PDA

View Full Version : Abilities that never get used



Earthwalker
2019-01-14, 04:09 AM
So I am playing a character with the ability to magically disguise myself as someone else. It’s a magical talent and it allows me to take on another person’s form. (This is not DnD)
Now when using the talent, it’s an opposed check again the person you are trying to fool so there is a chance it will fail.
This fact has rendered the skill pointless. Any plan made with the group of players that involve using this skill just get rejected. Well if it fails here then we are completely lost and the plan falls to bits. So new plan is devised that doesn’t use this Talent.

Now I do find this annoying as I have talents I just can never use… “what if it fails?”. This isn’t a rant against the other players in my game, or the GM or the system.

It’s a question of is there a better way?

Have people had this problem, how did you deal with it?

Mordaedil
2019-01-14, 04:36 AM
I recognize this scenario, while it isn't happening in D&D, it carries roots back to D&D. It's one of the addages under "don't split the party", "rogues don't scout ahead" and "any check you have to roll for is doomed to fail, eventually".

The way to circumvent this is, futily simple, to the point that it is the DM's nightmare. Don't get caught. Don't take risks. Only take the safe, calculated risks.

For instance, if the plan is to scout an enemy stronghold, don't send the rogue in. The better plan is to give someone flight, cast silence on them, cast invisibility and see invisibility on them all at once, so they can fly in, scout the place out without any chance of being seen. There is no need to roll for move silently because you make no sound. There is no need for hide checks, because you are invisible against the sky. There isn't even any chance of a gotcha of having other hidden sentries that are also using see invisibility because you can spot them now. From the safety of the air above them. And these sentries probably can deal with you alone, but at that point the DM is just making infiltration impossible, so you find a new plan.

For disguise, you don't interact with people that can recognize you. You don't take the assumption of someone famous, you pretend to be someone new. You don't make a forgery, you steal the documents produced legally. Or you even get the documents produced legit by using the system at its most vulnerable; flawed bureaucracy pre-computer era. You don't pretend to be a noble from the remote regions of the eastern swamplands. You are that person. You make the documents to make that a reality before anyone can investigate the legitimacy.

A power like the one you mentioned? You use it with a crowd. You are in the background or with the posé. You don't talk to the gateguard, let the chump who you are in company with do that.

Florian
2019-01-14, 04:47 AM
So, basically the complete Shadowrun dilemma in a nutshell.

Satinavian
2019-01-14, 06:21 AM
So, basically the complete Shadowrun dilemma in a nutshell.
Isn't that part of what makes Shadowrun fun ?


But if it really annoys people that players try to avoid plans with a significant chance of failure, you could always use plans with fallback options. If the price of failure is manageable, people are far more likely to actually take that risk.

Florian
2019-01-14, 06:26 AM
Isn't that part of what makes Shadowrun fun ?


But if it really annoys people that players try to avoid plans with a significant chance of failure, you could always use plans with fallback options. If the price of failure is manageable, people are far more likely to actually take that risk.

I´m 100% Pink Mohawk.

So, no, give me the action right now, damn wasting endless time at planning.

Satinavian
2019-01-14, 06:39 AM
I´m 100% Pink Mohawk.So basically the opposite from me.

Earthwalker
2019-01-14, 06:40 AM
A power like the one you mentioned? You use it with a crowd. You are in the background or with the posé. You don't talk to the gateguard, let the chump who you are in company with do that.

I can see where you are going with this. It just feels that if there is no impact from the talent (skill / power) then it still seems usless. If I cant use it for the main part of the game, its just window dressing why bother.


So, basically the complete Shadowrun dilemma in a nutshell.

Same group when I was GMing shadowrun had a planning routine of.

1) player comes up with plan.
2) other players finds flaw in plan where it might fail
3) scrap the plan, return to step 1.


I guess a lot of this can fall on the GM (or group) what does it mean to fail a disguise roll ? What impact is it going to have on the game. Is it a crashing halt of the game.

It does seem to be a handful of abilities that get this. If this fails the plan stops.

Florian
2019-01-14, 06:52 AM
@Earthwalker:

I generally call this "Roadblock Design" and find it to be a huge failure. You know, this is the plot (or whatever), these are the roadblocks you have to pass along the way, but they are binary, you either pass or fail, stopping the progress.

The alternative to that would be to make the main "road" as smooth and easy as possible, no chance to fail here, but use the roadblocks, puzzles, tricky encounters for the side branches that will lead to the real goodie and hidden extras.

For Shadowrun, that could simply mean that you not only present them with the floor plans of their target facility, but also include a basic plan how to "beat" that and end the mission, but deeply hint at other contacts and Johnsons with an interest, bonus paydata or some good gear stashed away.

Mordaedil
2019-01-14, 07:53 AM
I can see where you are going with this. It just feels that if there is no impact from the talent (skill / power) then it still seems usless. If I cant use it for the main part of the game, its just window dressing why bother.


I think you misunderstand the power. It isn't getting use because a check or roll is happening.

The difference is that the power affords you to pull off something where the alternative is only failure. You couldn't sneak into the mansion, but disguised as someone else, you can. The secret to using a power like this is don't draw attention to yourself, it won't stand up to scrutiny. But it's a thing you can do that is otherwise unavailable to you.

Consider an infiltration mission on a scale from 1-10 in chance of success. Just walking in, you are at a 1, very unlikely. Getting a mundane disguise means you have 2, and if you do it well, maybe 3. The power puts you squarely at a 5. To get to 10, you need to manipulate things outside of your normal control, so you cheat. You stay out of focus, you use distractions, you do whatever it needs to nudge it up. But at least you start from 5 instead of 1.

I hope that makes sense and helps a bit.

Earthwalker
2019-01-14, 08:19 AM
Listening to the helpful replies, thanks all.

I think what I am railing against is the simple pass / fail mechanic.

Its not until I heard the replies did it occur to me this is my problem.
I feel I am still going to look at my character sheet and see abilities that simply are not options to take (normally because of group deciding against them in planning)

Perhaps the approach of never planning might work :)

I guess going forward I can either get some indication what a failed disguise self roll means from the GM to plan differently. Or just accept that something just aren't going to be usable (in this group)

Frozen_Feet
2019-01-14, 10:10 AM
On the player side, the actual problem is inability or unwilligness to do nested back-up planning.

