Abilities that never get used

[Earthwalker]

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]

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]

So, basically the complete Shadowrun dilemma in a nutshell.

[Satinavian]

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]

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]

I´m 100% Pink Mohawk.

So basically the opposite from me.

[Earthwalker]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

NichG's idea of using stealth in terms of hits points is a good enough idea that just might have to steal it.

[Earthwalker]

[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.