Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="uzirath" data-source="post: 9265513" data-attributes="member: 8495"><p>As has been mentioned a few times upthread, the issue around the odds of failure depends on the particular game's baseline assumptions about what calls for a skill check and how the rules define expertise. I know that GURPS hasn't gotten a lot of love in this thread, but it's the game I'm most experienced with, so I'll use it as an example.</p><p></p><p>In GURPS, your base skill level "measures your odds of success at an 'average' task <em>under adventuring conditions</em> – in other words, in a stressful situation where the consequences of failure are significant" (<strong><em>GURPS Basic Set</em></strong>, p. 171). Under normal, non-adventuring circumstances, you roll with a +4 or higher bonus. (They include an airline pilot as an example on the same page.) As a result, even at relatively low point values, characters usually succeed at routine job tasks.</p><p></p><p>A recent character of mine, for example, is a security officer on a space navy vessel. She was built on 125 points and her base skill levels range from 10 to 14. Thus she's quite competent at her job. For routine tasks, she would roll with a bonus against a minimum of 14 (91% chance of success) for her <em>weakest </em>trained skills. For her core competencies, she has above a 98% chance of success. At that level, the GM—following the guidelines in the rules—assumes success unless there are high dramatic stakes for a critical success or failure. When we were in the setup phase for the adventure, she used a number of routine skills. The GM narrated the results, except for my edge skills. Even with those, she succeeded on nearly every check.</p><p></p><p>Later, however, we were in a battle with space pirates and there was a lot of time pressure (i.e., "adventuring conditions"). Under those circumstances, her skills were more modest, and had higher chances of failure. Still, though, she seemed quite dependable, especially at her best skills. </p><p></p><p>During a battle situation, she tried to use her blaster to hit a small control panel by a door from some distance. Her base skill is 14... generally considered to be at "expert" level. But, the smoke caused a -2 vision penalty. The size of the target and range led to another -3, meaning that her effective skill was a 9 (~38% chance of success). Now, she could have stopped to aim, which would have increased her chances significantly, but we were racing to get to another area, so she took the unaimed shot and missed. The chase was on. This was dramatically satisfying and fit with our sense of the fictional situation. She felt like a mid-range action hero. </p><p></p><p>If we wanted to make things even more cinematic, we would build the characters on higher point totals, leading to higher skill levels. Again, routine use would be a non-issue, but the characters would have better odds in more extreme circumstances: thicker smoke, longer range, smaller target, from a moving vehicle, etc.</p><p></p><p>While the D&D rules don't preclude any of this (I've played extensively in every edition since BECMI), in my experience it's easier to fine-tune character competency in a skill-based system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="uzirath, post: 9265513, member: 8495"] As has been mentioned a few times upthread, the issue around the odds of failure depends on the particular game's baseline assumptions about what calls for a skill check and how the rules define expertise. I know that GURPS hasn't gotten a lot of love in this thread, but it's the game I'm most experienced with, so I'll use it as an example. In GURPS, your base skill level "measures your odds of success at an 'average' task [I]under adventuring conditions[/I] – in other words, in a stressful situation where the consequences of failure are significant" ([B][I]GURPS Basic Set[/I][/B], p. 171). Under normal, non-adventuring circumstances, you roll with a +4 or higher bonus. (They include an airline pilot as an example on the same page.) As a result, even at relatively low point values, characters usually succeed at routine job tasks. A recent character of mine, for example, is a security officer on a space navy vessel. She was built on 125 points and her base skill levels range from 10 to 14. Thus she's quite competent at her job. For routine tasks, she would roll with a bonus against a minimum of 14 (91% chance of success) for her [I]weakest [/I]trained skills. For her core competencies, she has above a 98% chance of success. At that level, the GM—following the guidelines in the rules—assumes success unless there are high dramatic stakes for a critical success or failure. When we were in the setup phase for the adventure, she used a number of routine skills. The GM narrated the results, except for my edge skills. Even with those, she succeeded on nearly every check. Later, however, we were in a battle with space pirates and there was a lot of time pressure (i.e., "adventuring conditions"). Under those circumstances, her skills were more modest, and had higher chances of failure. Still, though, she seemed quite dependable, especially at her best skills. During a battle situation, she tried to use her blaster to hit a small control panel by a door from some distance. Her base skill is 14... generally considered to be at "expert" level. But, the smoke caused a -2 vision penalty. The size of the target and range led to another -3, meaning that her effective skill was a 9 (~38% chance of success). Now, she could have stopped to aim, which would have increased her chances significantly, but we were racing to get to another area, so she took the unaimed shot and missed. The chase was on. This was dramatically satisfying and fit with our sense of the fictional situation. She felt like a mid-range action hero. If we wanted to make things even more cinematic, we would build the characters on higher point totals, leading to higher skill levels. Again, routine use would be a non-issue, but the characters would have better odds in more extreme circumstances: thicker smoke, longer range, smaller target, from a moving vehicle, etc. While the D&D rules don't preclude any of this (I've played extensively in every edition since BECMI), in my experience it's easier to fine-tune character competency in a skill-based system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"
Top