How do you handle this sort of thing? If a character fails at their detect traps check (assuming that doesn't itself trigger a trap), or at some kind of knowledge check, or at searching, or opening a lock, or whatever else: when do you let them try again, if ever? How do you decide that a failure means they just can't figure it out ever, and/or how do you let them try again?
On a related note, how would you justify someone trying a skill check again once without having to allow them to just keep trying until they succeed?
This is all assuming skill checks that have no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738How do you handle this sort of thing?
These days? Never. Characters don't get to repeat a "turn." And if it's no consequence, no skill roll is needed.
There's always a consequence to a failed attempt to actively use a skill, even if it's just the passage of time, which, in turn, means random encounter checks (if in a place where that's a possibility), need to eat/drink/sleep sooner, etc., even if there's not a hard deadline as such.
As for trying again, that's mostly a matter of changing the situation in some way to improve the chance of success. If you can't pick the lock by yourself, maybe having someone else help will make a difference, so I'd allow a reroll then, at least as long as it doesn't become SOP to first do everything alone instead of getting the help you need from the start.
But I don't allow that to be deliberately exploited. If you start with trying to pick the lock one-handed while standing on your head and blindfolded, I'm going to tell you not to be a jackass instead of letting you keep rerolling with one adverse factor removed each time.
1: The main question is. Is whats happening something that would logically allow a retry. And factoring in how a skill is even used.
Such as the trap. The PC/Player botches a check and for whatever reason the trap has a delay. Then maybe they get a check to see the thing arming or about to release. Otherwise no. Its an immediate thing that should be one shot. They failed, they dont know the things there and so they trigger it.
Or with say a crafting endeavor. A botch sometimes means you have to start over from scratch. I should know. I've had to! Other times a both means you can still try. Or maybe a botch means you dont even notice the flaw till its too late.
2: Again. Depends on the endeavor? Say you are carving a figurine from a gem. One botch and its ruined. No retries. But say you are working clay? A botch and you can retry, possibly more than once. Or say you are trying to leap across a chasm and fail. Maybe you get one chance to grab the edge?
3: If theres no consequence of failure then why even have checks? Id only have a check when it matters. If theres unlimited time then it boils down to skill level and/or persistence. Or materials. Assuming unlimited materials then eventually the jobs done. It might take longer than expected. But it got done.
RL example: Im working with polymer clay making a figurine. If I botch some element then I can just smooth it out and try again. And again, and again. The end product is determined by my overall skill where as each step I might fail somewhere and have to smooth out and try again, assuming I even notice a flaw.
But if I screw up the baking process then that it. And some of my early tries thats where I screwed up and theres no undoing it.
X: which brings up a factor that can be used. Say you botch one of the tries but succeed the next? Then you've introduced some flaw into the process and the end result is less than perfect. The sculpture is lopsided. You missed the jump but caught the edge. You baked the G out of the GID! ARRRGH! (did that... ARRRGH!)
A skill roll represents a best effort. Circumstances need to change before another roll can happen. A character can get assistance if that is possible (depends on the skill) and perhaps try again, or can gain more proficiency in the skill then attempt another roll.
Detecting traps is something that doesn't make sense to re-attempt. If you you make your best effort to detect a trap and find nothing why would you keep trying? If there is no trap to find then you are in an endless loop searching for something that doesn't exist. This is why rolls of this type should always be made by the DM. A player rolls 00% or a 1 on a d20 and knows that they failed. When the DM checks, the player is never sure if there is nothing to find or if the character merely failed, which is the position the character would actually find him/her self in.
In the example Omega gave regarding working with clay, I wouldn't even call for a skill roll until it was time to bake the finished product. The old D&D rules regarding crafting potions worked much the same way. The character expended X of amount of gold, and took the required time and then rolled to determine success. There might have been minor slip ups and corrections during the process but the dice are for the end results.
Beyond all that, common sense should prevail. If a task is simple enough and there is no penalty for repeated attempts then assume success and don't waste game time. Other tasks come with no do-overs. You only get one chance to make a first impression. That is one reason I'm such a fan of the old B/X reaction rolls.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738This is all assuming skill checks that have no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc.
In those cases, I let the players roll not to see if they succeed, but to see how long it takes. One roll, the better, the faster. Only if the player rolls a botch (if there are botch rules), he doesn't succeed and can't try again.
My rule of thumb has been that the player can try again when they can arrange the situation such that they would receive a bonus to the roll normally such as taking additional time, getting assistance, better tools, etc. Its a case by case thing and sense should prevail. In the rare instance of a truly stress and consequence free task then I'd just rule the character will succeed in an amount of time based on the margin of success or failure of the original roll, perhaps with a critical failure indicating some disaster the prevents them from succeeding at all if that would make things more interesting.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;958748In the example Omega gave regarding working with clay, I wouldn't even call for a skill roll until it was time to bake the finished product.
Sculpting clay and baking clay are rather different skill checks as it were. That was the point. The sculpting part you can botch and retry. The baking you pretty much get only one try at.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738How do you handle this sort of thing? If a character fails at their detect traps check (assuming that doesn't itself trigger a trap), or at some kind of knowledge check, or at searching, or opening a lock, or whatever else: when do you let them try again, if ever? How do you decide that a failure means they just can't figure it out ever, and/or how do you let them try again?
On a related note, how would you justify someone trying a skill check again once without having to allow them to just keep trying until they succeed?
This is all assuming skill checks that have no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc.
Depends on the thing. I use the thoughtful guidelines on this subject in TFT & GURPS. For something like lockpicking, it's expected there may be multiple attempts. Each successive attempt is harder than the first, as it's been established that the character has been having problems and may be on the wrong track. Each re-try corresponds to an amount of time spent, and has an increasing risk of crit fail which indicates either consequence (e.g. you make noise, which may or may not matter), or mess up what you're working on (e,g,broken lock or lockpick)), or that you're stuck in an un-working state of mind (which the GM generally doesn't tell the PC, because the GM is rolling hidden for them, but for that result, the PC might be able to try again after sleeping on it or something when they have a fresh state of mind).
