Quote from: Skywalker;594413So, if death is the result of failed dice roll and you fail, your PC is dead. I am sure that there are instances of story-games that are an exception to that (for example, in a game where death isn't even possible under the system or a player may have some right to set stakes on a failure) but the same can be said of RPGs too.

That's my experience as well.

"You shouldn't die from a random orc" I've seen only in trad games gone ... dragonlancy. (Or warhammery, with fate points and such.)

Also, I've seen it in storytelling games that were designed around the r.g.f.a. crowd between the VTM craze and the Forge, like one game that had a "three strikes and you're out" rule, where the details of "out" were to be decided by the player. "You don't have to die if you don't want to."]

This sounds an awful lot like 'Say Yes or Roll the Dice' stated differently.

Also, what do the dice represent? Opposition? Ability? Pure Chance? When you roll and why will change based on that too.

Personally, after decades of being way to involved in RPGs, I believe the only kind of tests should be extended ones, and I find the division most RPGs put between Simple, Opposed, and Extended tests to be deeply flawed, both conceptually and executionally.

Fine, let's get technical.

What is "rolling the dice"? A recognition that at any given time, you may do better or worse than your basic skill might indicate. Some days you got it, some days you fall apart.

Regular Challenge: Generate a Skill Total ("roll") and compare it to a Difficulty Rating (set by the inherent difficulty of the Challenge plus situational modifiers). Examples: Golf, per hole. Some kinds of combat.

Opposed Challenge: Generate a Skill Total ("roll") against another character who is also simultaneously generating their own Skill Total ("roll") in an attempt to degrade yours (and is hence directly opposing you). The better they do, the worse you do. Examples: Arm wrestling, other kinds of combat.

Open Challenge: Generate a Skill Total ("roll"), and the higher a Total you generate, the better you did. There is no inherent Difficulty Rating, just a list of "this high equals this result" guidelines. Examples: Forgery, Artistry, Crafting.

Yes, each of these is different. Each is meaningfully different. Each has their place.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;594791"You shouldn't die from a random orc" I've seen only in trad games gone ... dragonlancy. (Or warhammery, with fate points and such.

That's because in actual roleplaying games people care about their characters, which is how the phenomenon of roleplaying got started in the first place.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;594841Yes, each of these is different. Each is meaningfully different. Each has their place.

Exactly.

The entire point of making an non-opposed check to to set a reasonable difficulty that the character needs to attain to get the desired result. If it is impossible, then no check in the universe will pass.

If you search a wall for a hidden door, and there is no hidden door, then you can search until the end of time, and unless you find a way to phase through the wall by a fluke of physics, then you will find nothing there.

Rolling to observe your surroundings decides how much attention you are paying at that time. If you are spending 100% of your time focused on one thing (say, taking a '20' to Spot while on watch), then you are focused only on one point of view, and may not notice something behind you. It decides luck in your actions, and your degree of attentiveness in your activities.

Likewise, if you have a penalty to failure, the check is even more crucial. Let's say that you have a trapped mechanism. A DC of 30 (or more) will open it normally, disabling the trap, a 25 will disable the trap or open it, but not both, and a 20 or less triggers the trap. If you use botches, then a natural-1 (activated) will trigger the trap with catastrophic results of some kind.  

If I require the characters to notice something, and it is mandatory, I make it evident by stating it in the story, but I do so without giving away too much detail. If they examine it more closely, they may gain more detail, but I may call for a Knowledge, Lore or other check to decide if they understand what they have observed. If they have already failed a roll on the subject, then no roll in the future will give them a success until they research the topic, and if they passed in the past, they will likely remember it when needed (i.e. now).

While 'tis possible to run a game with no such checks, they add probability flavours, more possibilities, drama and other goodness to the story.

If every time someone wanted to unlock a locked door--having once picked a lock in their life--and they would always succeed no-matter how tricky the mechanism was, then we would not use keys.

Likewise, you can watch a programme once, twice, or a thousand times and never notice some small detail in the film, and have a mate say 'Look at that in the corner', as you were focused on some other part of the action every time you had previously seen it, and now notice some new detail because it was noted by your mate.

We fail non-opposed checks on a regular basis in real-life, so why not in a simulated environment? We've all dropped a tea-cup, forgotten some detail on a shopping list, or tripped on the threshold in a house we've lived in for years.

The only time not to need such checks is when a character is being meticulous, or just taking their time until they reach the desired result. These can only work when there is no chance of any repercussions from failing, or any stress on the time required to complete the task.

