So, I got to thinking while trying to write up a new game about the usage of skills and their overall uses to a game. What about skill checks that PCs need to make in order to progress the story?
For instance, in certain APs there are knowledge checks that you are expected to make to gain the information needed to progress the game. What if you don't make it? The story kinda stops and its awkward. What about say, climb checks? What happens to the narrative if a character can't climb this wall? Story ends here, they never got past their most dreaded foe.
In these instances, I often find myself either hand-waiving the checks or explaining what happens as if the players had rolled perfect for them, because otherwise the story stops and there doesn't seem to be a need for the checks to exist.
The same things can be said of the ridiculous amount of forced perception checks in APs and other such games where it is much more engaging to give this information to the players and to allow them to play the game more and actually enjoy it.
On the other hand, my players have also felt cheated when such events occur because it's as if the game was purposely made for them to fail.
How do you handle silly skill requirements in games? Do you even incorporate such skills into your own games beyond the DCs built into the mechanics themselves? Do these skills even need to exist if the game is not only better served by allowing auto-success, but the game actually loses nothing from it?
Skill checks give bonuses in my campaign they are not required. Its one of the reasons I rarely run APs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?
What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?
That's kinda where I was going with this.
What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?That's kinda where I was going with this.
Maybe I was reading it wrong, but it sounded like you were waffling between two options:
1.) Assigning skill DCs for important things.
2.) Just handwaving everything important to succeed.
Skills are worthless in the second case. I would advise not going that route.
What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?That's kinda where I was going with this.Maybe I was reading it wrong, but it sounded like you were waffling between two options:
1.) Assigning skill DCs for important things.
2.) Just handwaving everything important to succeed.
Skills are worthless in the second case. I would advise not going that route.
But what happens to the narrative upon failure?
What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?
You ever play KotR?
You never needed skills but you wanted them.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need consequences for failure. If players fail a skill check the narrative doesn't stop, it changes direction.
So your guys can't scale the wall, but then a patrol of guards comes around in convenient face covering helmets, you kill those guys and disguise yourselves to walk in the front gate. Suddenly your stealth mission becomes an infiltration mission.
Make Failure as Interesting as Success
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what happens to the narrative upon failure?What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?That's kinda where I was going with this.Maybe I was reading it wrong, but it sounded like you were waffling between two options:
1.) Assigning skill DCs for important things.
2.) Just handwaving everything important to succeed.
Skills are worthless in the second case. I would advise not going that route.
Dudemeister gives a solid idea, though I'm more a fan of providing alternate routes to success at a base level. At least three (four if you count "F%*$ it, WE"RE GOIN' IN LOUD!" as a solution).
If your entire plot relies on the success or failure of a single skill check, you need to go back and re-write at least part of it, since you're tempting the dice gods to screw everything over.
You need to create alternate progression paths. I recommend playing through some old Quest for Glory games if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Create multiple paths, with each path being easier and less rewarding as the one before it. You need to climb the mountain but can't, you can't fly, you look for a cave or a pass to go through and can't find one, eventually you go to a town to hire a Sherpa but nobody likes you enough to help, eventually you go to port hire a boat and go the long way around. A skill failure shouldn't prevent success, it should present other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance, in certain APs there are knowledge checks that you are expected to make to gain the information needed to progress the game. What if you don't make it? The story kinda stops and its awkward.
Could you give an example? The APs I can think of tend to have a Knowledge check provides you with the information, but if not there's usually an NPC available who will do it for money, a side quest, or whatever (at higher levels, the written presumption that absent of knowing what's happen, the PCs will actively seek out divination spells to get their information). Having the relevant skill bypasses having to do it the hard way, but I can't think of an AP that simply stops because the PCs fail a single check.
In the APs I've seen, lacking the skill tends to cost you a penalty rather than outright devastating you. You take damage from failing the Climb check, but eventually scale the wall. The NPC scholar charges you 300 gp to provide you the information. You don't Perception the hidden treasure cache, so you simply don't pick up the money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to read this.
Burning Wheel. "Say yes."
But what happens to the narrative upon failure?What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?That's kinda where I was going with this.Maybe I was reading it wrong, but it sounded like you were waffling between two options:
1.) Assigning skill DCs for important things.
2.) Just handwaving everything important to succeed.
Skills are worthless in the second case. I would advise not going that route.
Dudemeister gives a solid idea, though I'm more a fan of providing alternate routes to success at a base level. At least three (four if you count "F*#~ it, WE"RE GOIN' IN LOUD!" as a solution).
If your entire plot relies on the success or failure of a single skill check, you need to go back and re-write at least part of it, since you're tempting the dice gods to screw everything over.