Some things may be more difficult or even impossible (usually because of consequences) to re-try.
Other things should be re-try-able without penalty (e.g. trying to hit something - unless e.g. you run out of ammo or it hits back...)
That is, it can be interesting to design for repeated attempts to be expected and lead to a variety of interesting results. But it also takes a bit of statistics to not make weird gamey situations.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738How do you handle this sort of thing? If a character fails at their detect traps check (assuming that doesn't itself trigger a trap), or at some kind of knowledge check, or at searching, or opening a lock, or whatever else: when do you let them try again, if ever? How do you decide that a failure means they just can't figure it out ever, and/or how do you let them try again?
If they spend a Hero Point then they can try a reroll or another roll.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738On a related note, how would you justify someone trying a skill check again once without having to allow them to just keep trying until they succeed?
If they spend enough Hero Points they can reroll until they succeed, that is fine by me.
This is what I do. Some skill checks are still successful on failed rolls, it just means there's a complication that happens: You alert the palace, it takes too much time, the trap goes off anyway, things that keep the game moving and interesting for the players and don't make them spin their wheels and feel pointless.
But really, like all things RPG, it's a judgement call. Sometimes a door just won't open and you need to go around instead.
Sometimes failing can lead to an adventure instead of additional attempts...say your wizard or smartest party member fails her attempt to decipher an ancient map, maybe her knowledge is insufficient and no additional tries are possible and you need to go find Humberto the Hermit Sage known for his knowledge of forgotten tongues and convince/entice/bribe/force him to translate it...and so on.
In many cases, they can try again when they gain a level.
Let's say the treasure chest is trapped and Pinky the Thief is checking it out.
1) Pinky gets a Detect Traps roll when checking the chest.
2) If Pinky doesn't find the Trap or if he finds the Trap, but fails the Disarm, he gets a Save vs. Death / Poison / Magic (whatever the trap might be).
This is why I don't worry about deadly traps. There are multiple rolls / options before the Big Trouble hits, and even then there is a saving throw.
However, if Pinky wants to check for traps again before opening the chest, that's cool too. However, he is spending valuable time and I am rolling for wandering monsters.
Time is a valuable resource, sometimes more valuable than HP.
Time. And maybe consquences.
For example when searching.
First roll you find it quick with minimum disrubtion. "I think I left my keys in my coat pocket, yep they are there." or maybe its in your other coat but you find it fast and easy.
Second roll is more systematic. "Ok, not my coat. Maybe my pants? Night stand? Still in the lock? The 6 other places around the house I sometimes leave them?" so it takes longer and things get moved around. Meaning your wife is going to want you to clean up, or the mark will know his room has been searched.
Third try, systematicly go through everything. This will take a long time and will be increadibly obvious and take a long time to clean up after.
I also don't have people roll for trivial tasks. I like the Idea that a failed roll can still succeed but with consequences. Keep the game moving.
I only permit retries if the situation somehow improves in a significant way. The first roll assumes the character did as much as they could in the circumstances. Allowing open ended retries = might as well not roll at all (or just go straight to assuming they roll a 20).
I tend to give players complications on failed rolls, as well as sometimes requiring character skill advancement before new try. For instance, PCs were in a Vault crawling with feral ghouls and tried to enter the armoury. I had intentionally made the armoury lock well over their current level since the rewards would have been substantial, so barring a critical success they'd have to level up a few levels to get access to pre-war goodies. I made clear that the lock is A grade and terminal was security model, that the characters recognized as former Vault residents as nearly unhackable. They still went with greed option, and summarily failed lockpicking (critically, breaking a tool into the lock) and hacking three times. With the computer on lockdown, they now know they need either stuff like blowtorches and power tools (good luck with that stuff) or substantially better hacker to get through. Also, ferals had found them again and they lost some ammo and medicals as they fought their way through to the exit.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;958788This is what I do. Some skill checks are still successful on failed rolls, it just means there's a complication that happens: You alert the palace, it takes too much time, the trap goes off anyway, things that keep the game moving and interesting for the players and don't make them spin their wheels and feel pointless.
But really, like all things RPG, it's a judgement call. Sometimes a door just won't open and you need to go around instead.
I thoroughly agree with this. It's more interesting as well as reasonable simulation to use a single roll to determine how long it will take to finish, rather than rolling repetitively.
Silly Pundit hasn't heard of failing forward:D (dives for cover from the inevitable diatribe)
Generally, a failed skill roll is indicative of not having successfully performed whatever action was attempted. Some actions still might succeed even when bungled - provided the players put in some legwork and/or approach stuff in a sensible way, a skill roll is often more an indication of level of success (or embarrassment, depending) than pass/fail.
Failing to pick a lock might mean not being able to pick it before the goblin horde catches up with you, it might mean that you eventually pick the lock, but only after breaking half of your picks in the process, it might mean that you pick the lock, but fail to notice the trap, or it might mean that you simply fail to pick the damn lock and must find another way, period.
No skill check is an island.
You guys are making so many interesting suggestions I'm now conflicted.
Entirely situational. Locks-there are going to be locks that one simply doesn't know how to pick (I would assume, I have no real-life knowledge of lock picking), but for most of them, a talented lock-picker would eventually get assuming that failure had no repercussions. Traps and secret doors- in general if you don't spot them initially, you usually find out about them when they are sprung/someone else opens them. However, if you were locked in a prison cell with a secret door, and you spent days and days just staring at your surroundings, I'd probably let you roll again eventually to notice that that section of wall just doesn't look right. Knowledge checks- there are absolutely times when you get 'stuck' on these kind of things and putting more effort into it won't help. Here, I usually say that you cannot re-roll in the situation where the knowledge check was directly pertinent. However, I might reroll for you later on when it might be retroactively useful, but the original situation has passed (ex.: "you realize, now, after the fact, that the 'rakshasa' you shot with the blessed crossbow and left for dead in the last dungeon did not have reversed hands. Was that crossbow bolt by chance silver?").
