|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 1, 2013 2:41:39 GMT -6
I've been pondering about general skills lately. Having played with quite a few 3E guys lately, I'm hating the D20 system, for numerous reasons. The reliance on roll-playing, and in fact discouraging of problem solving is almost painful. However there are certain things that must be delegated to dice rolls, for game reasons. Surprise rolls are an immediate example, and so is finding Secret doors, and even springing traps. All of those rules are presented in "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures", usually relegated to a chance on a d6 roll. While I do find this mechanic rather elegant, I do see some areas where a unified mechanic, or even scalable one could be desirable.
For example, while I hate the d20 mechanic, having that fall back on, with provided guidelines is kind of nice. Furthermore the ability for players to improve those abilities over time is nice, and having some classes with those abilities highlighted can be even nicer. Being a convert from Runequest/Call of Cthulhu, I've been considering a d% system. This would be great as there's already a precedence, at least in AD&D. Lots of abilities (surprise namely) is presented as a % chance in many places. A nice chart with common percentage chances for various situations would be extremely helpful. Further the limit vs d20's limitless modifiers vs target number is nice.
So my question to you guys is thus: How do you handle general adventuring skills? How do you prevent it from turning into "roll-playing"? Is it all in the way you present it, or do the mechanics really matter that much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 1, 2013 11:18:40 GMT -6
I think the best way is just to not have defined chances of certain outcomes occurring. The DM should grab a die and decide the chances of something working in any given situation. Then its up to the player to correctly asses the situation and make the right call about what are roughly the odds of an action being likely or unlikely to succeed.
That way its more about player decisions and good judgement than it is about lucky rolls.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Dec 1, 2013 11:52:10 GMT -6
So my question to you guys is thus: How do you handle general adventuring skills? How do you prevent it from turning into "roll-playing"? Is it all in the way you present it, or do the mechanics really matter that much? Role-play is roll-play, unless you play totally diceless (and D&D has not been made to be diceless).  Anyway, I have 2 personal methods: - if players ask for automatic success, that success is always partial (usually that means that they're going to earn half XP/treasure from the next room with XP/treasure)
- Skills are rolled with 2d6 with success and partial fail (wasting more time than planned or similar) as outcomes.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Dec 1, 2013 11:57:36 GMT -6
Well, one possible way is waht Melan's Sword and Magic does - essentially a much simpler, non-abusable version of D20's skill system:
- There's a list of app. 30 skills that cover most anything that should come up for an adventurer. Each skill is associated with an ability. At character creation, you chose a small number (3 plus intelligence modifier, +1 for a certain human subrace, +4 thief skills if you're a thief) of these that you are particularly good with. Some skills are restricted to either spellcasters or thieves, but the niche protection is considerably weaker than, say ADandD's for the thief. Like, anyone can have Sneak or Hide.
- If you're trying to use a skill that you have, you roll d20 + skill-relevant ability modifier + your level (+ discretionary situational modifiers). You have to hit or exceed 12 for an "ordinary" task, 18 for hard, 24 for heroic.
- If you do not have the skill, you can still use it as per above (unless it's class-restricted and you're the wrong class), only you don't add your levels (and thus never get better at it).
Based on I don't know how many years of experience, this works pretty well. A low-level character will FEEL competent in his areas of specialty (unlike the horrid by-the-book ADandD Thief), and will even have a non-negligible chance to succeed outside his field, but will still be challenged by harder-than-usual situations. A high (8th-11th) level character can perform particularly hard tasks rather reliably, but can still fail if the dice go against him.
Perhaps the greatest problem with D20's skill system is that it went into a runaway spiral of ever-higher bonuses and difficulty mumbers. That's not a problem here, since the only relevant variable you can increase after character creation is you level, and that's only going to get so high.
Another approach I've done myself in a heavily houseruled game was to use the saving throw number (only had one in this case). Specifically, d20 + situation-specific ability modifier + a discretionary +2 or +4 bonus for being a relevant class should beat your ST number.