If you overheat an IC, you could damage it when soldering. That is a repercussion. If you take your time writing a novel, you may get a lawsuit from your publisher. That too, is a repercussion.

If you are drawing a design for yourself, in your spare time, and want it perfect, you can spend hours, days or even years doing and re-doing it until it is right. That, is being meticulous. If you proof a document at a glance (say, taking a '10' in d20 terms), you might miss an error. If you 'take a 20', you will probably find it, but it will require going over it very slowly, or many times to spot it.

One of the ways past this is a rule that I often follow: If it is something you do all the time, there are no conditional circumstances that make it unusually difficult, and nothing new is really involved, then a check isn't required. You don't need to roll a check to send an e-mail (although, you may for composing its contents), or to light a match, or open a door, or drive casually in light traffic (assuming the other drivers around you are sane and rational, and are paying attention).  

You do need a check to design a new schematic, but not to use the tools that you require for that, assuming you routinely use them. Let's say you are playing SPRG: If you are an engineer, you roll Sciences to design something, but you don't need to roll Technology Use to actually plot the deigns in software.

If you were using my other system ('Zoria'), you would need to roll Knowledge (Electronics) and Applied Science (E/M Engineering) to make your design, but you do not need to roll Use Scientific Apparatus to use the computer on which you are designing it, as long as you are familiar with the system. Being familiar is a story-event, and you can either start-off with that kind of familiarity, or learn it in the context of the story.

If you were to play Eric's 'P&W/Epiphany' system, you would likely need to make several different sciences skill rolls to formulate the design, but nothing to actually plot it. In RIFTS, this would be an Electronics roll, or something like that. (Aye, it's been a while.)

The point of these lengthy examples is that you need to check on the new part of what you are doing, not the stuff you do constantly or routinely, because there is no really way to fail, unless you fall asleep on the job, or are under duress of some kind (e.g. to finish quickly, have a gun to your head, etc.), in which case, there is a ramification for failing, and a stress-factor involved, so a check on the skill you would normally pass with ease is mandatory.

That said, some of these non-opposed checks are potentially reverse-opposed checks as well. Spot is opposed by Hide; Cryptology by itself; many Engineering and Science checks by Knowledge or the Science check used to make the thing that you are studying.

A good example is Reverse-Engineering: Your difficulty is the difficulty check of whomever made what you are reverse-engineering. If he designed it with a 27, then you have a DC 27 (maybe 28, if you require it to be higher than the difficulty of the design) to understand it.

Another good check that could be either opposed or reverse-opposed is to deduce the ingredients in food via an Olfactory check. This could have a base-difficulty, or be opposed by the check that the chef made when preparing it, or a little of both.

The reverse-opposed check, used for setting difficulty, is an oft-ignored concept that I use quite a bit.

The final point of a normal, non-opposed check is environmental difficulties. It is easy-peasy to light a match under normal circumstances, but try doing it in the breeze. The repercussion of failing is a wasted mach. If you have a truckload of matches, then who cares; but if you have one matchbox in your vest-pocket, then it matters a great deal. If you have but one match to light a lamp in a dark prison cell (i.e. 'Doctor Who: City of Death'), you had better get it right the first time.

I've ended up with an empty matchbox and an unlit pipe or cigar several times in my life. I've even filled a pipe, put it in my coat pocket, and shoved an already-empty matchbox in my vest, and ended up out of doors with a pipe and no matches. A lot of good that does me; failing a spot, or memory roll happens on a regular basis in real-life too, so yes, these non-opposed checks do matter. (X|S)

P.S. Having no skills makes some sense in a Superheros game, where most of the game is spent using your super-funky-powers, and not doing any mundane tasks (unless you're Batman).

Quote from: MagesGuild;594844If I require the characters to notice something, and it is mandatory, I make it evident by stating it in the story, but i do so without giving away too much detail. If they examine it more closely, they may gain more detail, but I may call for a Knowledge, Lore or other check to decide of they understand what they have observed. If they have already failed a roll on the subject, then no roll in the future will give them a success until they research the topic, and if they passed in the past, they will likely remember it when needed (i.e. now).

You have successfully researched the topic when you see your rogue friend impaled by the spike trap he just catastrophically failed to disarm . Just seeing where the spike came from, and how it was triggered will give you an advantage the next time you come across this type of trap. Hopefully the rogue will live. If he does live, he has also successfully researched the topic (even though his first research result was spectacularly unsuccessful).