Example: Plan A is I walk past the guards in disguise. If I fail the check, Sam initiates Plan B and climbs through the window while Hector bails me out.

So on and so forth.

The trick is to make a plan that works even if things go maximally wrong, but will go over significantly faster if someone succeeds in a check. It's similar to buying lottery tickets: buying lottery tickets with the expectation of winning or to cover your budget is stupid. But buying tickets is smart if the cost is small enough to not cause negative operational impact, even if you never win, because even a tiny chance of a significant positive outweighs a negligible negative.

Jay R
2019-01-14, 11:06 AM
Any plan made with the group of players that involve using this skill just get rejected. Well if it fails here then we are completely lost and the plan falls to bits. So new plan is devised that doesn’t use this Talent.

First, recognize that the problem isn't the talent. The problem is that this group of players is rejecting any proposed use of the talent.

The only solution is to talk to the other players -- ideally, away from the table.

"Hey, guys, I have this neat ability I've really wanted to try out, but you keep vetoing it. Let's come up with a plan where I get to use my character's ability next time."

Because your problem isn't the talent. It's that the group won't try it.

Quertus
2019-01-14, 01:35 PM
Listening to the helpful replies, thanks all.

I think what I am railing against is the simple pass / fail mechanic.

Its not until I heard the replies did it occur to me this is my problem.
I feel I am still going to look at my character sheet and see abilities that simply are not options to take (normally because of group deciding against them in planning)

Perhaps the approach of never planning might work :)

I guess going forward I can either get some indication what a failed disguise self roll means from the GM to plan differently. Or just accept that something just aren't going to be usable (in this group)

I think it's an ability that will never be planned for, since it can **** you. But it's a nice ace in the hole, that you can call upon if plans fall apart.

Friv
2019-01-14, 02:20 PM
I think what I am railing against is the simple pass / fail mechanic.

Pass/Fail as a core mechanic is a problem, yeah. Doubly so if a single failure tanks everything and a single pass wins everything.

Do you mind letting us know which system you're using? It might help with specific suggestions for power revisions that might make your group more willing to take a risk that could blow up in their faces big time.

Mastikator
2019-01-14, 02:43 PM
I feel like you could've argued the DM that just because you fail to fool someone that it should completely fail: you still look like the person you're trying to fool and you don't look like yourself. A failure should result in the target being creeped out by you or worried something is wrong, not that this is a magical doppelganger imposing as my dear friend.
Not only is the "total fail" scenario bad game design but it's also bad verisimilitude.

My only personal experience with abilities not getting used is just the chance never appearing, you spend lots of skill points in picking locks and not a single lock appears in the whole game.

Kaptin Keen
2019-01-14, 05:02 PM
It’s a question of is there a better way?

If you're good at it, you should reliably win the opposed roll unless you're facing someone equally good. If that's not the case, your GM is doing his job wrong.

NichG
2019-01-14, 06:26 PM
I tend to resolve this at the game design stage, treating things like stealth or disguise as an ablative defense against being discovered. Disguise = +1 stealth HP, that sort of thing. So that way when applicable using it can never make things worse than skipping it.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-14, 09:19 PM
I don't get way failure is such a bad thing?

You try something and fail. Ok? So then you try again?

What exactly is the other option? To just auto win the game? Like, "ok, your character blinks and rules the universe and you never need to play a RPG again ever."

Mechalich
2019-01-15, 01:49 AM
I think part of the problem here is the nature of how the talent fails. I'm assuming this talent is like some kind of illusion and, once a failure has occurred the witness observes something suitably dramatic like seeing the visage of one person transform into that of someone else. This is a fairly extreme failure mode because any witness is going to realize that's not something that should happen and that whoever is doing it is up to no good. Meaning they attack/sound the alarm/take whatever other action ruins the plan.

Talents with extreme failure modes carry high risks, which are usually compensated for by high rewards, but they often don't play well with others as a result. Also as the overall failure rate climbs they eventually become not worth doing because the risk outweighs any potential reward.

To properly utilize a talent of this nature you need to identify scenarios where either the risk of failure is exceedingly low - in d20 you'd want to make it so your advantage on the check sufficiently high that you only fail against common observers when they roll a nat 20 - and/or you need to find ways to plan so that the consequences of detection are mitigated.

Florian
2019-01-15, 01:54 AM
I don't get way failure is such a bad thing?

You try something and fail. Ok? So then you try again?

That's the point, tho. A lot of GMs create a binary pass/fail situation and paint themselves into a corner by doing so.

Satinavian
2019-01-15, 02:27 AM
That's the point, tho. A lot of GMs create a binary pass/fail situation and paint themselves into a corner by doing so.
Unfortunately that is partially intention.

Some people think, having single rolls on which the outcome of the complete adventure and the fate of the PCs rests on, is a supreme source of tension. And thus the pinnacle of good GMing is trying to enable this as a source of memorable moments.

But there are people who don't like gambling and are very willing to give up on the thrill of the consequences of total victory/TPK resting on a roll of a dice.

Mordaedil
2019-01-15, 02:48 AM
I don't get way failure is such a bad thing?

You try something and fail. Ok? So then you try again?

What exactly is the other option? To just auto win the game? Like, "ok, your character blinks and rules the universe and you never need to play a RPG again ever."
It's not that failure is a bad thing, it's just there is a difference between a slippery slope and a dead-drop fall.

If your characters life is dependant on a single roll being success, there is something wrong. They either planned something poorly or they got in way over their head. If they consistently fail several rolls over and over again, then it starts to become more acceptable to the player that something should go wrong and their character can die. It carries a lot of comparisons to how combat works. You have hit points and armor class, damage reduction and a bunch of other things that can mitigate risk in a straight up fight, so a single bad roll on your part or a good roll on the enemies part can't outright kill your character. It is a slope that gradually leads to either success or failure. Similarly a challenge like infiltrating a fortress shouldn't be depending on a single check. That'd be like if you had a caster in combat cast finger of death every round of combat.

Which you know, is fine if you have a lich at the end of a campaign do. But imagine having this just be the local adept that normally heals people. It feels about as much of a disservice.

