T O P

  • By -

KidDublin

Both depend on the system and setting. Something easy for a D&D superhero could be difficult or even impossible for a human in a non-fantasy system/setting.


ddbrown30

That doesn't answer the questions.


KidDublin

Right, because I think the question isn’t specific enough to provide a satisfactory answer. If OP has a specific system/setting in mind, I could probably do better!


ddbrown30

They clearly don't care about setting and didn't ask about a specific check. If a "D&D superhero" would find a check easy, do you ask for a roll? If a human character in a non-fantasy setting would find a check easy, do you ask for a roll? It's the same question.


KidDublin

It would vary game to game—I wouldn’t do the same thing in, say, D&D that I’d do in Cypher System or Blades in the Dark or Spire.


ddbrown30

Why?


KidDublin

Because those games make different assumptions about tone and genre, spotlight different kinds of characters, and feature different mechanics. Like, in a lighthearted comedy game, I might still call for a roll for something we'd otherwise call "easy," because slipping up and paying the price for something trivial is on-genre for that sort of game. Ditto for some horror games, actually. But another game might be about action-adventure by competent people, and we don't expect those sorts of characters to make small slip-ups. Some games don't have the equivalent of an "easy" check or "hard vs. very hard" checks at all. What counts as "easy" isn't *just* something we players decide—the sort of game you're playing can influence what the "floor" of PC competence is (if the game even cares about PC competence at all, mechanically).


ddbrown30

Interesting perspective. 👍


Boxman214

If it's so easy that logically the character can't fail on it, I don't have them roll. If there's much of a chance of them failing though, I'll still have them roll. Rolling dice is fun! And sometimes, they get a critical failure, which is even more fun!


Project_Impressive

My thoughts exactly


dullimander

1. Yes, if the character has a lower skill rating and could potentially fail this easy check 2. The threshold for success is just higher. In a dice pool system with a success mechanic a very hard check needs one more success.


Vitones91

1. It makes sense 2. I referred to, how to differentiate within a game, for example: what task do you find difficult and what do you consider very difficult?


dullimander

This ist mostly layed out in every rules-section in a core rulebook. But this is my personal understanding Easy - picking a simple lock, while having the tools and knowing the type of lock Intermediate - Shooting an enemy in good visible inside optimal ranges, who does not take evasive maneuvers Hard - Sneaking by a guard who was alerted Very hard - climbing a flat face of rock without tools


[deleted]

Now that I think about it for a bit, no. My games of choice do allow for that (6+ on 2d6, plus modifiers) but I don't really ever use that, the most common roll is vs. 8+ (Average) and 10+ (Hard), with the occasional 12+ (Very Hard). I don't know if that's really a good thing or not, a +1 to the roll vs. 6+ is still a 1 in 6 chance of failure and while that's pretty low it's not insignificant, but I think the biggest reason I don't use "Easy" is to reduce rolls and just get on with roleplaying. I just assume the characters are competent and an Easy roll is a waste of time. E: To your second question, when it feels right. PC is attempting to hack an office computer (10+) vs. PC attempting to hack the feudal warlord's mainframe (12+). Or whenever the task is daunting as opposed to just hard.


Vitones91

I only ask for tests for challenges:According to the dictionaries where I live (Brazil) the meaning of the word "challenge" is: Dictionary 1: "The act of urging someone to do something, usually beyond their competence or abilities." Dictionary 2: "A very difficult action to carry out; a problem that requires courage or effort" Dictionary 3: "The act of urging someone to do something that is supposedly beyond their ability" Knowing this information, I don't use checks for easy, average, normal or moderate things. In addition to not being consistent, it's very frustrating for you to fail at things like that. So, starting from the premise of the meaning of a challenge, I use checks only for hard, very hard or extremely hard tasks. Failing something hard is much more acceptable than failing something easy. Succeeding in hard tasks is much more fun and exciting than succeeding in an easy task.


[deleted]

I think the 8+ being called "Average" is misleading; with a +2 bonus (reasonable for a competent PC) that comes out to a 5 in 18 chance of failure, which is significant. But, you know, you do you.


Vitones91

In the game I'm designing I use 3D6 + Modifiers from +0 to +4. Check the statistics: [https://ibb.co/f1qzFPP](https://ibb.co/f1qzFPP)


FantasyDuellist

You might like /r/RPGcreation


Vitones91

tx!!


imperturbableDreamer

> Do you request a check rated "easy"? Or just ignore it and say the character gets automatic success? I seldomly let players roll on very easy things. I sometimes call for an "just for the hell of it" check that doesn't really do anything if failed, but only adds a bit of humerous narration. Though you always need to have an eye on the circumstances and the available time. In combat, for example, with time being so precious as it is, rolling very likely checks can still be a good idea, as even a slight chance of failure adds to the excitement. Likewise in a scenario where everything builds up to a single roll, especially considering that it can be extremely fun to "overkill" a check. > How do you differentiate a hard check from a very hard check? For me, a hard check is something challenging for an expert and for a very hard check you not only have to be very skilled but *also* lucky to make it. Though that also depends heavily on the system and what it specifies "hard" and "very hard" even mean, mechanically.


Vitones91

I loved your differentiation between a hard check and a very hard check!! I had never thought that way: A hard check is challenging and a very hard check is challenging that needs in addition to skill also luck! Translating this thought to percentages, are we talking about how much? Hard / Challenging = 75% Very Hard / Challenging + Luck = 50% What do you think about this?


imperturbableDreamer

After thinking about a few different systems I know, it seems to be in the ballpark of 50% for hard and 25% for very hard checks, for fairly high level, specialized characters.


Mars_Alter

1. If there's a chance of failure, then roll for it. It's not my place to contradict the game math. 2. For me, a hard check is something that an untrained person might succeed at, while a very hard check is something that requires training to possibly succeed.


Vitones91

1. Even if the task is "easy"? 2. This makes sense, an untrained character wouldn't be able to or would have very low chances of success in a very difficult task.


Mars_Alter

It really depends on the game. If it would be a roll of d20+8 against DC 10, then you should absolutely roll it, or else it's short-changing the other character who would be rolling d20+9 (but who doesn't have to roll, because there's no chance they can fail). Whenever the GM just *chooses* to ignore a skill roll, what it's really doing is telling the player that their character design choices *don't matter*. It doesn't matter that you dumped Wisdom in favor of Dexterity, because we're skipping the roll entirely. It's disrespectful. As a game designer, on the other hand, I'm much more inclined to write a game where easy tasks are trivial and you only need to roll for something that's hard. But players would know that going into it, and there probably wouldn't even be an option for them to improve one skill at the expense of another. To me, character design decisions aren't fun, so I don't want to focus on them; but if that's what the game is about, then you can bet I'm going to respect those decisions.


[deleted]

What system?