EDIT: A good piece of advice I've read somewhere that's totally independent of your actualy resolution mechanics is to assume competence. In the case of DandD fantasy, assume that all PCs have basic competence in the sorts of things that come up regularly in their adventuring careers: making a camp, drawing a basic map of the dungeon, keeping their weapons and armour in good condition, etc.. And every time you're about to make them perform a skill roll, aks yourself this: "In this particular situation, would the results of a failed roll make them look incompetent?" - and if the answer is Yes, then don't ask for that roll. We all know the DM has the power to turn the party into a bunch of ridiculous bumbling buffoons just because he wants to. Demonstrating that ability won't improve "realism", "verisimilitude", "player skills" or the quality of your game.
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
Post by Chainsaw on Dec 1, 2013 13:15:22 GMT -6
EDIT: A good piece of advice I've read somewhere that's totally independent of your actualy resolution mechanics is to assume competence. In the case of DandD fantasy, assume that all PCs have basic competence in the sorts of things that come up regularly in their adventuring careers: making a camp, drawing a basic map of the dungeon, keeping their weapons and armour in good condition, etc.. And every time you're about to make them perform a skill roll, aks yourself this: "In this particular situation, would the results of a failed roll make them look incompetent?" - and if the answer is Yes, then don't ask for that roll. We all know the DM has the power to turn the party into a bunch of ridiculous bumbling buffoons just because he wants to. Demonstrating that ability won't improve "realism", "verisimilitude", "player skills" or the quality of your game. This is pretty much how we handle general adventuring skills. It's simple, it's fast, it doesn't distract us from the meat of the adventure and, in my opinion, it's in the basic spirit of OD&D play (at least LBB play). If the situation is unusual, like building a fire in a raging blizzard, tying a knot while holding your breath underwater, administering first aid while blinded, jumping a horse at great height or between two moving objects, climbing a cliff with no climbing gear, while under attack or in bad weather, etc, then I basically assign an X/6 chance, perhaps modified slightly by any inherent bonus the PC's class or background might logically have (like maybe a ranger has a better chance of starting a fire in a blizzard than a magic-user, especially if he's from the Snowy Mountains) and also by the player's effort to describe exactly what the PC's doing. I also tend to err in the players favor on the odds as long as they're not suggesting something ridiculous, as I'm not that interested in derailing the session because a guy accidentally hung himself while tying his equipment to his horse (a silly example, but you get the point). |
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 1, 2013 20:58:19 GMT -6
Another approach I've done myself in a heavily houseruled game was to use the saving throw number (only had one in this case). Specifically, d20 + situation-specific ability modifier + a discretionary +2 or +4 bonus for being a relevant class should beat your ST number. I've actually considered this before, and if you say it worked well I very well may start using it. It's honestly the best system I've heard of in theory. I know Blood & Treasure uses a similar (if not identical) system. Furthermore absolutely everything in your post rings true with me, which is why I'm asking the question. I'm definitely going to give a look into Sword & Magic, as it sounds like a more comprehensive Castles & Crusades. What you and Chainsaw said about the more basic skills is definitely what I do already. I don't think rolling for campfires or rope tying is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Dec 1, 2013 21:13:10 GMT -6
I wrung my hands for years over how to use skills in D&D, but I eventually let it go.
The majority of such would come from class and a character's background anyhow. Since I use ability checks as described in B/X I just give a bonus if what's being attempted is pertinent to either class or background. (I also allow players to write down one thing that their PC has a natural talent or knack or something they're good at if a background might not cover it.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2013 21:50:41 GMT -6
A d20 is merely a d% in 5% increments. Unless you need more granularity, like a chart with 50 items, a d20 is usually easier to work with in terms of game mechanics.
I've seen a fair number of discussions regarding having a plethora of skills versus having very few if any skills and there's advantages and disadvantages to both. Ultimately any roleplaying game is a cooperative effort between the GM and the players, the rules only provide a framework for how that cooperation occurs. Either side, players or the GM, can "ruin" a game regardless of what rules are being used.