Absolutely for my own games, but recently I ran Realm of the Fellnight Queen and my players got completely stuck when it came time to
I absolutely love the rule of three different ways to 'beat' an encounter, but in published APs and the like (which I am running more often due to laziness combined with business) I have no such options.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is an area where I don't like how Pathfinder handles things.
For one thing, everything is so binary: most of the skills' DCs are "if you roll below this, TOTAL FAILURE". It's a harsh yes/no.
In Pathfinder, if you try to sneak up and spy on a bandit camp but roll low on your Stealth, then every single bandit who beat your Stealth check is immediately staring right at you. Game over. Failed.
What I would personally prefer is that if you rolled low on that check, then maybe you stepped on a twig and a guard or two went "What was that?" and one of them comes over to investigate. Things still got worse, but there's at least a chance that you could still evade detection (maybe he fails to find you and figures the noise was a rabbit or something). A consequence for failure without the whole operation falling apart at the first low roll.
A corollary to this is how thoroughly codified Pathfinder's skills are: right down to individual action expenditures. If you had more generally-worded skills, like "when you're doing X type of thing and need to resolve the results, use Y skill", that's one thing. But in Pathfinder, you go to do X thing, determine that it takes about a minute to do, then reference the skill and see that you need to make a check for every move action, so that's 20 checks. And remembering what I said above about how binary Pathfinder's skills are, only ONE of those 20 checks have to roll low to make it all fall apart.
Additionally, Pathfinder assigns a DC to even the most trivial of things, such as literally noticing somebody just standing right there. Pathfinder sets up the precedent that it's not entirely uncommon for a commoner to be able to be walking down a deserted street and fail to notice someone across the street aiming a bow at him (not kidding; do the math). This sets up an expectation that even the most basic of things require checks, which leads to the (IMO, silly) trend of adventure authors writing things like that a PC who opens a drawer and looks in won't discover the macguffin that's sitting right there in the drawer unless they succeed at a Perception check. It's silly, and it's not explicitly required by the system rules, but it's the expectation that the system sets up by having rules for noticing that somebody's standing right there saying "Stop or I'll shoot".
I prefer a skill system where the only thing the rules tell you is which skill to use to resolve a given type of activity and how to determine the math. Let the narrative and the people at the table determine when it's time to actually make a check, and what the high and low rolls mean.
What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?You ever play KotR?
You never needed skills but you wanted them.
Yeah, it had a really good setup as far as skills went, since they gave you new options and often made life easier, but they were never required.
My only complaint was that you couldn't abuse the hell out of Force Persuade. "My bill is twenty thousand credits? I already paid you. Where's my change?"
So, I got to thinking while trying to write up a new game about the usage of skills and their overall uses to a game. What about skill checks that PCs need to make in order to progress the story?
Usually something like this is poor design, where the dungeon master has decided that there is only one way to tackle the problem.
For instance, in certain APs there are knowledge checks that you are expected to make to gain the information needed to progress the game. What if you don't make it? The story kinda stops and its awkward.
I can't speak for Adventure Paths but if that's true then the DM's job is to find some challenging way to make the information get to the players or otherwise go off the rails.
What about say, climb checks? What happens to the narrative if a character can't climb this wall? Story ends here, they never got past their most dreaded foe.
Blow up the wall, destroy the wall, build a ladder, walk around the wall, phase through the wall. Lots of potential options, it depends on the wall and what is past it.
In these instances, I often find myself either hand-waiving the checks or explaining what happens as if the players had rolled perfect for them, because otherwise the story stops and there doesn't seem to be a need for the checks to exist.
Depending on the material you're working from this is either poor DMing or the material is flawed. I can't imagine players hitting a wall and just stopping when they realize they can't climb it.
The same things can be said of the ridiculous amount of forced perception checks in APs and other such games where it is much more engaging to give this information to the players and to allow them to play the game more and actually enjoy it.
Then do that, honestly perception checks should be for garnering information ahead of time to gain an advantage on the upcoming situation.
On the other hand, my players have also felt cheated when such events occur because it's as if the game was purposely made for them to fail.
Perhaps the communication of what skills were expected in the game was not met, an easy mistake to make with premade adventures if you're used to "build whatever you want" style play.
How do you handle silly skill requirements in games? Do you even incorporate such skills into your own games beyond the DCs built into the mechanics themselves? Do these skills even need to exist if the game is not only better served by allowing auto-success, but the game actually loses nothing from it?
I think I've handled this part of the question with my other answers. We could probably help you better if you could direct us to the specific adventure path(s) you are having a problem with.