Overall, I think the situations where this matters should be rare. The situation where there is "no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc." should be the exception and not the norm.
Quote from: Omega;9587413: If theres no consequence of failure then why even have checks?
Because you might need to know how long it takes to do something; and because there might be some things that you might not be able to do with your current abilities.
Quote from: RPGPundit;960283Because you might need to know how long it takes to do something; and because there might be some things that you might not be able to do with your current abilities.
That is a consequence of failure, though... If you succeed the skill check, then it happens as per the normal. You fail, you take longer. And if it's too hard for you to succeed at, then the player should be given other options, including going back.
After they level, or after circumstances materially change. The latter is a judgement call, but needs to be more than just "I try again, this time with a crowbar."
On the other hand, sometimes they don't even have to roll. If a thing is within a character's competence, if they're not being shot at, opposed in their efforts, and are not working under adverse circumstances, they simply succeed. So this cuts down on "I should be able to, but rolled a 1" roadblocks.
Quote from: Dumarest;959292You guys are making so many interesting suggestions I'm now conflicted.
Make a skill check vs confusion. :cool:
If the skill is a physical action (lock picking, climbing), then failure usually means that the action was performed in the standard time rather than the expedited time. A retry, if necessary, may be attempted as desired depending on the consequences. If the skill is a mental action (Lores, &c.), then the particular fact or conclusion escapes the character. A retry is not an option until the character has some access to further information, be it a library or going up a level. Spiritual actions (Presence, Intimidation, &c.) are allowed retries, but they become more difficult each time.
Quote from: Baron Opal;960360If the skill is a physical action (lock picking, climbing), then failure usually means that the action was performed in the standard time rather than the expedited time.
How does that figure? Some locks can't be picked, some walls can't be climbed... perhaps come back with better equipment but don't assume all actions are successful, just slowly.
Quote from: Simlasa;960375How does that figure? Some locks can't be picked, some walls can't be climbed... perhaps come back with better equipment but don't assume all actions are successful, just slowly.
I was generalizing. That said, situations where there is a significant disparity between the task and the character's capability are usually obvious, and a fail state can be more appropriate.
Young Oliver can get a lock open eventually, but the important part is can he do it in time? The Upright Man can just Fonzie a lock at will, but if it's magical in nature he's going to need some magical support regardless.
While Burning Wheel's "intent and task" and "let it ride" rules may not apply exactly to the old school games I also run, I would take a lot of inspiration from Burning Wheel. Make sure we understand what the player is trying to accomplish, decide if we even need to roll or not, if so, what modifies the roll, and what are the consequences of failure. Set up the consequences as often as possible such that a retry isn't possible (or isn't needed - you pick the lock but just as you open the lock, the watch comes around the corner - often we want to know "can he pick the lock before the watch arrives", and we can always give a bonus the more likely it is that the lock could be picked before the watch arrives).
Sometimes a GM may roll just to prevent players from inferring something from whether the GM is rolling or not.
If circumstances are such that the character will get there eventually don't even roll the check. They succeeded and it took X time.
In circumstances where success is impossible don't bother rolling.
Check rolls are for times when the outcome is uncertain and has dramatic impact.
Re-rolls of failed checks are allowed when something about the circumstances changes in a significant way. The character obtains a new tome of hidden and obscure lore, goes up a level or improves their skill score, obtains a better set of tools, is no longer under time pressure, etc.
But, even with re-rolls failure is still failure. The character cannot accomplish the task at this time. I don't see a point in rolling and re-rolling until they eventually succeed. If that is going to be the situation just let them succeed and move on with the game.
It doesn't matter how many times you roll as long as something always happens on a failure.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;960564It doesn't matter how many times you roll as long as something always happens on a failure.
Something always does happen on a failure, you spent a resource to make that attempt, even if that resource was only time. Yeah if there's literally no consequence for failure, not even the spending of time, then you get into the "Why the hell are you rolling?" area, but honestly, how often does that happen?
Lock picking is one of the interesting cases.
Given the tools and skills you can probably keep trying all day and eventually get it.
But there is that chance of breaking the picks. Or what if you don not have the tools and have to jurry-rig something. You might fail and realize that you are going to have to get better tools for the task. You can continue trying. You just can not continue right now. Time or resources may be wasted. Mostly time. And we all know that stuff tends to happen if you dally too long.
Quote from: Omega;961051Lock picking is one of the interesting cases.
Given the tools and skills you can probably keep trying all day and eventually get it.
But there is that chance of breaking the picks. Or what if you don not have the tools and have to jurry-rig something. You might fail and realize that you are going to have to get better tools for the task. You can continue trying. You just can not continue right now. Time or resources may be wasted. Mostly time. And we all know that stuff tends to happen if you dally too long.
As someone whose done a bit of locksmithing work, lock picks breaking is a rather common fear.
Thing is, the average fantasy mechanical lock isn't that hard to pick, a dagger could do it.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: Omega;961051Lock picking is one of the interesting cases.
Given the tools and skills you can probably keep trying all day and eventually get it.
But there is that chance of breaking the picks. Or what if you don not have the tools and have to jurry-rig something. You might fail and realize that you are going to have to get better tools for the task. You can continue trying. You just can not continue right now. Time or resources may be wasted. Mostly time. And we all know that stuff tends to happen if you dally too long.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961058As someone whose done a bit of locksmithing work, lock picks breaking is a rather common fear.
Thing is, the average fantasy mechanical lock isn't that hard to pick, a dagger could do it.
So, by the technical specifics of the task, lockpicking shouldn't be considered a situation where there's no penalty for failure? Sounds good. The situation simply isn't similar to the OP scenario then.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;961084It has to be a significant resource, though. And that's not always true of time.
