this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023

400 points (97.4% liked)

RPGMemes

13978 readers

960 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Dalimey@ttrpg.network

moondog@ttrpg.network

400

Fuck autofailing skill checks (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Stamets@lemmy.world to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 115 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 47 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Part of the excellent case why you shouldn’t roll for the routine. Take “town downtime activities”.

If a character is a lifetime street urchin, they should be able to find a few “safe marks” versus rolling to snag some risky but lucrative pickpockets. A talented musician doesn’t flub every 20th note, but you can certainly reward bigger rolls with bigger tips.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's more that it's just more work for the DM in this case. Every time a skill check is called or considered, the DM has to reconsider if the character considers this a routine or trivial task. You can see this in the stats: if the character's modifier is 5 or less than the DC, it's trivial. But you also must consider even without a high mod vs DC, is this a task the character has performed hundreds of times before? I try not to come up with solutions, or utilize WOTC solutions that make a lot more work for the DM. Especially if there's already a rule or slight tweak that makes sense and prevents this work: in this case, no crits for skill checks.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I suppose if the DM is running the game through a rigid preformed structure then yeah, having things make stuff more unpredictable is gonna be hard on the DM, but if they are already choosing to fly by the seat of their pants and roll with the incoming suggestions from the dice, it's totally fine.

There are lots of different types of people that like to DM games. Something isn't automatically worse for all DMs.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's why I do crit fail confirms. That way an experienced pilot only crashes every 400th landing.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's still far more than reality though.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago

D&D isn't meant to be an accurate simulator of reality. It's meant to be fun. If you find 1 in 400 auto failures to be unfun then don't use it.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Indeed.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Also you can take 10 if you're not stressed.

[–] gerusz@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 years ago

And that's why you as the DM can do passive skill checks (neé "taking a 10") for non-stressful situations. A routine landing is just 10 + ability mod (probably INT on a big plane with full FBW) + PB. It's only with 3 of the 4 engines down, the 4th on fire, the computers are fucked, you're trying to land the 747 on a dirt strip, and oh, there's a hurricane when you need to actually roll for it.

Though I'm also down with Esper's idea of every class having a limited reliable talent. So every character could pick one class skill at level 7 and one at level 14 in which they couldn't roll under a 10. The "expert" classes (rangers, rogues, bards, and artificers) would have additional picks at levels 3, 10, and 17 with full reliable talent being their capstone feature.

[–] swordsmanluke@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, but nobody plays Tarmac and Turnstiles, the game of Uneventful Travel.

[–] tired_lemming@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I like how Pathfinder 2E does it. A 20 brings your result one tier higher. A 1 brings your result one tier lower. With a high enough base expertise, you can still succeed when rolling a 1, just not as awesome as you normally are. And a 20 isn't a guarantee against really strong foes.

[–] Rehwyn@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This. Plus, if you beat the DC by 10 or more, you get a Critical Success or if you fail by 10 or more you get a Critical Failure, regardless of the dice roll.

And for opposed skill checks only the player/NPC taking the action rolls a d20, and that's compared against the opposing skill DC (10 + Skill Bonus). This streamlines play and reduces random variability.

So in the example here, only the rogue would have rolled the natural 1 and added 26 for a 27. The paladin's Perception DC would be 16, so the Rogue beat it by 11 and it'd normally be a Critical Success. But since it was a natural 1, the Critical Success is reduced to a Success. They still succeeded at deception, but not quite as well as they could have.

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

I've had players have this exchange, and then the Paladin decided to ignore the rogue's critical miss, and just roll with it.

Paladin to the rest of the party "I forget what they said exactly, but it was a very convincing argument!"

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I like critical failure.

Skilled people can sometimes choke under pressure.

[+] Stamets@lemmy.world 52 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

[deleted]

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In games, realism is often sacrificed in favor of drama.

[+] Stamets@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Can you think of a better mechanic to represent choking under pressure? Maybe “trivial” skill checks should roll with advantage?

[–] Neato@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

Yes. Pathfinder 2e has a good one.

Rolling a nat 1 or 20 doesn't mean Critical success/failure. It means it moves the success status up or down one: Critical success, success, failure, critical failure. In addition, that game also specifies that a critical is also achieved by your result being +/- 10 of the result.

So if you're attempting a DC 35 check (arguing with a god, let's say) with a +2 mod, a nat 20 would get you a result of 22, a critical failure. But a nat 20 bumps it up one success, so you get a regular failure. Whereas if the DC was 25, a 22 is still a failure but your crit means it's a regular success.