Pauly
2019-01-15, 03:21 AM
If the consequence of using an ability can be total failure, people won’t use that ability.

If someone gave you a magic sword that instakilled any opponent if you hit, but instakilled you if you missed would you use it? Short answer is you would only use it if there was no other option.

Florian
2019-01-15, 03:39 AM
Unfortunately that is partially intention.

Some people think, having single rolls on which the outcome of the complete adventure and the fate of the PCs rests on, is a supreme source of tension. And thus the pinnacle of good GMing is trying to enable this as a source of memorable moments.

But there are people who don't like gambling and are very willing to give up on the thrill of the consequences of total victory/TPK resting on a roll of a dice.

I dunno whether this is the only potential culprit here. Apparently, it seems fine to understand death as a "game over state", so in most systems, you don't just roll to see of you pass/fail a combat encounter, but get into a more detailed mode that mostly uses some gradual resource depletion (HP, Wounds, so on) instead of enforcing a binary state (That's why snipers don´t work in D&D-likes. Boom! Headshot! is exactly what kills the combat system and the purpose behind it).

On the other side, it seems that anything that will not be immediately lethal can be handled in a binary way. But: If, say, the game was more social or political, getting your reputation trashed, as an example, is the death of your political career, so also a "game over state". I guess no one will go into a political game that does not feature a serious "social combat system", for exactly the same reasons as with physical combat.

Maelynn
2019-01-15, 04:01 AM
A few things you could try:

- talk to the players about giving you a chance with this talent, because you really would like to be able to use it sometimes

- ask the DM to give you an opportunity to shine with this talent (like, oh no this important NPC has suddenly fallen ill, we need someone to step in for him instantly!) - preferably without any serious consequences

- go ahead and try your talent a few times in a situation where it doesn't matter if you fail, to prove there's a reasonable success rate - just go and buy a loaf of bread for all I care

Rynjin
2019-01-15, 04:16 AM
I don't get way failure is such a bad thing?

You try something and fail. Ok? So then you try again?

What exactly is the other option? To just auto win the game? Like, "ok, your character blinks and rules the universe and you never need to play a RPG again ever."

It's a problem with abilities like this that failure makes things WORSE. So the only time it's a good idea to use is when all other options have failed.

Like, take a simple scenario. You're trying to retrieve information from Company A to spy for Company B.

Some sample options:

-Try hacking their computers. If you fail, all that happens is you get locked out of the system and you move on to a new plan.
-Try sneaking into their office building. Multiple points of success or failure, since in most cases if you get caught you can either pass it off as getting lost, or potentially otherwise wriggle out of teh situation. Sweet talk, knock out theguard, wipe teh security cameras, etc.

Same goes for several other plans.

Problem with disguising yourself as someone else is...ain't no way to talk yourself out of that. "Whoops I accidentally stole Jeff's identity, my bad, I'll be leaving now." Nah, ain't gonna happen. Best case scenario it happens when you're deep in and can fall back on "beat up the guard, etc." but even that best case compromises your ability for future uses.

And best best case is you succeed...but there's pretty much no way it was the only way to do that.

it's a high risk, low reward ability. The worst kind.

Like, would you use a spell in a D&D game that was "Deal xd6 damage in a 20 ft. radius, but make a Will save or die"? Yeah, probably not. Because instead of using the dangerous ability, you can just cast Fireball.

Frozen_Feet
2019-01-15, 04:26 AM
To people calling for GMs to make more nuanced and complex scenarios:

It is completely useless on tackling the problem on the player side.

Players who are incapable or unwilling to entertain risky solutions won't start doing that just because the situation allows for it. People who are sore losers won't gamble even if all they lose is fake money.

That's why we have a bunch of "new school" RPG systems where a character can't fail and suffer lasting consequences, at all, without player approval. And a bunch of players who argue that D&D and other systems with random chance should also be played that way.

Earthwalker
2019-01-15, 04:30 AM
Pass/Fail as a core mechanic is a problem, yeah. Doubly so if a single failure tanks everything and a single pass wins everything.
Do you mind letting us know which system you're using? It might help with specific suggestions for power revisions that might make your group more willing to take a risk that could blow up in their faces big time.

The system is Earthdawn. All characters are magical and all characters get talents.
This one is disguise self, which allows me to change my shape to someone else. Oddly in the same system Melee weapons is a talent and is being magically proficient with swords and such.


I don't get way failure is such a bad thing?
You try something and fail. Ok? So then you try again?
What exactly is the other option? To just auto win the game? Like, "ok, your character blinks and rules the universe and you never need to play a RPG again ever."

Its not so much that failure is bad, its more failure with “these” abilities change the situation so much that it always seems better for the group to not risk it.
Missing with a sword swing, fine you get to swing it again next action.
Failing with a disguise you have warned the bad guys your hear, or you have walked into the bad guys den and are now alone and surrounded.


I tend to resolve this at the game design stage, treating things like stealth or disguise as an ablative defense against being discovered. Disguise = +1 stealth HP, that sort of thing. So that way when applicable using it can never make things worse than skipping it.

I very much like the idea of this. This is the kind of thing I was wondering about.

To clarify I am not in danger of leaving the group because of all this. It’s more a looking at my character sheet and seeing abilities that never get used and wondering why. It’s a combination of factors.
Then wondering how other people handle this kind of thing.

Mordaedil
2019-01-15, 04:48 AM
NichG's idea of using stealth in terms of hits points is a good enough idea that just might have to steal it.

Earthwalker
2019-01-15, 04:57 AM
[snip]
Problem with disguising yourself as someone else is...ain't no way to talk yourself out of that. "Whoops I accidentally stole Jeff's identity, my bad, I'll be leaving now." Nah, ain't gonna happen. Best case scenario it happens when you're deep in and can fall back on "beat up the guard, etc." but even that best case compromises your ability for future uses.
And best best case is you succeed...but there's pretty much no way it was the only way to do that.
it's a high risk, low reward ability. The worst kind.
Like, would you use a spell in a D&D game that was "Deal xd6 damage in a 20 ft. radius, but make a Will save or die"? Yeah, probably not. Because instead of using the dangerous ability, you can just cast Fireball.
I think you have described what is happening better than I. It always seems that there is a better option for the group so we move on to it.