And so, when you get to the situation where time is not a significant resource, some tasks become trivial.
Quote from: Omega;961051Lock picking is one of the interesting cases.
Given the tools and skills you can probably keep trying all day and eventually get it.
But what's the difference between multiple attempts per day and a single attempt which takes all day long?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;961388But what's the difference between multiple attempts per day a single attempt which takes all day long?
The nebulous nature of rpg abstraction strike again.
This is a great question, and I think is best dealt with through a rigid rule, where everyone knows how it works every time and they can make up their own mind whether or not it is worth it. The one I use is, you can try anything you want as many times as you want, but each attempt takes an 'action' (whatever that means in your system) and each additional attempt incurs a standard penalty (also will vary with system; I mostly play a house ruled variant of The Fantasy Trip, where I can just add 1 die to the roll for each extra effort attempt). In general, people might both with a second attempt but rarely want to blow the effort (and incur the critical failure chance) of a third or subsequent attempt.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961058As someone whose done a bit of locksmithing work, lock picks breaking is a rather common fear.
Thing is, the average fantasy mechanical lock isn't that hard to pick, a dagger could do it.
Mid 20th century locks are ridiculously easy to pick. My mom was a building caretaker when I was a kid. The storage room was full of tools, and with some old keys, a vice grip and an iron file, I had keys that could open the doors on any of the six buildings in the complex. With some of those old locks, any key would work. You just have to apply pressure in the direction the door opens and wiggle for a little bit. You could use a similar approach to combination locks. In junior high I was the go to guy when someone forgot their combination. Those locks were so bad I could tell them what their combination was because the lock would literally move a little when you hit a number. Don't even get me started on doors with spring loaded and fully visible latches. You just slide it with any key you want. So yeah the credit card thing actually did work, but only until around the mid 80s or so and of course in older buildings that haven't changed their locks in 40 years.
One thing that could apply here is alternate problem solving methods. A former roommate once locked himself out of his room. I made a joke about being able to get the door open in a minute with my power drill. He told me to get my drill and anytime someone gives me licence to destroy something, I do not hesitate. Those doorknob locks, you just put a 1/4" bit right through the middle of it and that lock will never bother you again. So say if a thief thought to carry a hand drill with him and hopefully someone big to use it, they could get a second chance on a failed pick roll. They are still opening a lock, but using applied force as well as knowledge of where to apply the drill. Which makes it different from just brute forcing your way through.
In a more modern setting like an office building, imagine a door with a really good lock that stumps a burglar, who then realizes he can cut a hole in the drywall next to the door.
Quote from: Omega;961051Lock picking is one of the interesting cases.
Given the tools and skills you can probably keep trying all day and eventually get it.
In d20 that was called Taking 20.
Quote from: Omega;961051But there is that chance of breaking the picks. Or what if you don not have the tools and have to jurry-rig something. You might fail and realize that you are going to have to get better tools for the task. You can continue trying. You just can not continue right now. Time or resources may be wasted. Mostly time. And we all know that stuff tends to happen if you dally too long.
MacGyver would jury rig something. An innovative thief might be able to work something out, and a DM who is willing to entertain the idea might facilitate it. And by facilitate I mean offer a solution which has it's own dangers, "Hey guys, remember those Deurgar we killed before we went through the big spider cave? Weren't they like some sort of smiths? I'm sure I saw tools and stuff laying around that we didn't loot. Yes, that means we have to go back through the spider cave and then back through it again on our way back but... Hey! Guys! Where are you going?"
Quote from: Krimson;961409Mid 20th century locks are ridiculously easy to pick. My mom was a building caretaker when I was a kid. The storage room was full of tools, and with some old keys, a vice grip and an iron file, I had keys that could open the doors on any of the six buildings in the complex. With some of those old locks, any key would work. You just have to apply pressure in the direction the door opens and wiggle for a little bit. You could use a similar approach to combination locks. In junior high I was the go to guy when someone forgot their combination. Those locks were so bad I could tell them what their combination was because the lock would literally move a little when you hit a number. Don't even get me started on doors with spring loaded and fully visible latches. You just slide it with any key you want. So yeah the credit card thing actually did work, but only until around the mid 80s or so and of course in older buildings that haven't changed their locks in 40 years.
One thing that could apply here is alternate problem solving methods. A former roommate once locked himself out of his room. I made a joke about being able to get the door open in a minute with my power drill. He told me to get my drill and anytime someone gives me licence to destroy something, I do not hesitate. Those doorknob locks, you just put a 1/4" bit right through the middle of it and that lock will never bother you again. So say if a thief thought to carry a hand drill with him and hopefully someone big to use it, they could get a second chance on a failed pick roll. They are still opening a lock, but using applied force as well as knowledge of where to apply the drill. Which makes it different from just brute forcing your way through.
In a more modern setting like an office building, imagine a door with a really good lock that stumps a burglar, who then realizes he can cut a hole in the drywall next to the door.
This matches up with my experiences, although I did a small stint in the mid to late 90's.
Quote from: Krimson;961409In d20 that was called Taking 20.
I always thought it was a dumb rule. I mean at that point you may as well just say 'Yeah, it opens.' BUT, I am not going to mock people for liking it. If it works for you, perfect, the rule has done its job. Like I stated above, and I have to actually thank Gumshoe for this, but I prefer to have failure be more than just a 'Full Stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200' situation. If I can throw an interesting complication, I would rather do that, then bog down play.
Quote from: Krimson;961409MacGyver would jury rig something. An innovative thief might be able to work something out, and a DM who is willing to entertain the idea might facilitate it. And by facilitate I mean offer a solution which has it's own dangers, "Hey guys, remember those Deurgar we killed before we went through the big spider cave? Weren't they like some sort of smiths? I'm sure I saw tools and stuff laying around that we didn't loot. Yes, that means we have to go back through the spider cave and then back through it again on our way back but... Hey! Guys! Where are you going?"
