Possibly the last follow-up question raised by the Situations: The Basics post would be: Why not use a straight Dexterity or Intelligence check, or other ability check?
Obviously, one reason is “Because I really like the idea of skipping rolls.” A unified, unchanging roll is simple to use. Letting players simply skip the roll if their characters are trained or have high ability scores is a big reward that they will appreciate.
But the more typical response of a veteran old school GM is to use “Roll Under Ability” as a solution, either 3d6, 1d20, or 1d100 under the score. This can introduce two issues that might be a problem:
- Some players won’t like “roll under” because it’s the opposite of the way attack rolls and saving throws work. Some people get hung up on “higher is better” and just don’t like “roll under”. You might be able to appease them by treating the roll like Blackjack: higher is better, but the roll can’t be above the ability score. I may have more to say about this in the future.
- A straight “roll under” ability check creates extreme differences between characters. Using a d20 roll under ability check, a character with Strength 3 will have a 15% chance of pushing a heavy lid off a sarcophagus, while an average character with Strength 10 will have a 50% chance, making the Strength 3 character very, very weak in comparison. It makes ability scores extremely important.
One solution, used by the Judges Guild, was to use a d% roll under ability. This makes the range much narrower (3% vs. 10%,) but also makes the chances punishingly low, even for characters with max scores.
A different solution, which eventually became a standard in later D&D editions, is to assign modifiers to different score ranges (-1 for Strength 3-8, +1 for Strength 13-18, no modifier for Strength 9-12.) This helps reduce the impact of differences between scores, but this approach (dice + mods > target) leads to its own issues:
- People become overzealous about using just this method. The end result is people asking “Why not get rid of ability scores entirely and just use the mods?” To which I say “Why not just exert some self control?”
- People become overzealous about target numbers. Most GMs seem to start out with three target numbers (DCs) at a minimum: Easy, Average, and Hard. Not only does this mean they are rolling too often (Use Rope or Wear Pants skill rolls,) but the open-ended nature of the roll tempts them into adding more DCs, which makes ability scores or other sources of stacking modifiers more important, which means leads to hacking to extend the ability score range or add buff spells, which leads to GMs saying “Now I need even more DCs to keep my players challenged,” and the death spiral of modifier overkill begins.
Dice + Mods > Target can be OK if it is very restrained, for example the Target 20 system (one target number) plus minimal ability bonuses, and preferably only one other modifier (no stacking mods.) Still, a system that lets players skip rolls most of the time seems far more preferable and avoids all the problems listed above.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
I don't use roll-under ability checks for reasons that JB from B/X Blackrazor elucidated in an epic rant far better than anything I could ever come up with. But I do make sure that all of my task resolution mechanics are roll-under anyway because I like the consistency; I like the ease and intuitiveness of always knowing exactly what your odds are before you make the roll ("7 in 20? Oh, that's pretty close to 2 in 6!"); and I absolutely adore thumbing my nose at the memetic "lol nat 20 XD!" attitude that lives out in the wider gamer culture (particularly anywhere that Critical Role has an outsized influence).
ReplyDeleteI remember that B/X Blackrazor post. JB is wrong about Strength not being about Strength, etc. (All the abilities list things like "Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on" in Men & Magic,) but this and some of his other posts on ditching skill rolls were a big influence that led me in the direction I've been describing in this series.
DeleteIn my classic d&d hack I’ve gone with d20+modifier against a fixed target number of 15. I use Delta’s rationalized attribute modifiers (-2 to +2). The main reason I went this way is that I wanted a mechanism that would allow me to add a character’s level to the roll when their class applies. (My classes max out at level 6.) If there was a way to do this on a d6 I would have kept it, because I do like the feel of the 2-in-6 roll more than the d20.
ReplyDeleteGood news! There's a way!
DeleteEverything has a level. People and monsters either have a character level or use hit dice as level. Traps, locks, etc. use dungeon level (default 1.) Compare PC level to opponent level. Add 1 to the d6 roll if the PC's level is higher, subtract 1 if it is lower (or use the comparison to decide when to skip rolls, as I've been describing.)
That’s an excellent suggestion, actually! Would you say also adding an ability modifier (ranging from -2 to +2) if applicable would combine well with this approach, or would you recommend squashing that to another -1 to +2 range?
Delete(That should have been “another -1 to +1 range”, of course.)
DeleteYour general abilities pamphlet more or less answers my question. Never mind!
DeleteI'm probably going to rewrite the general abilities pamphlet at some point, but yeah, basically, my answer is that if you opt to always roll for a given situation (like attacks,) you can also opt for ability score bonuses, but the range of the bonus should be based on the range of the die roll. 1d6 vs. target number should have a much lower bonus than 1d20 vs. target.
DeleteGotcha. I think I’m finally starting to grok your skipping the roll doctrine as lady out in “the basics”. Are you saying you don’t use modifiers at all with this approach? Not even the ones in your abilities pamphlet? Or are you using modifiers only for those rolls that are always made and cannot be skipped?
DeleteI, personally, don't use ability score modifiers. The modifiers in the pamphlet are given as optional, although I offer some advice on when to use them and when not to use them.
DeleteI also have been moving farther away from other modifiers, and limiting modifier stacking. That's part of my general anti-fiddly-bit attitude.
I should add, though, that I couple removing modifiers where possible with being generous with players. One example being the whole roll-skip approach. If, most of the time, players have a generous 2 in 6 chance to perform tricky acts, but those with high abilities or in some cases training can skip rolls (basically a 6 in 6 chance,) players probably won't complain about not getting modifiers.
DeleteI like it. I’m going to pitch the skip the roll doctrine to my players and see what they say. Can’t imagine they won’t go for it.
DeleteI don't see anything bad at a low str/high str characters having great differences on their rolls. Thats the whole point of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to try a variant in which the "generating score" rolls are made with 2d6+3 and are raised by leveling.
Classes are removed, and by having 13+ in a score you start getting class abilities (14 intelligence is equal to a level 2 Magic user, and such; 15 wisdom is a level 3-4 cleric etc)
High/Low scores creating great differences between rolls in the game is actually NOT the point, at least in terms of the OD&D rules, which minimize the differences between the extremes. You can MAKE it the point, as some do, but that's basically a different game. Definitely not my own goal.
Delete