(Dialogue) skill checks: which is better any why?

[denizsi]

Rolling until success isn't entirely bad. It becomes dull in a PnP but it can become a viable and interesting tactical choice in a computer game. In a place patrolled by guards or passage of time, say in a place that you need to get in, do whatever you are there to do and get out, it's how much you commit to things like this that will your define your experience.

 

[Mastermind]

No. The one check they roll IS the best check they can do.

Except it isn't, unless they roll a 20. That you arbitrarily don't let them roll again is not really relevant.

 

[Shemar]

No. The one check they roll IS the best check they can do.

Except it isn't, unless they roll a 20. That you arbitrarily don't let them roll again is not really relevant.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. When a character actively searches for something hidden, there is no reason to assume he is doing anything but his best. If there is no pressure in time the rules allow him to 'take 10' (not 20). But once the roll is rolled that is the final result (unless other actions add positive modfiers in which case a re-roll is allowed).

In combat or in skill challenges things are a bit different. DCs are much higher to account for the pressure to perform and in that case a character is not assumed to be doing their best in every attempt, so they can re-try but the loss of combat actions (or the accumulation of failures in a skill challenge) make these re-rolls very costly.

Under no circumstances does the character have the luxury of infinite re-rolling until they succeed. Skill challenges require 4-12 (depending on complexity) successes before 3 failures occur and many skill challenges will block an avenue of further progress if a specific skill check is failed even once.

These are not house rules, it is my best interpretation of the DnD rules as written and I don't see anything I would want to run differently.

 

[zenbitz]

What.

Even in D&D the DM can make a hidden check. Like, when rolling for a sense traps check, the DM just says "You don't see any traps." after rolling, and not "You failed your roll therefore you don't see any traps, OH HEY THIS IS LIKE TOTALLY A HINT THAT THERE ARE TRAPS AND YOU JUST DIDN'T FIND THEM"

That's not hidden. You can see your own roll. So if you get a 2 you could always roll again until you get something close to 20. If you still don't find traps then there's only one other way to find them if they're there anyway.

A better analogy to what I was responding to would be to have the player check for traps automatically and never bother to tell him what he's doing. Either he find the trap automatically with his eyes or he finds the trap automatically with his foot. That's considerably different from how D&D handles it (assuming it's the same as in the video games)

JarlFrank has it right. A good and useful GM (IRL) will make this roll for you. An especially dastardly one will make "fake" hidden rolls because the fact the the GM is EVEN ROLLING is information the PC shouldn't have.

And PnP D&D is surprising not really anything like video game D&D except for the same names for things and the same "rules". The Metarules are totally different.

Of course different groups play differently. And there is is a "flavor" of D&D and like games that is reflected in cRPG D&D. It's what the card game "Munchkin" is about.

Furthermore, a real live GM (or even an on-line human in an MMORPG) can respond and adapt to players doing Muchkiny, lame, or stupid things like spending and hour in each room looking for traps because, hey, my PC care if this game takes all night. So the GM can first warn, then arbitrarily punish you if he feels you are metagaming.

 

[Mastermind]

There is nothing arbitrary about it. When a character actively searches for something hidden, there is no reason to assume he is doing anything but his best.

If he's not rolling a 20 then he's not doing his best since he could potentially do better. That's kinda the definition of "best" really. It means you can't go any higher.

 

[Shemar]

There is nothing arbitrary about it. When a character actively searches for something hidden, there is no reason to assume he is doing anything but his best.

If he's not rolling a 20 then he's not doing his best since he could potentially do better. That's kinda the definition of "best" really. It means you can't go any higher.

That is monumental bull. Billions of people take on tasks every day and they do their best to accomplish them. Does that mean they couldn't possibly do any better? Of course not. It just means that is the best they could do based on their current situation, task, frame of mind and external pressures and limitations. That is what the die roll represents. The character's skill is already pre-determined. The die does not represent how hard a character tries. They always do their best. The die represents how well their best fared against all the things they can't control. So unless the situation changes, there are no re-rolls. Not doing their best would be the equivalent of having Perception 12 but only using 8 of it in the skill check.