Again, dagger in lock, not to mention, you opened up some more adventure opportunities.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961420I always thought it was a dumb rule. I mean at that point you may as well just say 'Yeah, it opens.' BUT, I am not going to mock people for liking it. If it works for you, perfect, the rule has done its job. Like I stated above, and I have to actually thank Gumshoe for this, but I prefer to have failure be more than just a 'Full Stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200' situation. If I can throw an interesting complication, I would rather do that, then bog down play.
Yes take 20 was kind of pointless, but a failure does not have to mean play is bogged down unless the adventure is linear and failing a skill check stops everything. Design better adventures and the situation doesn't even become a problem.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;961388But what's the difference between multiple attempts per day a single attempt which takes all day long?
Whether or not the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738How do you handle this sort of thing? If a character fails at their detect traps check (assuming that doesn't itself trigger a trap), or at some kind of knowledge check, or at searching, or opening a lock, or whatever else: when do you let them try again, if ever? How do you decide that a failure means they just can't figure it out ever, and/or how do you let them try again?
On a related note, how would you justify someone trying a skill check again once without having to allow them to just keep trying until they succeed?
This is all assuming skill checks that have no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc.
as a player, I've noticed that multiple tries advance the game clock with our GM. So, as one of us is trying something for the nth time, a wandering monster might catch up to us, etc.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;961456as a player, I've noticed that multiple tries advance the game clock with our GM. So, as one of us is trying something for the nth time, a wandering monster might catch up to us, etc.
In the Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide they have a rule variant called Time Dice which kind of replaces Initiative and works very well for Play by Post games since players can take their turns non-sequentially. The game uses a dice pool, and you get an extra die for your Time Die depending on how quickly you move. These combine with something called Time Steps, which is a abstract way of recording time. Basically, the players declare their actions and Time Dice. If they forget to declare a Time Die, then it's assumed they take an average length for an action. Once actions and Time Dice are declared, the GM adds the Time Steps. You can improve your odds by acting slower thereby getting a higher die for your pool. The GM can attach events to Time Steps. So you might have a countdown of 100 time steps. If two of your players like to maximize the odds in their favor by taking their time, then those Time Steps are going to count down much more quickly. It uses a different mechanic than a d20ish/OSRish game but I'm sure I could figure out a system which may apply to combat, noncombat (especially) or both. The GM may or may not mention what the countdown is for which can create a sense of urgency.
Quote from: Baron Opal;961455Whether or not the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds.
Then replace 'day' with 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds and answer the same question. Also what determines whether the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds?
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;961456as a player, I've noticed that multiple tries advance the game clock with our GM. So, as one of us is trying something for the nth time, a wandering monster might catch up to us, etc.
That was the original intent.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;961652Then replace 'day' with 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds and answer the same question. Also what determines whether the task needs to be completed in 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds?
The skill and the context of the situation are the factors in question. If "everyone" can do the task in 10 minutes but the "expert" can do it in 10 seconds, that's the significant test. If the skill check succeeds, then the expert has their ducks in a row and can perform the task quickly. If not, then not.
If there is no time pressure, in this example, then there is no point in performing the check.
I'm agreeing with the premise that if there is no consequence for failure or advantage for success then the check is mostly meaningless.
Quote from: Krimson;961463In the Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide they have a rule variant called Time Dice which kind of replaces Initiative and works very well for Play by Post games since players can take their turns non-sequentially. The game uses a dice pool, and you get an extra die for your Time Die depending on how quickly you move. These combine with something called Time Steps, which is a abstract way of recording time. Basically, the players declare their actions and Time Dice. If they forget to declare a Time Die, then it's assumed they take an average length for an action. Once actions and Time Dice are declared, the GM adds the Time Steps. You can improve your odds by acting slower thereby getting a higher die for your pool. The GM can attach events to Time Steps. So you might have a countdown of 100 time steps. If two of your players like to maximize the odds in their favor by taking their time, then those Time Steps are going to count down much more quickly. It uses a different mechanic than a d20ish/OSRish game but I'm sure I could figure out a system which may apply to combat, noncombat (especially) or both. The GM may or may not mention what the countdown is for which can create a sense of urgency.
Interesting. i haven't looked into Cortex. I was going to say this reminded me of Apocalypse World's "clocks", but it actually sounds quite different.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;960564It doesn't matter how many times you roll as long as something always happens on a failure.
I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".
Quote from: RPGPundit;962049I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".
If the roll
doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to
why they failed, and
what they heed to do to try again.
Quote from: RPGPundit;962049I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".
That's a reaction, but if it stops the game from going forward (the players end up frustrated, for example) then there's something wrong. And more dice checks and hoping that the laws of averages catch up is not fun for a lot of people, and personally, I love playing with dice.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962054If the roll doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to why they failed, and what they heed to do to try again.
Yes there is. Its called a game master. If the rules assume a skill roll represents a best effort then re-rolling is only possible when circumstances change ( more skill is gained, better equipment employed, etc.) The reasons for failure may or may not be known to the player depending on the skill involved. The roll establishes success or failure. Success and failure are elements of game play. The fiction can fuck itself.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;962056That's a reaction, but if it stops the game from going forward (the players end up frustrated, for example) then there's something wrong. And more dice checks and hoping that the laws of averages catch up is not fun for a lot of people, and personally, I love playing with dice.
If a failed skill roll stops a game from continuing then that game sucks. Do not pass GO and do NOT collect $200.00. Fail forward mechanics were developed for a single reason-to rationalize the existence of shitty linear scenarios that couldn't stand up to the rigors of actual play without them. Fix the scenarios to be a bit more flexible and open and the whole need for bullshit mechanics just melts away.
Another related issue is how many
different skills need to be rolled before successfully completing a task.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;962074Yes there is. Its called a game master.
And again, what's to prevent them from having the player roll until they fail, or raise the target number to outlandish levels, or outright lie about the results?