If you have a set of rules with a plethora of skills and you have a GM using it as a crutch where you roll a skill for everything - e.g. you're talking to a merchant, roll your barter skill, you're tying a rope, roll your rope use skill, you're jumping over a chasm, use your jump skill, etc - and makes it such that "roleplaying" has little to no impact on your results, then it may or may not be enjoyable for the group.
However if you have skills-light set of rules and the GM who rules everything by whim and semi-random chance, where he uses die rolls to impart some sense of drama when in truth the outcome is decided by him regardless of the rolls - e.g. you roll very low and he lets you roll again and again until you succeed, and then for some inexplicable reason the next player doing the same thing rolls almost the best he can possibly roll and the GM still makes him roll again and again until some point where the GM is satisfied that he's rolled enough - then the die rolling is utterly meaningless. Once again, this may or may not be enjoyable to the group.
On the flip side, players can make the game un-enjoyable too. Instead of roleplaying a situation, you may have players who look at their long list of skills and say "I want to use my X skill to do Y" instead of something more creative. One could say the rules are at fault for encouraging that sort of play but there's really nothing preventing good roleplaying and the GM is always free to encourage the players to describe their actions.
Whether specific skill lists exist or not, some players are either too shy, not quick enough on their mental feet, not particularly creative, or otherwise simply a weak roleplayer. In these cases a list of skills can help them participate more since they have a better idea about the areas they can contribute.
Overall I find the lack of rules does not promote good play any more than the abundance of rules demote it. A group of players and GM working together to have a mutual enjoyable experience is far better than a GM wanting the players to fit into a specific mold of gameplay style, or the players not giving the GM anything to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 2, 2013 3:22:40 GMT -6
I use mostly d20 under Ability score. I know it's a little tricky, as saves and fighting rolls are roll high, but my players don't mind to much. My attempts to fond a better mechanics always face my old DM's laziness.
As a rule of thumb, characters of level 1-3 can try flunky actions (like normal guy), level 4-7 hero actions (like a movie hero) and level 8 and more caan attempt superhero action.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Dec 2, 2013 9:26:04 GMT -6
I'm definitely going to give a look into Sword & Magic, as it sounds like a more comprehensive Castles & Crusades. to the download page of the somewhat abridged English version (it still contains the skill system). |
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Dec 2, 2013 10:42:18 GMT -6
I'm definitely going to give a look into Sword & Magic, as it sounds like a more comprehensive Castles & Crusades. to the download page of the somewhat abridged English version (it still contains the skill system). Thanks, I'll admit I was a bit lost after googling it. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 3, 2013 9:36:42 GMT -6
Traditionally I've used "stat checks" to accomplish this, but recently I've been using "backgrounds" from 13th Age. Basically, the player picks a couple of backgrounds for the character and then the GM can decide (with player prompting) if a certain action falls within the background or not.
It's best to pick elaborate backgrounds: "captain of the guard for King Hezzod's summer palace" is better than "palace guard" because it supplies the GM with some info and potential plot threads. It's also worth noting that the intent of backgrounds is NOT to give combat advantages, but to give general skills.
Basically, the background can be used as needed. For example, if a character is trying to study a castle to figure out a way to sneak in, and he has a "captain of the guard for King Hezzod's summer palace" background, me might make a case to the GM that as a former captain of the guard he would understand the patterns that guards use in watching a castle, and thus would be better at avoiding the guard patrols.
A captain of the guard might have certain contacts in the castle, maybe knowing the cleaning crew or the head chef.
A captain of the guard might be familiar with the sewer system under the palace, as part of his duty might have been to prevent people from sneaking in.
