Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
AD&D (yes, 2e too) players and referees, what do you think of rolling under for ability and NWP checks?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9278135" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p>I think it is a decent enough game concept in theory, but the implementation was a bit all over the place, particularly across TSR-era A/D&Ds (as a reminder, it also shows up in BX, and in Gazetteer-era BECMI and RC in the skills subsystem).</p><p></p><p>First and foremost, one needs to recognize what system this creates. It is creates a game resolution mechanic where :</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Success by default fits a 5-100% range (most likely 15-90%) with changes to the success chance being in 5% increments.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The primary influential factor on the success chance (attributes) already being a modified normal distribution (with none of them being a pure example, IIRC. Even oD&D allowed modifying the 3d6 down-the-line to get better prime requisites). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Characters do not natively get better at these abilities as they level (excepting the skill subset of these options, where you can get more skills or maybe slowly improve the skills with additional skill slot expenditure).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Getting better at the primary influencing factor (attributes), while not natively happening as you level, does happen in the game (gauntlets of ogre power, tomes and librams, wishes, random pools and fountains in various adventures, etc.). How frequent and how easily this occurs differs between versions of TSR-A/D&D (ex. wishes for stats 16+ in AD&D/2E) and also between groups. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Improving attributes (or starting attributes in some cases) could give you a score of 20+ (potentially automatic success under default conditions). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If the system includes both innate attribute checks and a skill subsystem, it is not obvious how one should distinguish attribute checks from skill checks based on attributes. Semi-obvious ones are a large bonus for skilled use (which can easily lead to <em>'my wizard should always take Climb, because Spellcraft just moves their 90% chance to 110%'</em> situations); or either a massive penalty to unskilled checks or disallowing certain activities without the skill (often leading to <em>'you've actively taken away abilities/reasonable chances you'd otherwise have granted my character just so you could justify this optional skill system'</em> scenarios). </li> </ol><p>Once you recognize all these constraints, limitations, and qualities, it's a matter of deciding which activities you want to apply such a system to. If players should readily get better in something as they level, perhaps using a saving throw instead of an attribute would make more sense (especially if a given class should be better at it than the others, in which case choose the save the class is best at). If attributes of 19-20 are rare in your system and the activity should be something you should be able to approach 100% at doing, consider not using this system. </p><p></p><p>Beyond that, consider whether using attributes (or rolling dice at all) makes sense in the situation, or if you are doing it because attributes happen to be there. There's nothing wrong with <em>'you thought to look in the statue's mouth, thus you find the secret button,</em>' nor with <em>'your chances are 4-in-6, 5-in-6 if ________.'</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a hard question. I think the 3e/4e/5e systems are better*, but better in a way that can cause problems. Mostly the issue is that the skill system (and generalized resolution system in general) is still vestigial in the game, and the skill system can provide the illusion of rigor. Oftentimes they are just more ways of determining a percent chance of success for an atomic action, with insufficient thought into whether said atomic action should be the measure of adventure progress. Good chase rules, social interaction subsystems, faction rules, off-screen activity adjudication guidelines, reasons to be sneaking or leaping or pushing boulders around in the first place (instead of acquiring a spell which will obviate someone's entire skill loadout) -- these are what make or break the generalized resolution portion of the game, not how one determines your success/failure chances.</p><p><em><span style="font-size: 12px">*caveat: open-ended numeric threshold systems work when one can actually get a decent grasp of how good your character is at a thing, based on the DCs one will likely face. Roll-under-on-d20 has the advantage of readily saying 'under the likely-common scenario of no net plus or minus, my chances are __%. D&D 3e, as an example, I often did not feel I knew that for a given character because there often wasn't a default likely-common scenario.</span></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9278135, member: 6799660"] I think it is a decent enough game concept in theory, but the implementation was a bit all over the place, particularly across TSR-era A/D&Ds (as a reminder, it also shows up in BX, and in Gazetteer-era BECMI and RC in the skills subsystem). First and foremost, one needs to recognize what system this creates. It is creates a game resolution mechanic where : [LIST=1] [*]Success by default fits a 5-100% range (most likely 15-90%) with changes to the success chance being in 5% increments. [*]The primary influential factor on the success chance (attributes) already being a modified normal distribution (with none of them being a pure example, IIRC. Even oD&D allowed modifying the 3d6 down-the-line to get better prime requisites). [*]Characters do not natively get better at these abilities as they level (excepting the skill subset of these options, where you can get more skills or maybe slowly improve the skills with additional skill slot expenditure). [*]Getting better at the primary influencing factor (attributes), while not natively happening as you level, does happen in the game (gauntlets of ogre power, tomes and librams, wishes, random pools and fountains in various adventures, etc.). How frequent and how easily this occurs differs between versions of TSR-A/D&D (ex. wishes for stats 16+ in AD&D/2E) and also between groups. [*]Improving attributes (or starting attributes in some cases) could give you a score of 20+ (potentially automatic success under default conditions). [*]If the system includes both innate attribute checks and a skill subsystem, it is not obvious how one should distinguish attribute checks from skill checks based on attributes. Semi-obvious ones are a large bonus for skilled use (which can easily lead to [I]'my wizard should always take Climb, because Spellcraft just moves their 90% chance to 110%'[/I] situations); or either a massive penalty to unskilled checks or disallowing certain activities without the skill (often leading to [I]'you've actively taken away abilities/reasonable chances you'd otherwise have granted my character just so you could justify this optional skill system'[/I] scenarios). [/LIST] Once you recognize all these constraints, limitations, and qualities, it's a matter of deciding which activities you want to apply such a system to. If players should readily get better in something as they level, perhaps using a saving throw instead of an attribute would make more sense (especially if a given class should be better at it than the others, in which case choose the save the class is best at). If attributes of 19-20 are rare in your system and the activity should be something you should be able to approach 100% at doing, consider not using this system. Beyond that, consider whether using attributes (or rolling dice at all) makes sense in the situation, or if you are doing it because attributes happen to be there. There's nothing wrong with [I]'you thought to look in the statue's mouth, thus you find the secret button,[/I]' nor with [I]'your chances are 4-in-6, 5-in-6 if ________.'[/I] That's a hard question. I think the 3e/4e/5e systems are better*, but better in a way that can cause problems. Mostly the issue is that the skill system (and generalized resolution system in general) is still vestigial in the game, and the skill system can provide the illusion of rigor. Oftentimes they are just more ways of determining a percent chance of success for an atomic action, with insufficient thought into whether said atomic action should be the measure of adventure progress. Good chase rules, social interaction subsystems, faction rules, off-screen activity adjudication guidelines, reasons to be sneaking or leaping or pushing boulders around in the first place (instead of acquiring a spell which will obviate someone's entire skill loadout) -- these are what make or break the generalized resolution portion of the game, not how one determines your success/failure chances. [I][SIZE=3]*caveat: open-ended numeric threshold systems work when one can actually get a decent grasp of how good your character is at a thing, based on the DCs one will likely face. Roll-under-on-d20 has the advantage of readily saying 'under the likely-common scenario of no net plus or minus, my chances are __%. D&D 3e, as an example, I often did not feel I knew that for a given character because there often wasn't a default likely-common scenario.[/SIZE][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
AD&D (yes, 2e too) players and referees, what do you think of rolling under for ability and NWP checks?
Top