Always taking 10

[valadil]

I had an idea for an extremely streamlined RPG system. One of the ideas was to use flat skill checks without a die roll. It's kinda like always taking 10. At first this seemed like a terrible way to take the fun out of the game, but it's been brewing around in my head and I think it could actually work for two reasons.

First off, I never felt that skill checks added to the story of a game. My last D&D game didn't have a rogue, so we mostly did away with traps and locks. Mostly. When the GM wanted us out of something he kept us out. Having a character there whose purpose was to roll a d20 until we got through the door wouldn't have made things any more interesting.

The other thing I like about this kind of system is that it would take some focus off of the game mechanics. A character with 12 points in climb knows that he can climb a rope or a tree but not a vertical wall (may or may not be true in 3.5, these are just some arbitrary skill checks). These should be things that the character can just do without needing a die. As a DM who encourages roleplaying, I feel one of the best ways to do that is to make mechanics less interesting than the roleplaying. This sort of roll free system would lend itself to roleplay more easily as players wouldn't get distracted by mechanics.

(I should point out that while I don't have plans for die rolls in this system, there will be temporary buffs and other ways to gain bonuses or will your way to success, so these flat DCs won't be entirely flat, just diceless. I should also point at that that's just for uncontested checks. Checks against other actors in the world will be more interesting.)

I apologize for the vagueness here, but I'd rather hold off on publishing the rest of my ideas for this sort of system. I'm just curious about your gut reactions to a system that doesn't use dice or other randomness for resolving skill checks.

-- addendum --

Just to clarify for people who don't keep up with the comments...

Flat DCs will only be around for non opposed checks. Opposed checks have their own mechanic, which I think is interesting enough to make up for the drama lost in going diceless.
This will not be based on D&D.
I'm not trying to fix anything that may or may not be wrong with D&D.
Non opposed checks can receive bonuses at a player's discretion. Someone who really wants their character to do something won't be held back because their score is a couple points too low.

[Chronos]

It would make for an extremely boring system if everything which currently involves a skill check were either an auto-success or an auto-failure. It'd also be rather unrealistic: Sure, I can reliably climb a tree with low-hanging branches, but can I climb that tree in under 6 seconds while a pack of hungry wolves is chasing me? Maybe, maybe not.

It'd also wreak havoc with opposed checks. Under this system, if a rogue tries to sneak past a guard who's slightly lower level than the rogue, the rogue will always succeed, but if the guard's slightly higher level than the rogue, e'll always fail. A level or two shouldn't make nearly that much difference.

People seem to love the idea of streamlining the skill system, and I can never understand why. Would streamlining combat to the same extent be a good idea? If not, why not, and why don't those same reasons apply to skills?

[valadil]

It'd also wreak havoc with opposed checks. Under this system, if a rogue tries to sneak past a guard who's slightly lower level than the rogue, the rogue will always succeed, but if the guard's slightly higher level than the rogue, e'll always fail. A level or two shouldn't make nearly that much difference.


Again, opposed checks will have other factors going into them for what I have in mind. Flat checks would just be for unopposed rolls.

You do raise an interesting point about climbing while being chased though. I hadn't thought about opposed rolls that don't match up before. Like, combat is usually opposed by combat, not by climbing.

[Scorpina]

I think it's an interesting idea, but I dunno if it'd work too well over an extended period without the game getting boring. I would, however, have to withhold judgement until you elaborate on what opposed checks would be like.

[TheThan]

I think it would work well for non-dramatic situations. For the dramatic situations such as the chase scene above, I’d just use the regular opposed roll system.


Oh and Scorpina, love the avatar!

[Tsotha-lanti]

Isn't this Amber ? If your X is higher than his X, you win the exchange. (It's also the big weakness of the system, to my understanding.)

So it can work, but a lot of people think randomness is an absolutely essential component to RPG task resolution. Many of the best experiences any player has are about succeeding on that one-in-a-million (well, more like one-in-twenty or, at the most, one-in-a-hundred) chance when all the odds are stacked against you.

This is already how non-dramatic and regular tasks work in D&D, with the taking 10 mechanic. If there's no risk or hurry involved, there's no randomness necessary.

[pasko77]

Valadil, if i can help you, i once made a diceless RPG.
The trick is: give a mechanic to raise temporarily attributes (a la Willpower in White Wolf system), and this pool refreshes each day.

In this way you don't have random, since no dice are involved, but you leave your players to decide, at every skill challenge, if they want to consume their resources or not. Of course players must not know the real difficulty of the challenge.

This worked very nice for me.

[namo]

Since what you want is essentially a diceless system, I would start from a known diceless system and extend it to suit your needs. Starting from dice-heavy D&D doesn't strike me as a good idea...

Otherwise, I am also a big fan of taking 10 - spurious dice rolls have come to annoy me over time.

[Kurald Galain]

It's not a bad idea but perhaps an overreaction.

The problem with the skill system in D&D is that the random factor (1d20) is much, much bigger than the difference in skill ranks. Removing the random factor solves this, but reducing it also would.

And yes, diceless systems do exactly that. I've found that Amber DRP really doesn't work all that well in my experience, but there's a few other diceless RPGs you could look into.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The problem with the skill system in D&D is that the random factor (1d20) is much, much bigger than the difference in skill ranks. Removing the random factor solves this, but reducing it also would.

