcomes in resolutions: success at a cost, complications, partial successes and failing forward. The DMG mentions these briefly but there is little actual support or advice.

I want to expound on the idea of not giving the novice swordsman a chance against the master. It sounds wrong at first because fighting is so central to the game and players often feel there should always be a chance. In this case, the point isn't a fight. There is some other narrative purpose behind presenting the PCs with this master swordsman. It could be anything from.establishing a villain to world building to foreshadowing a future duel. In any case, it isn't a "challenge" and therefore the PCs don't get a check (or a fight).

I have some great "degrees of success and failure" rules I was pointed to from a poster here on the site that I incorporated into my houserule document. Unfortunately, I cannot remember who it was at the moment. I would thank them again right now if I could.

 

[Reynard]

I have some great "degrees of success and failure" rules I was pointed to from a poster here on the site that I incorporated into my houserule document. Unfortunately, I cannot remember who it was at the moment. I would thank them again right now if I could.

I am currently running PF2E, which while that game has is own issues it at least incorporates degrees of success into the core mechanics.

For 5E, I often just use the DC chart as success levels rather than difficulty classes, informed by whatever the circumstances are.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am currently running PF2E, which while that game has is own issues it at least incorporates degrees of success into the core mechanics.

For 5E, I often just use the DC chart as success levels rather than difficulty classes, informed by whatever the circumstances are.

Not a fan of PF2E myself, but that's a cool way to address the issue.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well, this thread is in General. So I think it is helpful to consider how various sorts of approaches to when does a player roll and what is at stake when a player rolls can contribute to, or undermine, a player's sense of their character's competence.

The thread being in General also means that the contrast between "random event" and "function of a skill check* isn't self-evident. One way to establish "random events" is to have them as the consequences of failed skill checks. Even some versions of D&D use this method: see eg the example of a skill challenge in the 4e Rules Compendium, and especially the consequence of the final check - which is a failure - in that example.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I would actually have to look up the GM advice and see what it actually says, but in my memory it says the GM decides whether a roll is called for, even in combat.

What D&D needs, I think, is more explicit nonbinary outcomes in resolutions: success at a cost, complications, partial successes and failing forward. The DMG mentions these briefly but there is little actual support or advice.

I want to expound on the idea of not giving the novice swordsman a chance against the master. It sounds wrong at first because fighting is so central to the game and players often feel there should always be a chance. In this case, the point isn't a fight. There is some other narrative purpose behind presenting the PCs with this master swordsman. It could be anything from.establishing a villain to world building to foreshadowing a future duel. In any case, it isn't a "challenge" and therefore the PCs don't get a check (or a fight).

RQ very much allows for a novice to hurt a master, but the chances are extremely low (novice crits and master fumbles), but it does allow David vs. Goliath scenarios. This would of course play out only if it were an important battle in some way - most often the master would trounce the novice in any passing contest.

 

[Reynard]

RQ very much allows for a novice to hurt a master, but the chances are extremely low (novice crits and master fumbles), but it does allow David vs. Goliath scenarios. This would of course play out only if it were an important battle in some way - most often the master would trounce the novice in any passing contest.

Not a fair measure. God made David OP.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Not a fair measure. God made David OP.

Hobbits vs. Sauron, Ewoks vs. The Empire, lots of precedent for the little guy to overcome what seems like an impossible task. I'd always want to give PCs a (small) chance of success in a weighted scenario. There is something magical about overcoming all the odds and punching the Big Bad in the nose.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not a fair measure. God made David OP.

i remember hearing somewhere how the lesson of that story is entirely mispresented due to it not properly emphasising just how much of an advantage it was for david, how dangerous a weapon the sling actually was, so more accurately put in perspective it would be 'it was David vs Goliath, and all david had was his speed, his wits and a loaded revolver'

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Its the sort of thing you could generalize into a fumble table if you want to go that way, and still reduce the probability so that its not particularly likely to happen. Whether there's any value in that is another question.