Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Reynard]

Its the sort of thing you could generalize into a fumble table if you want to go that way, and still reduce the probability so that its not particularly likely to happen. Whether there's any value in that is another question.

But in so doing, you would be demanding that you make a roll to mount your horse under even normal circumstances. Now we are in Rolemaster Move and Maneuver territory...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, this thread is in General. So I think it is helpful to consider how various sorts of approaches to when does a player roll and what is at stake when a player rolls can contribute to, or undermine, a player's sense of their character's competence.

The thread being in General also means that the contrast between "random event" and "function of a skill check* isn't self-evident. One way to establish "random events" is to have them as the consequences of failed skill checks. Even some versions of D&D use this method: see eg the example of a skill challenge in the 4e Rules Compendium, and especially the consequence of the final check - which is a failure - in that example.

The big problem with them as "function of a skill check" is that a lot of them are too severe for the probability range the skill check is going to have. This is arguably a problem with some of the incarnations of RQ fumbles; while they're absolutely things that can happen, the limits of the table and the fumble chance make some of them too frequent.

 

[Thomas Shey]

RQ very much allows for a novice to hurt a master, but the chances are extremely low (novice crits and master fumbles), but it does allow David vs. Goliath scenarios. This would of course play out only if it were an important battle in some way - most often the master would trounce the novice in any passing contest.

Actually, in most cases "novice crits and master fails" is all that's needed, and in cases of low armor, even "master fails and novice succeeds" though that's still a fairly low probability event (probably one in 80 or thereabouts).

 

[Thomas Shey]

But in so doing, you would be demanding that you make a roll to mount your horse under even normal circumstances. Now we are in Rolemaster Move and Maneuver territory...

Its not impossible to make that a mechanical requirement and still not have the outcomes be silly. Whether the amount of usually-pointless rolls would justify it is another story.

 

[Wolfpack48]

But in so doing, you would be demanding that you make a roll to mount your horse under even normal circumstances. Now we are in Rolemaster Move and Maneuver territory...

As a referee, I would never require a roll under normal circumstances. Now if there were some external influence (the horse is agitated or frightened), I'd probably ask for a roll.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Actually, in most cases "novice crits and master fails" is all that's needed, and in cases of low armor, even "master fails and novice succeeds" though that's still a fairly low probability event (probably one in 80 or thereabouts).

Yeah, RQ is probably too much weighted towards a crit vs. normal fail, and here is where a Mastery or Experience stats would help, bumping the level of success by one.

 

[MarkB]

The big problem with them as "function of a skill check" is that a lot of them are too severe for the probability range the skill check is going to have. This is arguably a problem with some of the incarnations of RQ fumbles; while they're absolutely things that can happen, the limits of the table and the fumble chance make some of them too frequent.

This is also one reason I dislike the FFG Star Wars system. I don't know how built-in it is to the core mechanic, but I've had to stop watching a couple of Actual Plays because of the ludicrous consequences that GMs would pile onto the various combinations of success-with-a-disadvantage and the like.

 

[Celebrim]

This is also one reason I dislike the FFG Star Wars system. I don't know how built-in it is to the core mechanic, but I've had to stop watching a couple of Actual Plays because of the ludicrous consequences that GMs would pile onto the various combinations of success-with-a-disadvantage and the like.

Vaguely defined "success with consequences" and "fail forward" mechanics are primarily there to validate GMs railroading players in a way that the participants don't see it as railroading. But yeah, if any roll can have any cloud cuckoo land consequences, especially of some sort of "fail forward" or "success with consequences" result is the most likely result of any test makes me feel like there is no reason to bother throwing the dice. Just let the GM narrate whatever fiat he prefers and forget the meaningless ritual of dice rolling.