Backgrounds seem to encourage creativity a lot more than skill lists, in my experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 4, 2013 16:20:47 GMT -6
It's also worth noting that the intent of backgrounds is NOT to give combat advantages, but to give general skills. Basically, the background can be used as needed. Also useful for determining what a character does not know. A palace gaurd would have more trouble buildig a raft than a fisherman. A scribe would not know how to swim. A potter would not know how to read. |
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108 
|
Post by jeff on Dec 18, 2013 10:10:22 GMT -6
Traditionally I've used "stat checks" to accomplish this, but recently I've been using "backgrounds" from 13th Age. Basically, the player picks a couple of backgrounds for the character and then the GM can decide (with player prompting) if a certain action falls within the background or not. It's best to pick elaborate backgrounds: "captain of the guard for King Hezzod's summer palace" is better than "palace guard" because it supplies the GM with some info and potential plot threads. It's also worth noting that the intent of backgrounds is NOT to give combat advantages, but to give general skills. Basically, the background can be used as needed. For example, if a character is trying to study a castle to figure out a way to sneak in, and he has a "captain of the guard for King Hezzod's summer palace" background, me might make a case to the GM that as a former captain of the guard he would understand the patterns that guards use in watching a castle, and thus would be better at avoiding the guard patrols. A captain of the guard might have certain contacts in the castle, maybe knowing the cleaning crew or the head chef. A captain of the guard might be familiar with the sewer system under the palace, as part of his duty might have been to prevent people from sneaking in. Backgrounds seem to encourage creativity a lot more than skill lists, in my experience. Also useful for determining what a character does not know. A palace gaurd would have more trouble buildig a raft than a fisherman. A scribe would not know how to swim. A potter would not know how to read. I've struggled with skills, and particularly how to relate those skills to Thieves' Skills. In my future game, I think I am going to try the backgrounds thing...I tried it a few months ago but it seemed to never come up in play so I axed it. Maybe it's time to re-visit the idea. I also like Machfront's idea about naming one thing your PC is good at outside of the background. I've been toying with this as a possibility as well. I've also been toying with the idea of an open-ended XP spending system for PCs. PCs can spend 1/2 the XP required for their next level to improve their chances at something (like lock picking or trap finding or tracking or whatever else they want...no set list of skills). They can only do this twice per level. So you could broaden your fighting man's abilities, but your rate of advancement will suffer because of it! |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Dec 18, 2013 11:50:55 GMT -6
The big difference between an 0d&d check and a modern d&d check isn't that od&d uses a d6 or that modern uses a d20, but that the modern version allows for a tailored and individual skill that progress with levels whereas the original skill was static irrespective of class or levels. Surprise (or perception) could be either 2 in 6 (33%+/-) or you can go d20 and roll 7 in 20 (35%).
What turns an "old school" system into new school is when you start adding ability modifiers, level modifiers, class modifiers onto the system so that Bob's character has a 9 in 20, Tim has a 6 in 20 and Cletus has a 14 in 20 chance to "spot" enemies or traps. Players will then attempt, logically, to maximize these skills.
I'm quite happy for static checks. Much easier to have a 1st level fighter and a 10th level fighter both able to spot approaching enemies on a 2 in 6 rather than tailoring everything to the characters level. 5E has done a decent job of keeping the checks rather flat. With the default being a 10+ on a d20 being a success for general things (moving slowly through a dungeon means surprise is 10+, if you rush it's 15+ for example). A simple d20 with really only a relevant stat modifier of -3 to +3 mostly.
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Dec 18, 2013 12:29:51 GMT -6
I, too, prefer the simplicity of a d6 check. Pretty much anyone can try anything and have a 1 in 6 chance of success, then racial abilities (or perhaps something based on a character's loosely defined background) being a 2 in 6 chance. I'd go so far as to ramp that up to 3 in 6 for abilities that should be class based.
All that said, I think there is a strong argument for a skill system that does allow improvement with level. If you use S&W's single saving throw, the elegance of rolling against that ST number does appeal to me as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 24, 2013 1:43:09 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Old school includes class: monks and rangers have a static surprise, but it has been modified based on class.
D6 vs Percentile: in relation to the dungeon key (surprise, open and listen at doors, find secret or concealed doors/character skills) d6 is old school, it is elegant in that it has a leaner probabiity spread, percentiles open up the game to the new school design you have aptly described.