Quote from: MagesGuild;594844Likewise, you can watch a programme once, twice, or a thousand times and never notice some small detail in the film, and have a mate say 'Look at that in the corner', as you were focused on some other part of the action every time you had previously seen it, and now notice some new detail because it was noted by your mate.

One of the more interesting jobs I had in the past involved working in a warehouse and picking orders. Now the orders were entered into an invoice system, and then went to the warehouse with about 6,000 different products where they were then packed and prepared for shipping on a high-volume assembly line. One could pick and pack for weeks without making a single mistake. All the boxes were double-checked to ensure order accuracy and we had almost a perfect shipping rate. But there were days when pickers (including myself) would get pulled and given other jobs for a day or two, because we couldn't pack three boxes in a row correctly, repeatedly... an unpredictable and interesting breakdown in the mental process required to focus occurred. Sometimes this was caused by products being placed in the wrong location for shipping, sometimes this was caused by the picker being tired, or bored, and sometimes there was no apparent cause at all.

What I learned from this job is even if you are highly trained and skilled, and are really competent at what you do, being just a bit tired, or bored, or having your confidence disrupted by having something in the process out of place, will cause a dramatic (but temporary) increase in failures.

Quote from: MagesGuild;594844We fail non-opposed checks on a regular basis in real-life, so why not in a simulated environment? We've all dropped a tea-cup, forgotten some detail on a shopping list, or tripped on the threshold in a house we've lived in for years.

The only time not to need such checks is when a character is being meticulous, or just taking their time until they reach the desired result. These can only work when there is no chance of any repercussions from failing, or any stress on the time required to complete the task.

The point of these lengthy examples is that you need to check on the new part of what you are doing, not the stuff you do constantly or routinely, because there is no really way to fail, unless you fall asleep on the job, or are under duress of some kind (e.g. to finish quickly, have a gun to your head, etc.), in which case, there is a ramification for failing, and a stress-factor involved, so a check on the skill you would normally pass with ease is mandatory.

I still stand by my use of a quiet unopposed GMs spot check for the unwary Mage that is surprised by the rogue/thief type sneak attacker, because the Mage

1) Might be busy focusing on something else (like all the other fighting going on around him at the time)...
2) Just might be having an unlucky day...
3) Might have overextended himself/herself...

If the Mage makes the check, as a GM, I can alert him to the newest most immediate threat, so he can change his melee choices. If he fails an unexpected (and yes unpleasant) surprise occurs where a rogue gets a surprise melee round (with flanking bonuses).

The NPC Rogue still has to make a sneak check as well, otherwise does something stupid or clumsy that gets the Mages attention...

Hey, It happens.

Quote from: Ladybird;592790Spot Hidden (And other perception-like abilities) don't have interesting failures, though - "you failed. You see nothing". Outside of a few, rare, occurrences... that tends not to be fun..

That depends entirely on what it is they didn't see.
"you failed to see the signs of ambush up ahead" is interesting.
"you didn't find the main clue necessary to solve the mystery" isn't.

Knowing when and when not to call for a roll is a key GMing skill.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;592825And, as I pointed out therein, one of the reasons i like the Doom Pool, in MHR, is that everything is simple, open and transparent.

When I GM, everything is simple, open, and transparent as well. No matter the system.

QuoteEven if you don't tell the player why he is rolling, it's still against the Doom Pool. ONe of the thigns I hate as a GM is having to adjudicate difficulties and modifiers; it's not realistic, it's dry and boring.

It's significantly more realistic than a rising and falling difficulty that's ultimately based on scene pacing.

Quote from: Skywalker;594030I think fudging success is characteristic of conventional RPGs,

and I think story gaming just took fudging success and enshrined it as a key mechanic by allowing players to set stakes, narrate failures however they like, and permitting veto powers. it's just a big fudgefest "oh that failure on Lockpicking doesn't mean I failed to pick the lock, it just means I have a dramatic sword fight after doing so!" is just bullshit fudging.

Anything with narrative control mechanics as a primary resolution system is all about who gets to "fudge" the die results into whatever they want them to be.

Story games accept character failure, but only when it aligns with player desires. Story games were explicitly designed to protect against player failure.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;594806This sounds an awful lot like 'Say Yes or Roll the Dice' stated differently.

Also, what do the dice represent? Opposition? Ability? Pure Chance? When you roll and why will change based on that too.