Absolutely for my own games, but recently I ran Realm of the Fellnight Queen and my players got completely stuck when it came time to ** spoiler omitted **
I absolutely love the rule of three different ways to 'beat' an encounter, but in published APs and the like (which I am running more often due to laziness combined with business) I have no such options.
Just add in extra options. Besides, most APs (I don't know about Modules like RotFQ) do have multiple options.
You can always lead your players as well. Give them hints as to what questions they should be asking, or if push comes to shove, have a helpful NPC volunteer a more limited version of the information.
This is an area where I don't like how Pathfinder handles things.
For one thing, everything is so binary: most of the skills' DCs are "if you roll below this, TOTAL FAILURE". It's a harsh yes/no.
In Pathfinder, if you try to sneak up and spy on a bandit camp but roll low on your Stealth, then every single bandit who beat your Stealth check is immediately staring right at you. Game over. Failed.
What I would personally prefer is that if you rolled low on that check, then maybe you stepped on a twig and a guard or two went "What was that?" and one of them comes over to investigate. Things still got worse, but there's at least a chance that you could still evade detection (maybe he fails to find you and figures the noise was a rabbit or something). A consequence for failure without the whole operation falling apart at the first low roll.
This is why I like how Mutants and Masterminds handles skills with degrees of failure.
Fail by less than 5, and you fail, but not catastrophically.
Fail by more than 5, 10, 15 and it gets worse. Same with success, on some checks.
Tbh I think it would be really funny if, after failing a necessary climb check, the GM said: "and roll initiative as the mountain you just failed to climb attempts to shake you out of its beard, revealing a shallow cave entrance behind it"
The only contents of said cave? a telescoping ladder of just the right height.
Hey guys? Not sure if this is going to help, but I found a staircase leading exactly where you wanted to go.
Don't judge me and my Frozen quotes. :P
Tbh I think it would be really funny if, after failing a necessary climb check, the GM said: "and roll initiative as the mountain you just failed to climb attempts to shake you out of its beard, revealing a shallow cave entrance behind it"
The only contents of said cave? a telescoping ladder of just the right height.
Hey guys? Not sure if this is going to help, but I found a staircase leading exactly where you wanted to go.
Don't judge me and my Frozen quotes. :P
Pixie uses destruction and SSmite judgements*
*Super effective*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh I think it would be really funny if, after failing a necessary climb check, the GM said: "and roll initiative as the mountain you just failed to climb attempts to shake you out of its beard, revealing a shallow cave entrance behind it"
The only contents of said cave? a telescoping ladder of just the right height.
Hey guys? Not sure if this is going to help, but I found a staircase leading exactly where you wanted to go.
Don't judge me and my Frozen quotes. :P
Pixie uses destruction and SSmite judgements*
*Super effective*
blackbloodtroll endured the hit with Focus Sash.
blackbloodtroll used Counter.
Pixie fainted.
One of the worst pieces of trash adventures ever published, is a waste of paper called The Apostasy Gambit, a 3-book adventure series published by Fantasy Flight Games for the Warhammer 40K Dark Heresy RPG.
I've only ever played the first book of that 3-parter, a brainless little piece of garbage called The Black Sepulchre. I played that with my favorite GM, playing with a circle of some of the people I enjoy roleplaying with the most. I struggled through the book, then, at the end, I thanked my GM for his time and informed him I would be backing out of the campaign because the astounding level of sh*tty writing and storytelling, despite my GMs best efforts, had turned me completely off the story, and I'd be unable to enjoy it because I'd be thinking back on the first book with loathing, fearing that anything of similar quality may be in store in the next 2 books.
After that I sat down and read the remainder of the adventure, and while it remains really bad, the two following books do not approach The Black Sepulchre in sheer lobotomized worhlessness.
The reasons that particular adventure is so bad, and the reason I hate it above any other adventure I've read are many, and would take a long while to describe - but one of the worst things in that book is that it is completely irrelevant what kinds of characters the party have brought. There is a grand total of ONE, count them, -ONE- non-combat skill-check that contribute to the completion of the book, - everything else is simple, meaningless combat (BORING combat, no less) or can be solved by mindlessly walking back and forth between seperate rooms, until you've followed the stupid breadcrumb trail long enough for the game to flat out tell you what to do.
In my opinion, every skill need not see use in resolving the plot - a skillcheck need not be the gate to heaven, but skills are part of what make the characters, and whether it relate directly to the story, or to completing the challenges that mark the path the characters travel, skills should have a chance to come into play in, at leasts, semi-significant fashion.
-Nearyn
This was one of the things I really liked about 4th edition, skill checks. Maybe not the execution, but the concept cool. A huge part of the abstraction was the idea that the PCs succeed, the degree of success or failure of the check merely determines the cost of the success.