3d6 ftw. For instance, in GURPS, a skill of 15 is hugely better than a skill of 12 for any task, but a skill of 18 isn't noticeably better than a 15 for regular tasks (with no negative modifiers). However, that 18 gives you a huge advantage in difficult tasks, where you do take a penalty.

[valadil]

Isn't this Amber ? If your X is higher than his X, you win the exchange. (It's also the big weakness of the system, to my understanding.)

So it can work, but a lot of people think randomness is an absolutely essential component to RPG task resolution. Many of the best experiences any player has are about succeeding on that one-in-a-million (well, more like one-in-twenty or, at the most, one-in-a-hundred) chance when all the odds are stacked against you.

This is already how non-dramatic and regular tasks work in D&D, with the taking 10 mechanic. If there's no risk or hurry involved, there's no randomness necessary.

I haven't played or known anyone who has played Amber. I suppose it probably works similarly as several posters have mentioned it. I don't suppose it has an SRD I could look at.

Anyway, I'm not against dicey systems. I love D&D. I just had this idea and wanted to try it out. I've never played a diceless game though, so I wanted to hear what people thought of them before going through the effort of making it.

The basic idea is that people will have some extra pool they can put towards actions they want to succeed on. It's kinda like WoD's willpower or Deadlands' fate chips. What's different is that to spend will on a contested roll you secretly bid an amount of will power from a limited pool. I got the idea from the Game of Thrones board game. I think this sort of thing would keep a lot of the drama that was lost to the lack of dice, and it would refocus that drama to opposed rolls instead of open lock checks. This also would probably be better for a social game than a dungeon crawl, as I have yet to figure out an elegant way for a DM to manage will pools for each and every NPC.

[AstralFire]

3d6 ftw. For instance, in GURPS, a skill of 15 is hugely better than a skill of 12 for any task, but a skill of 18 isn't noticeably better than a 15 for regular tasks (with no negative modifiers). However, that 18 gives you a huge advantage in difficult tasks, where you do take a penalty.

The only reason I ceased using the 3d6 houserule in D&D was that critical hit ranges were an absolute PITA. Otherwise, much better.

[Starsinger]

To borrow an idea from White Wolf's Scion, only roll the dice if the outcome is interesting either way. So if your rogue is trying to pick that lock and is trying to get in to hide from the oncoming zombies? That's interesting if you fail, it adds tension, roll the d20 then. If your rogue is trying to pick a lock and there's no real pressure to do so, don't bother rolling that's not interesting.

[nagora]

Here's a bath-time idea I recently mentioned over on Dragonsfoot:


Just out of the bath; how about this:

Skill rolls can result in any of the following:
Fumble/special failure
Failure
Success
Crit/Special Success

To make a skill roll: 3d6. A result of 3 is a Crit. Anything else is a fail.

If the total rolled is less than any one applicable ability score, the result is improved by 1 step.

If you have a skill or background which is applicable to the task you improve whatever result you get by 1 step.

If you roll more than 2 6s, the final result is made one step worse for each 6 after the second.

The DM may require more than 3d6 to be rolled for difficult tasks.

EG: A character who has been riding horses for years needs to make a skill check for jumping a fence on horseback. The PC has a Dex of 7. The player rolls 3, 3, 4, a fail. The character's background moves this to a success. A roll of 3, 3, 3 would have been a crit (if that matters).

A similar character with no experience in horse-riding would have fallen off with the roll of 7, and merely succeeded with the roll of 6.

For the experienced character to fall off, s/he would need to roll 18.

No skill ranks or levels, just "I have a skill in that" and your ability. I think I would probably allow a bonus to the ability based on the character's level too, but I'm not sure exactly how.

Yes, it does make it very unusual to fail a skill roll; that was the intent.

[Emperor Tippy]

So the OP basically just wants to give everyone Skill Mastery for every skill. Something that currently requires you be a rogue 19 with an Int (after items) of 24 at level 10.

[nagora]

So the OP basically just wants to give everyone Skill Mastery for every skill. Something that currently requires you be a rogue 19 with an Int (after items) of 24 at level 10.
Actually, I think the OP just wants a game where the skill system isn't one that assumes that skill is less important than luck.

[Emperor Tippy]

Actually, I think the OP just wants a game where the skill system isn't one that assumes that skill is less important than luck.

It doesn't really.

You can make pretty much every not epic DC easily if you try.

tool+synergy+feat+3 in stat is +10 right there. You can get that at level 2. And with Ranks that means you auto make a DC 16 check at level 2. Level 11 you auto make a DC 25 check. Level 16 and you auto make DC 30. Level 20 and you auto make DC 34. Throw in a +2 stat boost item and your at auto making DC 35.

And thats without any real effort at all. Pumping a skill you can get +50 or better. And thats without Factotum 3.

[valadil]

So the OP basically just wants to give everyone Skill Mastery for every skill. Something that currently requires you be a rogue 19 with an Int (after items) of 24 at level 10.

Nah, the OP just wants an entirely different system. I just called it always taking 10 for simplicity's sake. I'm actually imagining something closer to World of Darkness. This is not a system I'd be adapting from D&D.