To people calling for GMs to make more nuanced and complex scenarios:
It is completely useless on tackling the problem on the player side.
Players who are incapable or unwilling to entertain risky solutions won't start doing that just because the situation allows for it. People who are sore losers won't gamble even if all they lose is fake money.
That's why we have a bunch of "new school" RPG systems where a character can't fail and suffer lasting consequences, at all, without player approval. And a bunch of players who argue that D&D and other systems with random chance should also be played that way.

This strikes a cord because I am GMing a game of Fate at the same time as I am playing Earthdawm. I assume Fate is one of the “New School” games you are referring too. I will say in Fate players can both fail and suffer serious consequences for their actions / dice rolls. Just they can’t suffer Game Over situations unless they want to.
The mind set with the players is vastly different, because a failed disguise can trigger a game over, it is pretty much ignored as an option.


I think it's an ability that will never be planned for, since it can **** you. But it's a nice ace in the hole, that you can call upon if plans fall apart.
This point seems relevant. More I need to change how I think of the ability.

Satinavian
2019-01-15, 05:30 AM
I guess no one will go into a political game that does not feature a serious "social combat system", for exactly the same reasons as with physical combat.
I do play a lot of political games and quite enjoy them as obviously do others i play with.

But we have so far not found any "social combat system" that is sufficiently good enough to simulate human interaction or complex politics, so we certainly do play without one.

Florian
2019-01-15, 05:37 AM
That's why we have a bunch of "new school" RPG systems where a character can't fail and suffer lasting consequences, at all, without player approval. And a bunch of players who argue that D&D and other systems with random chance should also be played that way.

IMO missing the point. Like, by two miles or something.

One of the core aspects of system mastery and optimization which is pretty common along really all kinds of more traditional RPG systems is understanding the underlying math, training the ability to gauge probabilities and pick choices that either can´t fail or will only rarely fail. So either getting the randomness under control, or trying to circumvent it entirely, for example, by not rolling.

What happens is that now, we have a game before the actual game. We have a character creation phase that will ultimately determine the winning strategy and we have an extensive prep phase, being fully meta, which pits the GM vs. the players when it comes to tactical ability and knowledge of the rules. Basically,at that point we could skip to pure narrative, as the scenario is already solved. Only reason we don't is to see what the RNG and luck will lead to.

In a way, systems like those based on Apocalypse World are damn honest about that problem, by being even more random and taking away the two pre-game steps.

Edit: Shadowrun players should play a lot more Fiasko.....


I do play a lot of political games and quite enjoy them as obviously do others i play with.

But we have so far not found any "social combat system" that is sufficiently good enough to simulate human interaction or complex politics, so we certainly do play without one.

I have zero interest in a simulation, especially not when weird abilities or magic is involved. All I need is a solid framework and mechanics that will lead to consistent results.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-15, 07:26 AM
That's the point, tho. A lot of GMs create a binary pass/fail situation and paint themselves into a corner by doing so.

How? And why is it a bad thing?




Some people think, having single rolls on which the outcome of the complete adventure and the fate of the PCs rests on, is a supreme source of tension. And thus the pinnacle of good GMing is trying to enable this as a source of memorable moments.

But there are people who don't like gambling and are very willing to give up on the thrill of the consequences of total victory/TPK resting on a roll of a dice.

Ok, I can see having the ''one roll to rule them all" is a bad thing. And I get that a lot of bad DMs do this.....but it's not that common right? Like bad DMs set up the whole ''super dragon that can only be killed by the super dragonsbane"....and then a player rolls a one and it's lost and the dragon destroys the world the next round.

So why the talk of the (game ending?) problem of like sneaking past guards?


It's a problem with abilities like this that failure makes things WORSE.

Problem with disguising yourself as someone else is...ain't no way to talk yourself out of that. "Whoops I accidentally stole Jeff's identity, my bad, I'll be leaving now." Nah, ain't gonna happen. Best case scenario it happens when you're deep in and can fall back on "beat up the guard, etc." but even that best case compromises your ability for future uses.


Maybe change the ''worst" to more FUN....

And WHY can't a character talk their way out of something or get out of something? It's not like it's impossible. It can even be FUN to dig yourself out of a hole.

Satinavian
2019-01-15, 07:31 AM
Edit: Shadowrun players should play a lot more Fiasko.....Thanks, but NO.

The very base premise of fiaso is full of stuff i hate to happen in an RPG.

I have zero interest in a simulation, especially not when weird abilities or magic is involved. All I need is a solid framework and mechanics that will lead to consistent results.Without simulation you won't get versimullitude and without that i have zero interest in the game.


And while i really would like to use a good social rule set, i have not found one that can deliver. Especially most social combat rules tend to fall flat if there are not two distinct sides that are somehow at odds with each other.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-15, 08:18 AM
I'm slowly coming around to the idea that single fail = disaster mechanics are a design smell in a game. All it does is lead to tail-chasing planning, because everything interesting has some chance of failure. Every failed roll should be recoverable in some way but should change the situation so "do it again, just harder" is disfavored. Outright failure (TPK, total mission failure, etc) should require multiple mistakes that compound.

In combat this "multiple failure" philosophy militates against 1-shot, 1-kill abilities (rocket tag, save-or-die effects), as well as "you must be this tall to ride" binary effects (either you have immunity or you're out of the fight). It also encourages designing encounters with complex win conditions, reserving "fight to the death" for infrequent cases. Soft failure (your opponent killed the one you were trying to protect/distracted you while their friends stole/broke stuff, etc) are much more interesting and don't break campaigns.

Out of combat, this principle tells DMs to break things down into smaller chunks and build in (either on-the-fly or explicitly) alternate routes. This also encourages partial-success/partial-failure/yes, but/no, but design.

This is not the same as "you just win"--you can still fail. It just takes more than one bad roll. It keeps things moving "forward" (whichever direction that happens to be) instead of getting stuck in analysis paralysis with inadequate information (which lends to the precautionary principle and makes the actual mission anticlimactic, at least for me). It encourages people to use those "risky" abilities--otherwise you have high risk without the high reward that's supposed to go along with that and thus those abilities go unused.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-15, 08:27 AM
Without simulation you won't get versimullitude and without that i have zero interest in the game.