@zenbitz: I do it a bit differently because I want the players to roll the die that finally determines the result but I don't want them to know how well they did. So I roll a 'shift' die first and then have them roll their d20. The two numbers are added and 20 subtracted if the result is >21. The results are statistically exactly the same, except the player has no idea of how well the number they rolled was as the target ideal number has shifted.

 

[zenbitz]

@zenbitz: I do it a bit differently because I want the players to roll the die that finally determines the result but I don't want them to know how well they did. So I roll a 'shift' die first and then have them roll their d20. The two numbers are added and 20 subtracted if the result is >21. The results are statistically exactly the same, except the player has no idea of how well the number they rolled was as the target ideal number has shifted.

Yeah, you don't even have to roll a shift die, just pick a number in your head (you can't cheat... you're the GM!)

 

[Mastermind]

That is monumental bull. Billions of people take on tasks every day and they do their best to accomplish them.

Actually at every job I've worked at there was 1 or 2 guys who did their best and the rest did mediocre to the bare minimum (if that). So I highly doubt that "billions of people" do their best every day.

Does that mean they couldn't possibly do any better? Of course not. It just means that is the best they could do based on their current situation, task, frame of mind and external pressures and limitations. That is what the die roll represents.The die does not represent how hard a character tries. They always do their best. The die represents how well their best fared against all the things they can't control.

Which would be what? Which things that you can't control justify a variance of 20 points on a check (the maximum is bigger than the actual skill in most D&D games). AFAIK D&D already has representations for disease, fatigue, curses, etc. There is nothing out there that justifies a D20 die if that's what it's meant to represent. So either you're making this shit up or the D&D system is utterly retarded and should not be used as an argument for good design.

 

[Shemar]

Actually at every job I've worked at there was 1 or 2 guys who did their best and the rest did mediocre to the bare minimum (if that). So I highly doubt that "billions of people" do their best every day.

Fair enough. In my job and social circle the deadbeat population is minimal. That does not change the nature of my argument.

Which would be what? Which things that you can't control justify a variance of 20 points on a check (the maximum is bigger than the actual skill in most D&D games). AFAIK D&D already has representations for disease, fatigue, curses, etc. There is nothing out there that justifies a D20 die if that's what it's meant to represent. So either you're making this shit up or the D&D system is utterly retarded and should not be used as an argument for good design.

These factors would be determined by the situation. As an example if you are searching for a secret door whether your eyes fall on the cracks at the same time as the flickering torch is illuminating them, whether enough dust and dirt has accumulated as to make any signs of the door undetectable, whether you are able to properly concentrate on the task without your companions yapping about some nonsense or another etc. etc. Based on the actual task the roll represents I could come up with a multitude of reasons for success or failure that are not dependant on the character's skill at all.

Also the variance does not matter as you only have a success or failure you do not have degrees of failure and the DCs are determnined while taking the expected skill level into account. So a DM simply determines if the task is easy, medium or hard. The d20 simply allows for more nuanced setup. When it comes down to it a skilled character will have roughtly 80% chance to do an easy task, 60% chance to do a medium task and 30% chance to do a hard task. You could achieve the same success ratios using anything from a d8 to a d100, the only reason a d20 is used is because that is the base die for the system.

 

[JarlFrank]

How about: random rolls add suspense and fun to the game. Without them, traps would become boring. You either find them or you don't. Making a roll to find traps, and judging from it whether there actually aren't any (if you threw a 20 and didn't find any) or if you just didn't find them (if you threw a 5 or something), is fun.

If we assume the player to always roll a 20, or let him roll until he rolls a 20 (which means sitting around doing the same roll over and over again for 5 minutes, with everyone else getting bored), then all traps the DM placed will either be found with 100% certainty, or will not be found with 100% certainty. Both options are rather boring. Letting people roll once or twice is the best solution, since it's the most fun solution.

And stop arguing about realism of skill checks. I love realism, but it shouldn't affect everything. Fun is still the most important part of gameplay, and rolling a die till you hit 20 is not fun.