Koren wrote:
I agree, I think the static d6 elements of the demi-human entries in OD&D or AD&D are a good ceiling for character skills. There's probably little else in the game that is as quiet and hidden as an elf, barring the incorporeal undead.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 25, 2013 20:17:00 GMT -6
I agree, I think the static d6 elements of the demi-human entries in OD&D or AD&D are a good ceiling for character skills. There's probably little else in the game that is as quiet and hidden as an elf, barring the incorporeal undead. What about a 2d6 mechanic? Would you guys consider that outside the scope of "old school"? |
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Dec 26, 2013 12:48:03 GMT -6
I agree, I think the static d6 elements of the demi-human entries in OD&D or AD&D are a good ceiling for character skills. There's probably little else in the game that is as quiet and hidden as an elf, barring the incorporeal undead. What about a 2d6 mechanic? Would you guys consider that outside the scope of "old school"? It would work for me. Very Chainmail or Spellcraft & Sorcery. They're both "old school" in my book! |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 26, 2013 15:23:33 GMT -6
2d6 is most interesting when you're for something else than just a "succes/fail" result.
With 2d6 you can modulate results like the reaction table:
2: outstanding failure
3-5: failure
6-8: keep trying
9-11: success
12: impressive success
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 27, 2013 9:54:43 GMT -6
Koren wrote:
Most definitely and Koren is spot on about Chainmail. 2d6 gives a touch wider probability spread, but its the percentile (and d20 too) for a dungeon key that leaves room for so many modifications which one commonly identifies as 'new school'. 'Old school' mechanics suggest that much of what one could consider as altering the outcome of play is already assumed by the mechanic itself (1d6 or 2d6, the dice) and in the one or two possible modifiers to the dice (+1 or +2 maximum). Elves have a 4in6 surprise in AD&D for instance, everything that one needs to know about an elf in a surprise situation is assumed in the dice (barring an encounter with a ranger, monk or a drow for instance). If one uses 2d6 morale or reaction adjustment tables, the modifiers are no higher than -2 or +2 (this may be slightly nuanced, but I do not have the books in front on me)
Porphyre77 wrote:
Nice! 'Outstanding failure' - sh%t!
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Dec 27, 2013 11:07:14 GMT -6
There are
Qualitative rolls: roll 2d6. A roll of 2 indicates a complete failure, 12 an absolute success, and a 6-8 what would generally be expected to happen under the circumstances.
Pass of Fail rolls: Pick a level of difficulty for the throw, 6 difficult, 2 simple. Roll 1d6. If the roll is at or above the difficulty, it passes.
For example: The first would work for potion miscibility. The second for discovering a secret door. You can't "kind of find" a secret door, and mixing potions should have varied and unpredictable results.
|
|
Todd
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by Todd on Jan 2, 2014 14:02:42 GMT -6
I find myself liking the simple d6 checks but I also like backgrounds and I do believe in getting better at stuff as you go. So I think I'd go with 1 in 6 for untrained and allow, every so many levels, a character to invest to raise his chances to 2 in 6, 3 in 6, etc. (up to 5 in 6).
I also wouldn't go with individual skills but group them up, such as:
thievery: pick locks, pickpocket, move silently, shadowing, backstab
burglary: pick locks, climb, move silently, appraise item, detect traps
Regarding backgrounds, I'd let players choose a set of skills from that background to be considered trained in, ie. starting out 2 in 6 instead of 1 in 6.
Another alternative would be to allow a player to use his hit dice to roll so that as their level went up, they would get more chances to succeed: ie. a 2nd level fighting man could roll two dice, a 5th level magic user would roll three dice, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 14:27:11 GMT -6
Todd wrote:
The static racial limit gives the world a kind of living or organic ceiling to what is possible, like elves being more silent than most. Basing the dungeon key (as I described above) on levels is the path from roleplaying to roll playing.
that is what racial types are for men (see bandit, dervish, berserker etc). So create a burglar instead of a bandit.
|
|
Todd
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by Todd on Jan 2, 2014 16:40:21 GMT -6
I don't think I agree that adding a modifier to a roll I'm already making shifts the balance to roll-playing. As far as racial limits, I can give or take them. And for somethings, I don't think they're really appropriate, such as picking locks. I think if a high level PC devotes their time to becoming a master lock pick, they should be able to get a better than 1 or 2 out of 6 chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 19:12:01 GMT -6
Todd wrote:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, race as far as humans is tantamount to what you are referring to as a 'background'.