I find that simulation in practice rarely helps with verisimilitude, because the resolution is lacking out of necessity and that just draws attention to the flaws. It's the uncanny valley effect in action. Yes, a perfect (or nearly so) simulation can help, but anything low fidelity will just scream out how broken it is.

I'd rather have a purely abstract, "just a game" mechanic that works well and that I can use when it helps rather than a kludgy "simulationist" mechanic for something that can't be simmed effectively at the table.

This isn't to say that I like social combat mechanics (or structured social mechanics in general)--I think they inevitably fall into this trap myself. But simulation and verisimilitude, for me, are separate things and verisimilitude has very little to do with mechanics at all. YMMV.

Florian
2019-01-15, 08:33 AM
@Darth Ultron:

Roadblock design is very common, especially in groups that are concerned about verisimilitude. It basically leads to the kind of failure cascade that can´t be recovered. That's not so much something as stupid as your dragon slayer example, but it turns the whole scenario/dungeon/mission into one huge puzzle that has to be solved in one more or less flawless pass, or else you reach an game over state.

I guess you know the primitive example of the room with the orc and the pie?

Ok, let's add something to this, like the room having a door, the door being locked, the lock being secured with some kind of bell and the orc being prepared to smash the pie rather than have it fall into enemy hands. "No Pie" is the failure state for this scenario.

So, we have a number of roadblocks that must be bypassed, mostly by either one roll or finding an alternative that will circumvent rolling and chance:
- Approaching the door undetected. Stealth roll, or silence and invisibility spell.
- Spotting the Bell. Perception check or Detect traps spell.
- Disabling the Bell. Disable Device or Silence spell.
- Picking the lock. Disable Device roll or Knock spell, when Silence is active.
- Orc....

Ultimately, the whole thing will lead to some Scry/Teleport/Time Stop/Whatever tactics that is geared towards passing all the roadblocks in one go without having to roll anything. Yeah, pie!

The combination is the core issue here: You have your one dramatic roll for each roadblock to clear it, coupled with triggering the game over state when you don't make the pass.

Compare that with how stealth-based games work, as an example, like Thief or Shadow Tactics. Similar to the "other HP" mentioned by NichG, you'd have to first trigger a series of escalating fail states until you get down to a game over state.

Frozen_Feet
2019-01-15, 08:34 AM
@Florian:

Let's try again, plainer:

Changing a situation someone has to plan for does not itself make them a better planner.

There's a saying that general's often prepare for the last war. Just as well, roleplayers often prepare for the last game instead of the one they're playing.

And the malleability of RPG rules often means that rather than adapt their playstyle to a game, players frequently demand the game adapt to their playstyle.

So your comments about a particular playstyle, while technically correct in isolation, miss the point because you tacitly assume both that the players are risk-averse because they did the math right and that they'll do it right again when you change something. But there's a chance they are just risk-averse people who didn't do the math to begin with.

Jophiel
2019-01-15, 09:56 AM
I think part of the problem here is the nature of how the talent fails. I'm assuming this talent is like some kind of illusion and, once a failure has occurred the witness observes something suitably dramatic like seeing the visage of one person transform into that of someone else. This is a fairly extreme failure mode because any witness is going to realize that's not something that should happen and that whoever is doing it is up to no good. Meaning they attack/sound the alarm/take whatever other action ruins the plan.
I don't think it has to work like that, though. You could fail a disguise check by a small margin and perhaps just arouse suspicion. "You pass through the gate and nod at the guard who is peering at you intently; as you continue down the hall you notice him tap his companion and both start to follow..." and now maybe you duck into a closet or try to hide behind some drapes or whatever. The guards don't want to bring the whole place to Red Alert in case they were mistaken but the player's job can be complicated by a more subtle increase in guard activity and awareness. Point being that not every failure has to end with screaming klaxons, the Duke hustled into a safe room and people immediately trying to stab/shoot you to death.

This is very GM dependent though and unless the players have a feeling that you won't completely dork up the plan on a single die roll, they're still going to be reluctant. And, of course, you could still roll a 3 when you needed a 14.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-15, 11:06 AM
I don't think it has to work like that, though. You could fail a disguise check by a small margin and perhaps just arouse suspicion. "You pass through the gate and nod at the guard who is peering at you intently; as you continue down the hall you notice him tap his companion and both start to follow..." and now maybe you duck into a closet or try to hide behind some drapes or whatever. The guards don't want to bring the whole place to Red Alert in case they were mistaken but the player's job can be complicated by a more subtle increase in guard activity and awareness. Point being that not every failure has to end with screaming klaxons, the Duke hustled into a safe room and people immediately trying to stab/shoot you to death.

This is very GM dependent though and unless the players have a feeling that you won't completely dork up the plan on a single die roll, they're still going to be reluctant. And, of course, you could still roll a 3 when you needed a 14.

This goes to something that TTRPGs (and especially those who play them) frequently get wrong--they assume irrational (and unrealistic) levels of alertness and paranoia on the part of everyone. Or conversely, willful blindness/stupidity (but that's a separate matter).

No one can maintain a full alert for very long. Either you make a mistake (a false alarm, which often is worse than a real emergency), you'll get exhausted, or you'll go crazy. There's a reason militaries have alert levels (DEFCON is an example)--keeping things at full readiness is hard. It wears down people and equipment and runs the risk of causing an unnecessary war.

It's also why a lot of stealth video games have intermediate results between full hidden and "detected/alarm". The guards start looking around with interest, making you have to scramble for cover or take them out. Often this is indicated by noises--"I think I heard something!"

For me, a failed check means that the alert level goes up. In blatant cases, the guard goes for the alarm button/gong, but you have a slim chance to divert him, run, or kill him. In less blatant cases, he might start following you or looking more carefully (advantage on a check). Either way, the situation changes so that the previous action needs to be adjusted.

Rynjin
2019-01-15, 03:39 PM
Maybe change the ''worst" to more FUN....

I meant what I said. Making a situation worse due to a bad decision is rarely fun.


And WHY can't a character talk their way out of something or get out of something? It's not like it's impossible. It can even be FUN to dig yourself out of a hole.