Personally, after decades of being way to involved in RPGs, I believe the only kind of tests should be extended ones, and I find the division most RPGs put between Simple, Opposed, and Extended tests to be deeply flawed, both conceptually and executionally.

Why extended? Explain yourself!

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594898When I GM, everything is simple, open, and transparent as well. No matter the system.

How fair does this extend to? Do you provide an explanation on how you went about creating each monster, designing each encounter and applying various modifers for each roll? No matter how you cut it, some of the GM's mechanical workings in an RPG are not going to be simple, open, and transparent. The application of GM discretion is a part of what prevents an RPG from being a boardgame or wargame.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;594024Is there any point to having players make rolls for actions that are opposed?

of course.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594897That depends entirely on what it is they didn't see.
"you failed to see the signs of ambush up ahead" is interesting.
"you didn't find the main clue necessary to solve the mystery" isn't.

Knowing when and when not to call for a roll is a key GMing skill.

Part of being a good GM is also not setting up a scenario with only a binary option, i.e. they find the clue and succeed, or miss it and totally fail.

I litter my campaigns with clues and sub-plots. Some groups pick up on the subtleties easily, some...well, not so much. I just had to rapid finish a Star Wars campaign (I had to move to another State for work, was back on vacation and we decided to wrap it up). There was about 5 things that happened in the last game, where the players went "We should have SEEN that coming..."

Failure should never stop a game dead, but it does deny the PC's the ability to counter a disadvantage, or set up an Advantage of their own.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594897"you failed to see the signs of ambush up ahead" is interesting.
"you didn't find the main clue necessary to solve the mystery" isn't.

True, but one of the articles Justin Alexander has posted on his blog is about the three-clue rule.

Always plant 3 clues pointing to the next step in the mystery. That way, they can miss 2/3 and still have a chance of going in the right direction.

Seems like a solid rule-of-thumb to me. It avoids just this problem.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;594944Why extended? Explain yourself!

Well other than the fact it can replace all the other test types, it resolves the inconsistencies many RPGs end up having in their implementations. For example in FATE you can actually get the equivalent of a +8 in an Opposed roll (you: +4, Opponent: -4), but only a +4 in a Static one.

And lets face it, Extended tests build excitement. That's why combat in D&D is an Extended test (sometimes TOO extended). And as D&D Skill Challenges have shown, an Extended test is NOT simply a bunch of Static tests made in a row. In an Extended test each sub action affects the next, and gives you a chance to reconsider your action at every step, providing additional results or information in which to make that decision.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;594841Regular Challenge: Generate a Skill Total ("roll") and compare it to a Difficulty Rating (set by the inherent difficulty of the Challenge plus situational modifiers). Examples: Golf, per hole. Some kinds of combat.

While your description is sound, your examples kill it dead. Golf is the very definition of an Extended test (hell, that's how they SCORE IT). And combat is the ORIGINAL Extended test.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;594841Opposed Challenge: Generate a Skill Total ("roll") against another character who is also simultaneously generating their own Skill Total ("roll") in an attempt to degrade yours (and is hence directly opposing you). The better they do, the worse you do. Examples: Arm wrestling, other kinds of combat.

Another system that has trouble with this is RQ/Legend, where you have to pass a Regular challenge BEFORE the result is applied to an Opposed one. So what ends up happening is that you're more likely to fail, and yet more likely to score a crit when you succeed. Wonky.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;594841Open Challenge: Generate a Skill Total ("roll"), and the higher a Total you generate, the better you did. There is no inherent Difficulty Rating, just a list of "this high equals this result" guidelines. Examples: Forgery, Artistry, Crafting.

And strangely enough, these are all individually REGULAR Challenges. They are also very vague and indirect, which is the case I usually find for so called 'open' rolls. Things like Forgery, Arts, and Crafts are given value based on what they can be used to DO, or what EFFECT they have, after they're finished. In that way they can be used as bonuses on future skill tests, and in that way provide direction and momentum to an EXTENDED test.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;594841Yes, each of these is different. Each is meaningfully different. Each has their place.

No, they aren't. They're arbitrary differences which add nothing but complexity to a game, and are typically so poorly implemented that the game ends up having weird probability issues. Most annoyingly fixing these issues sometimes steps into weird psychology where some players don't 'feel' right about rolling for 'static' obstacles. Which is fine, as long as they don't expect me to not point out how silly they're being.