They are appropriate to plenty of other thief skills or the equivalence(see elves, dwarves etc.)
That's not unreasonable, his chances need not be 2in6. As a race one could design a burglar, like the bandit, in which a higher lvl burglar, the equivalent of a leader, has a higher chance in 6 to pick a lock. Otherwise, one can also have an expert hireling, a master locksmith (less than 1 HD), who uses this skill for larcenry at 4in6. There are some good threads here about OD&D without a thief class and why, they're worth a look. I will poke around as well and post some of them.
|
|
Todd
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by Todd on Jan 2, 2014 19:46:13 GMT -6
I'm definitely not advocating for the thief class. Part of the appeal of implementing some simple skill bonuses is to alleviate the need for classes or subclasses whose sole purpose is to provide those skills. Hirelings are a definite option but, let's face it, how many heroes have you read about/seen who trot out locksmith followers to pick all their locks for them?  I'm digging the idea of using 2d6-- I like the bell curve effect of the two dice. |
|
Todd
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by Todd on Jan 2, 2014 20:00:10 GMT -6
Also, I see what your saying with developing different human archetypes. I dislike the term races, though. I don't think of bandits, for example, as being born and bred. A bandit could have been a soldier a year ago, or a baker, or a priest. It's an occupation.
An occupation, like many others, that adventurers adopt for a time, as they progress through the world. I think of Conan, who spent many years in different guises picking up skills. What would he be? Thief? Pirate? Soldier? He was all of these at one time or another but I would want want to lock him down as one of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 22:09:41 GMT -6
Todd wrote: Right, those skills are referred to as abilities when part of a class. A skill system though is a significant departure from the design that is essentially presented in OD&D, primarily because it places the dungeon key in the mind of the players instead of remaining behind the screen. Early companies of adventurers fielded quite an assortment of hirelings. To be fair, though Gygax probably did not include locksmiths among his expeditions as he notes that the mechanisms in traps, and one might imagine doors too, were quite simple (very different from the mechanisms the thief would later be responsible for). Nonetheless, it is not unthinkable to include a locksmith, a journeyman perhaps, among the litany of hirelings that were culled for an expedition. Very cool, I would love to see what you come up with , 2d6 has a very nice feel and an elegance all of its own. As do I, but it's a gamism, and I believe a useful one, because it keeps one from conflating the archetypal classes as you note with occupations. Conceptually, race keeps these varied concepts like bandit or burglar, again, behind the screen, and out of the hands of the players. That said, nothing wrong with playing a fighter, who is 'racially' a berserker or a dervish. Certainly a subject of debate, and have been here and elsewhere. I think Gygax (or one of his cohorts) rightly wrote up Conan as an NPC. . Indeed, and I imagine one would have to rule that various additions to Conan's initial class (say fighter) and 'racial' stock (possibly berserker, but I would create another), adding on experience pt modifiers (like an additional 10% of experience pts to gain a lvl.) for an ability or 'skill' that really departs from his initial class. Gygax does this with clerics in his glossography for the 80's edition of the Greyhawk setting.
|
|
Todd
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 111
|
Post by Todd on Jan 2, 2014 22:36:27 GMT -6
Would abstracting it to ranks help?
"Untrained"
"Neophyte"
"Professional"
"Expert"
The player would only know that they've invested in becoming trained or increasing their skill but not how it's reflected in the dice. The GM, behind the screen, can make the ultimate determination, having heard the player's description of his character's action if and how much to apply the character's level of skill.
To translate this to a hypothetical 2d6 system, let's say we've got a lock we've judged requires a roll of 10+ to open (16.66% chance). Along comes Mr. Adventurer, who happens to be a professional lockpick. He examines the lock and unfurls his lockpick tools. I decide to subtract one for the tools and two for his training, bringing the final roll to a more manageable 7+ (58.33%).
Now the player might never know the actual numbers involved: he just described his action and rolled for it (or the GM rolled, however).
|
|