The same reason why a person in real life can't just talk themselves out of getting arrested when the cops find them holding a bloody knife over a dead body. "I shapeshifted into one of your guards and broke into a place I'm not wanted" is not something you can just pass off.

Unavenger
2019-01-15, 05:51 PM
In 3.5, all of the truenamer's utterances from the list that most of them come from (all of them full stop at low levels) are actually two abilities, one "Normal" and one "Reversed". This is one of the cool flavour things about the truenamer that fails to stand up mechanically - because the vast, vast majority of the utterances, you only take them for one of the two versions (+5 to all skills is amazing, but I've never seen a situation where I want to be using the reversed version. Dispelling a spell with no questions asked is amazing, but because ordinary dispelling is so unreliable that no-one uses it, I've never had a chance to use the ordinary version of spell rebirth, though it's good if you get the opportunity). In the case of -5 to skills, it's not that it's likely to fail so much as it's rarely actually helpful towards a desired end (I think there was one situation where I almost decided to use it to screw with someone's swim checks, but decided it was easier to kill them directly). In the case of un-dispelling the spell, it's not bad when you use it, it's not likely to fail, but there are so few situations where you even can use it that it's a bit awful.

(Bonus points for all of the "Personal true name research" stuff that no-one bothers with.)

Arbane
2019-01-15, 06:17 PM
NichG's idea of using stealth in terms of hits points is a good enough idea that just might have to steal it.

I believe that's how the indie RPG Blades in The Dark does it, and that's pretty much 'Thief, the RPG'.


I meant what I said. Making a situation worse due to a bad decision is rarely fun.

Darth Ultron meant fun FOR HIM. The players are there to be punished, they know what they did.


The same reason why a person in real life can't just talk themselves out of getting arrested when the cops find them holding a bloody knife over a dead body. "I shapeshifted into one of your guards and broke into a place I'm not wanted" is not something you can just pass off.

Seems like that's the sort of situation where a really good fast-talk skill could be a big help. Or a planned diversion from friends. Or at least a few smoke-bombs...

But yeah, it's like the rogue scouting ahead in D&D - it sounds like a good idea, but one blown roll and the rogue is trying to solo enemies meant to take on the entire party, who are a good ways behind them.

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 06:22 PM
The same reason why a person in real life can't just talk themselves out of getting arrested when the cops find them holding a bloody knife over a dead body. "I shapeshifted into one of your guards and broke into a place I'm not wanted" is not something you can just pass off.

Does failing mean that they are automatically detected as a shapeshifter, or does it mean that the target senses something is "wrong" about the character, without necessarily knowing exactly what it is?

Darth Ultron
2019-01-15, 08:21 PM
"No Pie" is the failure state for this scenario.



I don't quite get the ''failure of the scenario". Really bad DM's making cartoonish games, like the super ninja dragon that can only be killed by the Chuck Norris Sword, and if the PC's misses the Dm just go ''game over, bro" and ends the game. But how does this come up in any other game?


The same reason why a person in real life can't just talk themselves out of getting arrested when the cops find them holding a bloody knife over a dead body. "I shapeshifted into one of your guards and broke into a place I'm not wanted" is not something you can just pass off.

Er, but your comparing apples and oranges. To talk ones way out of wearing a disguise is not even close to equal to talking ones way out of being caught bloody red handed at a murder.


On the player side, the actual problem is inability or unwilligness to do nested back-up planning.

Example: Plan A is I walk past the guards in disguise. If I fail the check, Sam initiates Plan B and climbs through the window while Hector bails me out.


Good point. I'm confused why the above does not work in some peoples games?

A single bad roll can't obliterate a game too often, right? How often in people games is the set like "ok, the world will explode unless you roll higher then a ten on the d20...roll!" I would think like never....

And, ok, the disguise example. So Zim puts on a disguise. Walks past NPC guard and a check is made. The guard ''rolls a 20" so sees through the disguise...and:

1.The guard does the murderhobo attack!
2.The guard says ''halt" and attempts to arrest the character
3.The guard just follows the character and watches them closely
4.The guard approaches the character, and asks what they are doing...maybe for a bribe
5.The guard does nothing...for now.

Ok, that is just five things that can happen on a failed roll. I don't really see any of them being so bad.

Rynjin
2019-01-15, 10:21 PM
IEr, but your comparing apples and oranges. To talk ones way out of wearing a disguise is not even close to equal to talking ones way out of being caught bloody red handed at a murder.

You've been caught bloody red handed at shapeshifting into a different person. They are equally unexplainable events; both require deliberate and pre-meditated action on your part.

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 10:56 PM
You've been caught bloody red handed at shapeshifting into a different person. They are equally unexplainable events; both require deliberate and pre-meditated action on your part.

Has it been definitely established that failing the roll = being caught shapeshifting into a different person?

Darth Ultron
2019-01-15, 11:38 PM
You've been caught bloody red handed at shapeshifting into a different person. They are equally unexplainable events; both require deliberate and pre-meditated action on your part.

Ok, so the answer is when you think everything is the End of the World as we Know it.....then everything is the End of the World.

Ok, then this is an easy fix: never, ever think that way. Ever. Try thinking just about any other way.

Florian
2019-01-15, 11:46 PM
I don't quite get the ''failure of the scenario". Really bad DM's making cartoonish games, like the super ninja dragon that can only be killed by the Chuck Norris Sword, and if the PC's misses the Dm just go ''game over, bro" and ends the game. But how does this come up in any other game?

Good point. I'm confused why the above does not work in some peoples games?

Ok, that is just five things that can happen on a failed roll. I don't really see any of them being so bad.

I wouldn't say cartoonish, more like the opposite.

Personally, I think that a lot of GMs come up with a scenario, play it through in their mind and will most likely end up with the situation that they "optimize" it to the point that there's only one clear solution to solving the scenario, everything else will lead to disaster.

In an attempt to create a "realistic" scenario, they come up with something that is everything but, because we end up with 100% perfectly alert, paranoid, knowledgeable and loyal workers/guards/soldiers, most likely with fanatical fighting spirit to boot.

So the guard sees through the illusion, yells for help, activates the traps, the other guards hear him, sound the alarm, release the dogs and so on and so on, baring any chance for a second attempt at that scenario.

