I’m swapping Map Monday with my Thursday posts to bring you this semi-rant. Over at the B/X Blackrazor blog, JB has told everyone to stop using ability checks. The reason? Because it’s the player that decides what the character does, not the other way around.
It’s a sentiment I 90% agree with. I definitely don’t believe in ability scores as a limitation on role-playing. It’s ridiculous for a player decide what to do, then the GM rolls vs. the character INT or WIS and says “Nope, you did not actually decide to do that.” Because if you are going to do that as a GM, why have players? You could do it all yourself. Run a little simulation for your own amusement.
I also don’t believe in rolling for what a character knows. If there’s a chance that a character knows that an artifact they just found was made by elves, just tell them that. Or, at most, make a note that any character with INT 15+ knows this, as would any elven character. I’m not adverse to some influence of ability scores, but an actual ability check here feels wrong for two reasons:
- As GM, it is your job to describe everything the characters see, hear, or sense, so that the players can make decisions about what to do. Failing to do so unless someone makes a lucky roll is just shirking responsibility and goes against the spirit of the game.
- It’s just a waste of time. Why add an extra roll and slow everything down?
I only partially agree with JB’s opinion of secondary skills or attempts to craft things like boats. Heroes are supposed to do heroic things, and that should include Macgyver-like improvised solutions. It’s perfectly reasonable to say some characters know how to build boats. But the only roll involved should be the same rolls you’d make with a “store-bought” boat: does it capsize when hit by a ferocious wave? When hit by a flaming arrow, does the fire spread?
Again, if a character knows something, including “how to build a boat”, just do it. Don’t roll for it.
I may have a follow-up on this tomorrow.
90% with you on this.
ReplyDeleteI personally use the knowledge check all the time; however, it isn't really for the character, but for me as the Referee. I improvise a lot. Thus, I face the issue of a player asking me questions that I don't necessarily have an immediate answer to. Having the player roll a knowledge check gives me two valuable things:
ReplyDelete1. Time to think of possible answers
2. How detailed/canon of an answer I have to give in that moment
For me it is a tremendous tool. I do find myself in a pickle sometimes when that knowledge check is a natural 20, but the forced creativity in those moments leads to surprising results for both me and my players. It also breathes life and surprise into my worlds for me.
The knowledge check is an opportunity for exposition or background informtion presented as a clue or a victory the players are otherwise ignoring in a document the DM wasted their time on.
DeleteYeah we'd never have someone test STR to force open a door or DEX to dodge a bladed pendulum sweeping across a hallway...
ReplyDeleteThat's subtle sarcasm to point out there are good times and bad times to make ability checks.
Well, I'd never have someone test STR to force open a door, because there's already a roll for that. As for testing DEX for a bladed pendulum, I'm more likely to roll an attack. If I were to test anything else, why wouldn't I test Move instead of DEX?
DeleteBut I already have a post scheduled for today about physical checks. Let's see if it clears things up.
Otenan ability check is just shorthand - i dont want to explain how to do everything or interact with every shop keeper. Im happy to roll dice rather than role play every tediouus moment in life. Im happy to make a search roll rather than check every object in a room but heck I can do both if one of those options fails.
ReplyDeleteI got to say I'm always surprised at how hard people think no-roll searches should be. It's like people imagine the worst possible way of handling searches and then say "I don't want to do that, so I'll just roll dice."
DeleteI hope yesterday's mental ability checks follow-up cleared up some of your worries. Or the post on searches linked from that post. Maybe I will have to address this again when I do my final summary?
Personally I like Ability Score checks for situations where there is some potential chance of failure, in the same way that combat rolls are used.
ReplyDeleteFor example: If some commonplace knowledge comes up then I agree, just tell the players, if it's some random esoterica known only be a few people then some sort of roll may be required.
The rolls can also be useful as a handy shortcut, to use the searching example, whilst it can be fun to have a player describe how they're examining every object in a room, sometimes you just want to get that dealt with an move on. This is where rolls can help.
You might want to check out the mental ability checks follow-up post, where I talk a bit more about knowledge checks and a lot more about searching. Everyone seems to assume that "no search rolls" means either you have to write extremely long room descriptions or players have to describe every tiny detail of how they're searching. The truth is that no-roll searches are a lot simpler than search rolls.
DeleteYou also might want to check out today's follow-up post on physical checks. And I have at least two more posts in the works.
Thanks very much, I enjoyed reading the *mental ability checks* post and look forward to future ones; although I can't say that the use of ability checks gets me as steamed as some people (although I agree overuse is bad), very much enjoy reading other people's thoughts on them :)
DeleteI kinda feel like this whole thing is about modern editions and the plethora of checks being made as a matter of course. Ability scores are meant to be used for checks - that's what they were originally designed for, but checks were only made when the GM didn't have a clear and reasonable answer, not for every little thing that happens in game.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent, yes, too many checks are being made and that's annoying, but also too much emphasis on the system instead of the fictional situation. And I keep coming back to "your job as GM is to describe everything the characters see, hear, or sense". If GMs can't change their dungeon keys after the fact in order to gain an advantage over the players (because that is cheating,) how is it not cheating to withhold plainly-visible details from players which they could use to solve a problem? You are the source of the player's experience of the fictional world. If you withhold part of that experience based on a random roll, you've prevented them from playing the game.
DeleteAs for ability scores being used for checks, I'm not sure that what we call a check -- roll under score, or roll + modifier over target -- is what was intended. I think there was no roll: character with highest CHA gets kidnapped by a dryad, characters with high STR can push the boulder. The only rolls described in the 3LBBs are flat 1 or 2 in 6 die rolls that don't involve ability scores at all. Open Doors was originally a flat roll, as was avoiding a pit trap, avoiding damage from a fall, dropping something in your hands when surprised, surprise itself, and hearing noises.
It was all simple, and then people had to introduce ability checks to complicate things and drain the life out of play.