Need to infiltrate a camp: Just make a few skill checks rather than make one every round. And you can have other skills, like bluff or disguise substitute for stealth. And most importantly, a single bad roll doesn't screw the whole thing.
Need to raft through some rapids: Make a few rolls. If you fail you still make it to the other side, but you have taken a bunch of damage.
One thing for the GM to do is figure out an alternative way for the party to get the information if nobody can make the required skill check. If somebody can make the check, they already know what they need to proceed and can continue onward. If nobody can make the check, they can go looking for somebody who knows that information and have some dangerous encounters getting to that person to acquire the information.
Alternatively, if you don't want to put the adventure on a detour, they can figure out the main part of the information automatically, but a successful knowledge check gives key details and caveats that they would not otherwise get. In other words -- they can automatically find the way to proceed, but the successful check gives them advance warning of a trap or other hazard that they might otherwise have no way to know about.
In either of the above cases, the adventure can proceed regardless of the skill checks, but those parties that have somebody who can make the checks are at a distinct advantage.
But what happens to the narrative upon failure?What's the point of skills if they don't do anything?That's kinda where I was going with this.Maybe I was reading it wrong, but it sounded like you were waffling between two options:
1.) Assigning skill DCs for important things.
2.) Just handwaving everything important to succeed.
Skills are worthless in the second case. I would advise not going that route.
then they fail in that particular instance and have to adapt, the enemy will keep doing his plan, maybe another chance somewhere else will present itself? Maybe instead of scaling the wall they can just straight up attack the fortress.
What I would personally prefer is that if you rolled low on that check, then maybe you stepped on a twig and a guard or two went "What was that?" and one of them comes over to investigate. Things still got worse, but there's at least a chance that you could still evade detection (maybe he fails to find you and figures the noise was a rabbit or something). A consequence for failure without the whole operation falling apart at the first low roll.
Hmm. Sounds like this is a job for... GameMaster!
I don''t consider the gaming world to be a static environment where all guards must react in a single predetermined way, and I'm pretty sure you feel the same way. Although, sometimes it feels like tabletop gaming culture is headed that way.
You need consequences for failure. If players fail a skill check the narrative doesn't stop, it changes direction.
So your guys can't scale the wall, but then a patrol of guards comes around in convenient face covering helmets, you kill those guys and disguise yourselves to walk in the front gate. Suddenly your stealth mission becomes an infiltration mission.
Make Failure as Interesting as Success
Very good advice. Sometimes in my games though for super important narrative (but not combat) checks I tend to change the paradigm from PASS/FAIL to a continuum of BARELY BARE ESSENTIALS (Failed the check) <-> I HAPPEN TO BE AN EXPERT IN THIS SUBJECT (Smashed the DC). For instance lets use finding a hidden door:
Failed the check = Find evidence alluding to there being something hidden in the area (gentle DM nudge as well as something like "the stonework here seems off" or maybe even "the foot prints someone left in paint that you have been following end at this wall"); the delay in finding the door will possibly have negative consequences for the party once they are through.
Made the check = You find the hidden door, justasplanned.jpg. The trap that the party may not find on the door unless they specifically look for it now may alert the enemies inside.
Beat the DC by a decent amount = You find the hidden door; wait is that trace amounts of dried blood on the wall opposite the door? Maybe it's trapped. PCs may be able to make it through the door in time and quietly enough to get a surprise round.
Smashed the DC = You find a trapped hidden door and can vaguely hear the sound of ominous chanting from beyond. PCs will most definitely get a surprise round unless they really do something stupid, plus they are able to make a knowledge check to know what is in store for them.
From what little I've seen, most Knowledge DCs for story stuff (not monster ID) are tiered like Saldiven said.
As far as stealthing up? Remember how cryptic you as a GM are when the players make that Perception roll. 'You hear ... something over there.' Is it important? Is it just the bandits' GM messing with their heads and they'll ignore it, or send a scout to see? No camp is going to go all berserk at every snap of a twig in the night.
And as mentioned, sometimes you just have to roll with the roll. Another game I was in had our team's driver needing to make one last roll to triumphantly finish the mission. And he ... verified a critical failure. Best resolution? He drove his ramming car through the closed doors and in the ensuing wreckage impaled himself on the shifter. The rest of us got him stabilised, and it was basically worked into his history (don't ask him to show off the scars).
That's the best thing about a good GM, adapting on the fly to weird things. (Sadly, that campaign's on hold because after a while he was outright putting stuff on a 'steal me to advance plot' table and our resident sneak guy chickened out; he noticed we had a habit of ... shall we say, overplanning ... )