The rules are there to establish expectations first and foremost, as if you don't know what to expect, you cannot take action with intent. So I guess if you're OK with the system only presenting the illusion of agency
and can match your actions to the GM's unstated expectations you're set. But for everyone else, it's nice to know how to actually play the game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;962074If the rules assume a skill roll represents a best effort then re-rolling is only possible when circumstances change
And who determines what these circumstances are? Because one set can be drastically easier to overcome than another. For example, using a different grappling hook is far easier than gaining another level. And if you say it's whatever the GM arbitrarily decides, you still haven't answered the original question.
Combat in traditional RPGs clearly define which changes allow for another attempt, which is why it's so often the focus. But by leaving everything else so vague they make it harder to establish expectations between groups for anything other than combat.
I'm of the school of failure = complication, whereby a complication needs to be resolved before being able to pursue the original objective again.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962214The rules are there to establish expectations first and foremost, as if you don't know what to expect, you cannot take action with intent. So I guess if you're OK with the system only presenting the illusion of agency and can match your actions to the GM's unstated expectations you're set. But for everyone else, it's nice to know how to actually play the game.
Sweet Mother of Christ, did I just read a Mother May I/Play the GM argument...in 2017...outside of The Gaming Den?
Spoiler
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/image.jpg)
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962214Another related issue is how many different skills need to be rolled before successfully completing a task.
And again, what's to prevent them from having the player roll until they fail, or raise the target number to outlandish levels, or outright lie about the results?
The rules are there to establish expectations first and foremost, as if you don't know what to expect, you cannot take action with intent. So I guess if you're OK with the system only presenting the illusion of agency and can match your actions to the GM's unstated expectations you're set. But for everyone else, it's nice to know how to actually play the game.
And who determines what these circumstances are? Because one set can be drastically easier to overcome than another. For example, using a different grappling hook is far easier than gaining another level. And if you say it's whatever the GM arbitrarily decides, you still haven't answered the original question.
Combat in traditional RPGs clearly define which changes allow for another attempt, which is why it's so often the focus. But by leaving everything else so vague they make it harder to establish expectations between groups for anything other than combat.
I'm of the school of failure = complication, whereby a complication needs to be resolved before being able to pursue the original objective again.
Well, I generally game with adults so this sort of thing isn't really a problem.
Another related issue: How many times should a player roll
until they achieve their objective? Because there's a reason combat and the like are so engaging: They require you to consider your methods and goals multiple times in the process. Seriously, resolving every situation in a single roll isn't very engaging, it is? So why is it still a thing? Why should some situations be resolved instantly while others resolved in multiple steps? And have situations which were resolved in a single step ever been the focus of an RPG?
It's also telling that my detractors can't clearly answer the initial question: When Should a PC get a Second Skill Roll? And I suspect it's because
they have no clear idea as to when the player should roll in the first place.
Quote from: CRKrueger;962215Sweet Mother of Christ, did I just read a Mother May I/Play the GM argument...in 2017...outside of The Gaming Den?
Well first, those are two different arguments.
Second, regardless of rules, it all boils down to playing the GM, because they have all the power.
Finally, what the fuck is #TheGamingDen?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;962232Well, I generally game with adults so this sort of thing isn't really a problem.
Prove it. Because most 'adults' I know won't even touch a tabletop RPG :p
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962493Another related issue: How many times should a player roll until they achieve their objective? Because there's a reason combat and the like are so engaging: They require you to consider your methods and goals multiple times in the process. Seriously, resolving every situation in a single roll isn't very engaging, it is? So why is it still a thing? Why should some situations be resolved instantly while others resolved in multiple steps? And have situations which were resolved in a single step ever been the focus of an RPG?
How would you do a blow-by-blow account of a task like picking a lock?
Quote from: RPGPundit;962049I really disagree, unless by "something" you mean "what you're attempting doesn't happen".
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962054If the roll doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to why they failed, and what they heed to do to try again.
I don't think there is much real disagreement here. Anon is just cutting things a bit finer than the rest of us do and questioning base assumptions.
In the Nine Plane campaign, anybody can pick a common lock in 10-20 minutes if they have the tools. It's not that hard, they just "keep honest people honest", so to speak. A thief can pop that sucker open in about 10-60 seconds if they have the tools and a moment to concentrate. The skill check determines if you're "on" and can perform the task in the short time frame or if you're not and require the long time frame. (Even so, it would take a thief 5-10 minutes due to their familiarity. A fighter with tools would take the 10-20 minutes.)
So, it takes one check, and success or failure is determined. A retry is pointless, as failure defines that the goal will still be reached, just with a longer time frame.
For an example of a skill where a retry may be useful, we look to Search. The PCs through a general examination of the room discover that one section of wall is composed of a different stone. They are certain that a secret door is present, they just have to find the mechanism. It takes one character 10 minutes to thoroughly search a wall, and three people can search the same area at a time. One person tries and fails. 10 minutes pass. They try again and fail again. 10 more minutes pass. Now that the rest of the room has been searched, the cleric has healed wounds, &c., two more PCs come over to help. This time, there is a success among the three of them. 10 more minutes have passed, a total of 30 minutes, and now the party hears something shlumping down the corridor...
The main results of skill checks are spending time to achieve knowledge / ignorance, access / restraint, or safety / pain. As long as your tools are still applicable to the task and the fail state is not irreversible, there is still a point in retries.
The answer to WHAT IF THE DM IS AN ASSHOLE has always been "I don't spend my one free night a week with an asshole."
Anyway...
If a skill check involves a full ten minutes of due diligence, it can't be rerolled. In my campaign, this includes searching an area for secret doors, searching a chest for a trap, attempting to disarm the trap, etc. If it is a fairly swift action, such as kicking a door in, it can be repeated up to any consequences from the first failure.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;962545How would you do a blow-by-blow account of a task like picking a lock?
You could but it seems like it would pretty dull barring other factors in the scene.