Pauly
2019-01-16, 03:48 AM
You've been caught bloody red handed at shapeshifting into a different person. They are equally unexplainable events; both require deliberate and pre-meditated action on your part.

Being caught shapeshifting
“I was trying to surprise my wife who works on the 3rd floor”
“I’m from counter-intelligence. Good job on your diligence, now I need to speak to your supervisor”
“Yeah I’m really Barry, but Larry asked me to cover his shift”

Being caught red handed
“Thank God you’re here. Someone has stabbed this poor gentleman”
“It was self defense”
“Someone is mind controlling me. Please help me”
“Don’t step in front of the cameras like that”

It depends on how long and how thoroughly you need to fool the person and other surrounding context but yes you plausibly can talk your way out of being caught in those situations at least for a little bit.

Earthwalker
2019-01-16, 04:58 AM
Has it been definitely established that failing the roll = being caught shapeshifting into a different person?

Its an opposed test. The Awarness test to see through the disguise is the result of the disguise self talent test.
So if they get higher they see through the disguise.
That's the wording on the talent.

Seems to make it pretty much all or nothing.

Mordaedil
2019-01-16, 05:46 AM
It is a problem that ever since 4th edition they've tried to solve with skill challenges.

It just had some problems with how it was implemented, but if you just need a quick and dirty one, it's simple to say a single failure causes a skill challenge to start, instead of causing an outright immediate failure. Caught sneaking? Now you must have 3 successes before you roll 4 failures.

Particle_Man
2019-01-16, 06:32 AM
On the one hand this reminds me of a how the PDQ system solves it which is by making everything from combat to social interactions use the same ablative system.

It also makes me think of various “demon summoner” types where there is a chance that the demon turns on you. That can make for a tpk.

Pauly
2019-01-16, 07:17 PM
Its an opposed test. The Awarness test to see through the disguise is the result of the disguise self talent test.
So if they get higher they see through the disguise.
That's the wording on the talent.

Seems to make it pretty much all or nothing.

Well there is some degree of wiggle room in that outcome. Depending on the situation and dice roll the reaction could be (a) there’s a problem with your ID (b) Something’s not quite right, I need to do more checks (c) Just who are you and what are you doing? (D) just wait here while I get my supervisor (e) what the hell are you doing in disguise? (f) Stop, you’re under arrest! (g) Intruder Alert! sound the alarms! Situation code red! This is Not a drill!

It seems to me that the assumption by the GM and other players is that a failed roll automatically goes to the most severe of the possible outcomes. If you can persuade the GM and other players that a failed roll can have less severe outcomes than the enemy base going on full red alert then that increases your chance of being able to use that skill.

If it’s a small fail you may have a chance to persuade the guard that the problem is with the ID or their memory not your disguise. A medium failure may allow your player to exit the situation but the enemy are put on a slightly higher state of alert - they know someone tried to get in but not who or why or if there will be another attempt. Only a large failure leads to the plan getting blown up. If your system allows you to spend date points or something similar to modify dice rolls then your risk of total failure drops to near zero.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-16, 08:19 PM
So the guard sees through the illusion, yells for help, activates the traps, the other guards hear him, sound the alarm, release the dogs and so on and so on, baring any chance for a second attempt at that scenario.

My point is that unless the scenario is ''the world will blow up if you fail", it does not matter. Sneaking past some guards, and 99% of all of activities won't end the world. It will change the flow of the story, but that is it.



Really, I'd call this out on what it sounds like: A Silly Player Complaint. A LOT of players only want to play a game where they will automatically win. They can't accept any sort of loss, so much so that they refuse to even play if they think they might loose. You see them in every type of game, as soon as they ''get behind" or ''start to loose", they will ''suddenly" not want to play any more.

And they are too common in RPGs, where you get players that don't even want to play a game: they just want a Storytelling Activity.

Now this is a perfectly valid and fun way (for some) to do something. But most games, are not set up for this type of activity. So such players would be better playing the activities that are not games that have things like chance and failure. They do exist for this very reason: they are popular enough.

NichG
2019-01-18, 05:37 AM
Well there is some degree of wiggle room in that outcome. Depending on the situation and dice roll the reaction could be (a) there’s a problem with your ID (b) Something’s not quite right, I need to do more checks (c) Just who are you and what are you doing? (D) just wait here while I get my supervisor (e) what the hell are you doing in disguise? (f) Stop, you’re under arrest! (g) Intruder Alert! sound the alarms! Situation code red! This is Not a drill!

It seems to me that the assumption by the GM and other players is that a failed roll automatically goes to the most severe of the possible outcomes. If you can persuade the GM and other players that a failed roll can have less severe outcomes than the enemy base going on full red alert then that increases your chance of being able to use that skill.

If it’s a small fail you may have a chance to persuade the guard that the problem is with the ID or their memory not your disguise. A medium failure may allow your player to exit the situation but the enemy are put on a slightly higher state of alert - they know someone tried to get in but not who or why or if there will be another attempt. Only a large failure leads to the plan getting blown up. If your system allows you to spend date points or something similar to modify dice rolls then your risk of total failure drops to near zero.

One thing to keep in mind is, if the situation were reversed and an NPC was using Disguise while a PC succeeded on an Awareness check, what would you expect to happen? Would a player consider it reasonable to succeed in such a check but then be told that they aren't suspicious enough to interrogate the NPC or otherwise interfere with them? Because whatever you might have in mind about how you will run the situation, from the player point of view their first point of contact to figure out what's reasonable will be using themselves as models.

Jophiel
2019-01-18, 09:13 AM
I don't think you can compare NPC actions to PC actions. Even at their best, PCs are operating on metagame level where the player is aware that they are rolling dice, what the numbers are, that there ARE skill/ability checks and all the rest of it. The way most games are run, the players know that if they succeed in their roll (or just roll high even if they don't know what number to beat) then the information the GM gives will be accurate. The very fact that they're making a check at all is an immediate tell that something is up.