This has middling applications in D&D 5e, though. PF2e's DCs and skill bonuses are not constrained by 5e's Bounded Accuracy. So they can vary a lot more. In D&D's case I had to pull pretty much the highest possible DC the game suggests so there's not a lot of use cases for this. But it's still a better system for including criticals on skill checks. And this is why 5e doesn't have them normally.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

For most skills, there low level human equivalents in the real world who will never "choke under pressure" once when doing the thing thousands of times throughout their life. When we're talking about one of the heroes of a tale that are also "the best of the best", I think it's ok from a literature, fantasy, or gameplay standpoint for them to have a 100% success rate despite the fact that a failure risk would be possible in the real world. This is doubly true (DM point of view) when failure would be uninteresting or mess with suspension of disbelief. If an ace pilot is trying to fly through a bad storm to land where the firefight is going to happen, he bloody well makes it. I'm ok with "success with complications" on a 1, but the complications should be fun as well. You land ok, but the wind that hit at the last minute caused some damage to a wing. You might need to find another way out" or even "unfortunately, you weren't able to fly evasively enough because of the buffetting winds, so they know you're here.

Nobody wants Skyrim syndrome, where a master thief gets caught pickpocketing someone (we Bethesda players do something called save-scumming to keep the immersion). I used to go to a pickpocket show at the local renfair and the performer never got caught. And he was not a "master thief".

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

In epic scaled games, I work around this with a "reroll at -20". So the rogue in this case would have had about a 25% chance to recover on a DC10 check.

I also always include an in-game explanation. In this case, I would have made it a huge flashy "boon of insight" from the Paladin's deity.

Then it's all the more fun if the rogue actually manages the re-roll. "Dude, I even tricked your god!"

I would also RP right into it. "A voice from on high intones 'I dunno, seems legit, to me.'"

Similarly if the rogue actually fails:

"A voice from on high intones 'Seriously, you need to stop falling for this crap. I'm going to send you an amulet of insight or something. What's your next stop?'"

[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I listened to one video which suggested rolling 3 d6 instead. Crits on 3 and 18. Turns that 5% into 0.46%.

[–] swordsmanluke@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago

...yes, but that also has the trade-off of moving your rolls from a flat distribution where every value between 1-20 have equal weight, to a bell curve that peaks at 10.5.

Many of your rolls are gonna end up right around that 10-11 mark as a result. Which can be fine! #alldicearebeautiful

But it's not gonna be a great drop in replacement for D&D. D&D's skill checks are built around beating numbers that you're not going to reach as easily with 3d6 vs a flat d20.

Basically, more dice = more predictability and fewer wild swings of fortune. That is a more accurate model of reality.... But arguably less fun in a game.

Imagine the difference in dramatic tension in a game where the boss has 50 HP. In one scenario, you deal a consistent 5.5 HP each round. In the other, you deal 1d10 damage each round.

In the long run, you'll deal the same amount of damage in either system. But the randomness of a 1d10 creates more dramatic tension and excitement! When you roll a 1, it's a crushing setback. A 10? Instant jubilation.

[–] KittyCat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why my house rule is nat 20 or 1 gets a second roll to determine the degree of the crit. A 1 followed by another 1 is your true fall on your face odds.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Which, as said elsewhere, is still a 1-in-400 chance. A commercial pilot lands a plane thousands of times in his life. 1d20 with a 1d20 confirm would mean no pilot ever survived to retirement.

And one could argue a commercial pilot has a fairly average skill level, the equivalent of a level 0 character with a ~4 points of proficiency (D&D3 mindset, I know I'm old). Someone who is 5 or 6 times that should have no meaningful risk of crashing a plane (and the plane should have no meaningful risk of dangerously malfunctioning 0.25% of the time)

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Critical skill failure is relative to the situation, you don't chop your arm off everytime you critically miss in combat. Although if it makes sense for the specific situation, chopping your arm off might be on the table sometimes for a critical miss in combat. Same sort of thing works for skills. It would only be the worst reasonable result that comes to mind. Not that all of a sudden the worst possible thing ever happens completely out of the blue.

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago

Personally I think the right method is to only roll when there’s pressure. If you’re good at a skill and there’s no pressure, then it just succeeds.

[–] OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I've been trying to include failure techniques from DungeonWorld's suddenly ogres in my game. It proposes a few neat ideas for consequences of failure that are broadly applicable to many RPG systems.

Eg, in the example above, maybe the Rogue (truthfully or not) blabs that their source was [ancient evil tome forbidden by the paladin's order]. Now the complication is not that the Paladin disbelieves the rogue's claim, but that they might question the rogue's true intentions.

Edit: Or in the example given about landing a plane. An experienced pilot won't crash 1/20 times, but what if Air Traffic Control did a bad job managing things today? It will take 1h for the plane to be assigned to a gate, but you need to catch the train to Borovia in 1h15.

An award winning surgeon rolls a 1 while giving a routine lecture? The presentation is so fucking boring that half the students fall asleep. Now the surgeon has to deal with the extra office hours of students who don't understand this part of the curriculum.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I really like the "success with complications" category (Fate system does something like this, too) to keep things moving when a bad roll would otherwise make 1-in-a-million tragedy happen.

Doubly so if that bad roll would be a session- or campaign-ender.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Surely 1 when landing a plane indicates a go around

[–] Crow@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I like the idea of a critical role needing another roll to see just how critical it was. That way something crazy can always happen, but it doesn’t need to be a certain doom either.