I'm curious about the complications for failure approach and it means exactly Running with the lockpicking example, what type of complications would stem from failure?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;962054If the roll doesn't establish anything in the fiction, then there's nothing preventing the player from rolling until they succeed, or the GM having the player roll until they fail. This is why #LetItRide and the like became a thing. At the very least failure should inform the player as to why they failed, and what they heed to do to try again.
There's no such thing as "the fiction". That's a term invented by morons who were trying to turn RPGs into something they're not.
RPG settings are not a 'fiction'. They're a virtual world. In a virtual world, like our real world, there should be all kinds of times when you try to do something, and nothing happens.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;962056That's a reaction, but if it stops the game from going forward (the players end up frustrated, for example).
If a single failed roll means that the entire setting just freezes, then something is clearly wrong.
Or you're playing the wrong types of games, where players are being directed in a 'story' instead of players being free agents in a virtual world. The latter is an RPG. The former is, at best, a shitty RPG run by someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
Quote from: Baron Opal;962559In the Nine Plane campaign, anybody can pick a common lock in 10-20 minutes if they have the tools.
I'm pretty sure that if someone gave me a set of lockpicking tools and a locked door, I'd still be there 72 hours later (assuming I couldn't just kick the door down).
Quote from: RPGPundit;963185If a single failed roll means that the entire setting just freezes, then something is clearly wrong.
How many old adventures had a single door out of the room, which only had ONE chance to unlock (according to the blurb in the adventure) and if you failed, you had to BACK TRACK all the way, which meant more encounters, and potential wipe out, all because the dice wouldn't fall on 35% or less?
And that's assuming that the group survive the encounter chasing them.
Also, picking a lock is not a fast affair, a good locksmith can do it in about 10-20 minutes, simply because if you screw up, the door will never open again.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963185Or you're playing the wrong types of games, where players are being directed in a 'story' instead of players being free agents in a virtual world. The latter is an RPG. The former is, at best, a shitty RPG run by someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
Sorry, Mate, but nope. Stories happen all the time, never had a military vet in the family ever tell you what happened at a posting? Or watch the news and found out about shooting that happened earlier that day? Those are STORIES of what happened.
Oh, lemme tell you of a session I ran of Sunless Citadel on Wednesday the 17th of May, 2017. It's Story Time!
So I'm running a fresh crew down the AL Yawning Portal game, and we have a Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric and Monk. And after scaling down the side of the ravine, they see the landing, inspect the ash filled firepit, but don't find any clues on the previous adventurers that were commissioned to find. They decide to continue down the switch back stairs to the lower level when giant, hungry rats attack!
What followed next was a comedy of errors, as the rats, although not having surprise (the monk did really well on the Survival check) they Rats of Unusual Size, got to attack first and one of them manages to bite through the leather armour of the party Thief is a very fleshy spot! He went down! (Was a crit on the die, and max damage on 2d4+2) The rest of the rats weren't as lucky, so the Monk spears one of the animals, which is the size of a rottweiler over the edge! (actually, the hit insta-killed the rat, so the player wanted to throw it off the stairs, I figured, why not.)
And so it continues with the young, near-sighted Fighter missing most of his strikes, but manages to cleave one in twain. The Cleric manages to bring back the Rogue, then brains the ROUS menacing him, the Ranger nails another. Until finally, one last rat remains and it decides to bug out. All its friends are dead, and it's hurting badly with an arrow sticking out of its left eye socket. And the players wanting it dead, give one last hurrah. And the rat manages to dodge the arrow, the Sacred Flame and dagger thrown at it, making good on its escape!
That was the first hour of yesterday's session. And that is a STORY that happened in D&D. Something that could easily be written in to a small short story if you really want to.
The disconnect, I think we're having is that your main complaint about systems like Cortex, or FATE, or 2D20, is that those systems have a mechanical layer that abstracts the player from the character. A system that allows players to wrest control of the world from the DM so they can change things. Or there's a mechanic that tries to tell players HOW their supposed to react to a certain situation, like WoD's Humanity tract, or Call of Cthulu's Sanity metric.
Personally, I think all of them are flawed, in that players on one hand, lose agency to their characters, and doesn't allow for them to decide how they react, the Humanity track was infamous for that around here (which I fully admit is ANECDOTAL and non-reflective of the experience of anyone else.)
I dislike Cortex Marvel as a player. I DON'T want to change the GM's vision of events outside of what I say my character does and what the dice tell me happen (success, failure or degrees of either.)
But stories? Stories HAPPEN, and happen NATURALLY as we play our favourite games of Make Believe is Polyhedrons (unless you're playing Amber, and it's Make Believe with Mother May I), so I disagree there.
If a skill check stops the players, and makes them lose interest in what is happening at the table, then you, the DM has failed. It doesn't matter if you allow one or a hundred and one rolls for success, you the GM need to gauge the mood at the table decide if the failure requires backtracking, or if it means it LOOKS like a success, but there's a complication that happens sooner or later.
If players are frustrated, then the game stops. All that work means nothing if they're not engaged.
SO let me repeat myself, I believe that all you need is ONE skill check and it's up to the DM/GM to decide what happens next. Like every single D&D game I've ever run or played in.
And the You I'm using is the General You, not you specifically Pundit. If I'm referring to a person, then it's personal (As in I'm talking to the poster directly.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;963202Also, picking a lock is not a fast affair, a good locksmith can do it in about 10-20 minutes, simply because if you screw up, the door will never open again.
Depends on the type of lock and tool, as well as the torque you need. Most locks you can pick all day. You make the internals too fragile someone's going to break them through normal use. A standard door-handle lock or padlock, take a good thief or locksmith less than a minute. Deadbolts and special security locks are something different. But a lot of door locks can be bumped faster than picked.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963185If a single failed roll means that the entire setting just freezes, then something is clearly wrong.