If everything was rolled behind a screen AND if the GM treated failures as false information instead of just a "You don't know", things would probably be different. If the players were hired to act as guards, someone enters and shows his (valid) ID and the GM treats a secret Detect Forgery failure as "You think his ID looks suspicious and his photo doesn't really match his face" would the PCs be as anxious to throw the red alert switch? Or would they take is slower and try to investigate further, pass his ID around the group giving multiple chances for success, while giving an NPC the chance to persuade the PC guards that he's on the up and up, or stealth/hide away from them or otherwise get infiltrate the place? If they're going to flip out the 5% of times someone rolls a 1, they're not going to last long on the job shutting the place down every 20th visitor.

Rather than trying to treat NPCs as PCs, I think the best you can do is treat them as "real" people and accept that PCs are operating on a different level as the stars of the show.

Slipperychicken
2019-01-18, 09:53 AM
Now I do find this annoying as I have talents I just can never use… “what if it fails?”. This isn’t a rant against the other players in my game, or the GM or the system.

It’s a question of is there a better way?
The issue is that the power is unreliable and RNG-based, which doesn't give the certainty needed in this kind of planning. Or at least it's perceived as such.

Have you considered just having a branching path in your plan? "I try the power; if it succeeds we do X easier thing where I'm auto-disguised, if it fails we do Y harder thing where I'm not"?

DaveOTN
2019-01-18, 10:56 AM
I find that this often happens in D&D with spells like Charm Person which are phrased as "social" spells but are really "pre-combat knockdown" spells. You meet a guard, and are afraid you might have to fight him, so you cast Charm Person, and if you succeed, he lets you through the door and if you fail, he gets angry and attacks you for casting a mind control spell on him. That makes perfect sense if you compare it to a similar 1st-level spell, say Sleep, that you might cast in combat - the guard either is taken out of the combat entirely or unaffected and fighting you. But Charm Person isn't a combat spell, and it feels like it should be a social encounter spell. "While the bard tries to sweet-talk the guard, I cast Charm Person on him to help," feels like it should be helpful, but in practice, it changes the situation from "The bard doesn't seem to be making progress. The guard frowns and turns you away." (which gives you lots of other options) to "While the bard is talking, the guard notices you casting the spell, yells out, and sounds the alarm." It turns a situation with non-violent stakes into a violent one, which means you rule out the plan if you're trying to avoid violence. And at this point you might as well just learn Sleep or Magic Missile.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-18, 11:47 AM
I find that this often happens in D&D with spells like Charm Person which are phrased as "social" spells but are really "pre-combat knockdown" spells. You meet a guard, and are afraid you might have to fight him, so you cast Charm Person, and if you succeed, he lets you through the door and if you fail, he gets angry and attacks you for casting a mind control spell on him. That makes perfect sense if you compare it to a similar 1st-level spell, say Sleep, that you might cast in combat - the guard either is taken out of the combat entirely or unaffected and fighting you. But Charm Person isn't a combat spell, and it feels like it should be a social encounter spell.

Note: Charm Person is a combat spell. Eagle's Splendor is the social encounter spell.

Feralgeist
2019-01-18, 11:09 PM
And, ok, the disguise example. So Zim puts on a disguise. Walks past NPC guard and a check is made. The guard ''rolls a 20" so sees through the disguise...and:

1.The guard does the murderhobo attack!
2.The guard says ''halt" and attempts to arrest the character
3.The guard just follows the character and watches them closely
4.The guard approaches the character, and asks what they are doing...maybe for a bribe
5.The guard does nothing...for now.

Ok, that is just five things that can happen on a failed roll. I don't really see any of them being so bad.

I have always had more fun running and playing in games with incremental success/failure. How you respond to a given situation can vary WILDLY on just how bad you **** up and IMO it makes for more dynamic realistic games because on a sliding scale people won't just go for minimal risk, they'll more often go for maximum reward and it leads to pure hilarity. If you can't handle Save or Suck spell system then talk to your DM about researching custom spells that have a reduced effect on a failed save.

NichG
2019-01-19, 09:40 AM
I don't think you can compare NPC actions to PC actions. Even at their best, PCs are operating on metagame level where the player is aware that they are rolling dice, what the numbers are, that there ARE skill/ability checks and all the rest of it. The way most games are run, the players know that if they succeed in their roll (or just roll high even if they don't know what number to beat) then the information the GM gives will be accurate. The very fact that they're making a check at all is an immediate tell that something is up.

If everything was rolled behind a screen AND if the GM treated failures as false information instead of just a "You don't know", things would probably be different. If the players were hired to act as guards, someone enters and shows his (valid) ID and the GM treats a secret Detect Forgery failure as "You think his ID looks suspicious and his photo doesn't really match his face" would the PCs be as anxious to throw the red alert switch? Or would they take is slower and try to investigate further, pass his ID around the group giving multiple chances for success, while giving an NPC the chance to persuade the PC guards that he's on the up and up, or stealth/hide away from them or otherwise get infiltrate the place? If they're going to flip out the 5% of times someone rolls a 1, they're not going to last long on the job shutting the place down every 20th visitor.

Much like real high-security situations, I could easily imagine PCs as guards taking anyone who falls into that 5% into a side-room, limiting their access to their belongings and gear, and basically treating everything they say with ten times the suspicion they would otherwise. It's what I'd do as a player, so if I'm trying to think 'is this a good idea?' then while I won't assume that the NPCs will behave that way, I'll certainly expect that the NPCs could behave that way - meaning that, regardless of how the GM intends to run the NPCs (which I cannot actually know, not being able to read their mind), I'm going to be planning against a mental model of NPCs who are, for better or worse, as competent as I am.

Generally speaking, in any sort of high-skill adversarial scenario, even if the opponent will always make mistakes its a bad idea to rely on the assumption that the opponent will make any particular mistake. You can create opportunities for mistakes and exploit the ones that happen, but if there's a move which only works if the opponent makes an error and hurts you if they don't, it's generally a bad idea.

Jophiel
2019-01-19, 10:15 AM
Sure, the point is that even going to a side room is still a chance to turn a botched check (or an NPC's rare success) into a successful deception or persuasion attempt. Or squeeze out a shaft when the guard says wait here and exits for a minute. Or tamper with a terminal and add her name to the database ("Sheesh, computers huh?"). You don't have to jump from calm to red alert based on a single check which makes plans relying on checks more viable.