Or you're playing the wrong types of games, where players are being directed in a 'story' instead of players being free agents in a virtual world. The latter is an RPG. The former is, at best, a shitty RPG run by someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
Even if you're doing a railroad-style story-adventure, having a pass/fail skill check that blocks progress is fundamentally bad design.
Quote from: CRKrueger;963248Depends on the type of lock and tool, as well as the torque you need. Most locks you can pick all day. You make the internals too fragile someone's going to break them through normal use. A standard door-handle lock or padlock, take a good thief or locksmith less than a minute. Deadbolts and special security locks are something different. But a lot of door locks can be bumped faster than picked.
I've uh... Managed to jam a basic house lock by breaking the pick in it... It's um, a special... Talent, yeah, that's what we'll call it.
Bumping works because of all the moving parts in most modern locks, the older ones are much... I hesitate to use the word sturdy, but they have thicker bits, which makes picking them a bit of a strength based affair. Still, it's not a fast job by any means of the word.
Characters get one try on knowledge-based checks--they either know a thing, or they don't.
When it comes to other skills, I let them have as many tries as they want, but each try takes a certain amount of time (and may possibly produce noise or draw attention).
At the very least, there should be the
possibility of something happening on a failure.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;962545How would you do a blow-by-blow account of a task like picking a lock?
That depends on whether picking a lock is more akin to a single roll to hit, or several rolls to kill a monster. And how often does lock picking include avoiding traps and the like?
Quote from: RPGPundit;963183There's no such thing as "the fiction".
Yeah. That's why it's called
#Fiction.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963183RPG settings are not a 'fiction'. They're a virtual world.
A virtual world is fictional.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963183In a virtual world, like our real world, there should be all kinds of times when you try to do something, and nothing happens.
Nothing never happens in the real world, let alone a virtual one.
Every action has an 'equal and opposite' reaction.
Achieving one's
intent on the other hand...
Quote from: The Scythian;963751Characters get one try on knowledge-based checks--they either know a thing, or they don't.
Or they just can't recall it at the moment, like what happens when one forgets where they left their keys or the name of that famous actor.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;963776Nothing never happens in the real world, let alone a virtual one.
Counterexample: My attempts to ask girls out in high school.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;963202How many old adventures had a single door out of the room, which only had ONE chance to unlock (according to the blurb in the adventure) and if you failed, you had to BACK TRACK all the way, which meant more encounters, and potential wipe out, all because the dice wouldn't fall on 35% or less?
I don't know. How many? Offhand I can't think of any. There might be a couple, but I sure can't name them. Can you? Or did you just pull this imagined scenario out of your ass?
QuoteSorry, Mate, but nope. Stories happen all the time, never had a military vet in the family ever tell you what happened at a posting? Or watch the news and found out about shooting that happened earlier that day? Those are STORIES of what happened.
Stories are formed as an incidental side-effect of life. In a proper RPG, stories may or may not be told of what happened the way stories can be told about your fishing trip or golf game or vacation to Aruba.
But life itself is not a story. People sometimes get locked in a closet and just die there. Dudes who look like they're on the heroes' journey for a little bit get killed by a stray bullet in a meaningless battle, or fall off a ladder.
In real life, if you get locked out of a room, the door doesn't open because you are 'meant to' get through it. Nor will someone magically arrive to aid you because you failed to open the door yourself.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;963202How many old adventures had a single door out of the room, which only had ONE chance to unlock (according to the blurb in the adventure) and if you failed, you had to BACK TRACK all the way, which meant more encounters, and potential wipe out, all because the dice wouldn't fall on 35% or less?
Old school doors have hit points.
Quote from: RPGPundit;958738How do you handle this sort of thing? If a character fails at their detect traps check (assuming that doesn't itself trigger a trap), or at some kind of knowledge check, or at searching, or opening a lock, or whatever else: when do you let them try again, if ever? How do you decide that a failure means they just can't figure it out ever, and/or how do you let them try again?
On a related note, how would you justify someone trying a skill check again once without having to allow them to just keep trying until they succeed?
This is all assuming skill checks that have no particular consequence for failure other than not getting what they wanted; i.e., no monsters attack, no traps go off, no external time limit to figure things out, etc.
This is why I actually liked the take 10/20 skill thing from 3rd Edition D&D: I might be mis-remembering some things, but you could take 10 on most skill checks if you weren't bring rushed or threatened, and you could take 20 on a skill check that didn't have consequences for failure (and I recall that in 3rd Edition Revised they actually mentioned which skills you could take 10/20 on). Don't know if knowledge/lore skills were among the take 10 group, but I don't think so.
So, if the players wanted to get up a wall, so long as they weren't being rushed or threatened they could just all take 10, and if anyone still couldn't pull it off you could just lower a rope for them.
If you wanted to search a room up and down for hidden passages, you could take 20 for each area, effectively taking 20 times as long but acting like you eventually got a 20 + all your other mods. Since take 20 required that there couldn't be consequences for failure, you couldn't take 20 while climbing (you might fall) or disabling a trap (you might trip it), but you could do it when picking a lock since by default there weren't any penalties for failure (though if there was a trap set to go off if anyone tampered with the lock you'd trip it).
Take 20 makes it clear to the player whether or not the lock is beyond their skill, and that as far as they can tell there aren't any traps or hidden doors about. Maybe. DC could just be a point higher than all your mods + 20. It also avoids the notion that there either
must be some sort or consequence OR you just let them through. Sometimes you just can't pick the lock: why not try bashing it open, tunneling around, or finding/hiring someone more skilled than you to give it a shot?
For knowledge skills I just interpret the roll as they know this thing or they don't (and if it's something I think they should know I just give it to them). I might allow a re-roll if I think information comes to light that might give them an "Ah-ha!" moment, but they might also just figure it out on their own or get the answer more directly, such as by reading a book or talking to an NPC.
Quote from: Krimson;964201Old school doors have hit points.
Yes. There's also the Knock spell, chimes of opening, etc.