In the "take a 20" example, this simulates trying something over and over again until you do roll that 20 (or a 10 if you were in a hurry). I played a lot of games where I only allowed a skill roll ONCE for a given course of action. That lockpicking skill roll meant something, that was your one shot, your one chance, and if you blew it there was no rolling again.
Think of another way, because narratively it was always more exciting and interesting to me to make that skill roll mean something more than "a failed first attempt." No, all your "failed first attempts" are included in that skill roll, and we are rolling for the end of the process. You roll for the last roll.
Even in fiction and movies it is always more exciting to see a pass or fail attempt, and then watch the characters deal with the result instead of trying again and again. Yes, as someone kicks a door open, there may be more than one kick, but that is all the same skill or ability roll. It is not "one roll per kick."
With passive skills I feel we are in the same area. Why not have a "passive combat skill?" All monsters with an AC lower than your passive combat skill are auto hit, just roll for damage. Well, a combat blow is a single pass-fail event, right? So why can't that be for skills as well, in the larger, narrative sense? If your game is moving more towards storytelling, why not make larger narrative assumptions about skill rolls and eliminate the "turn by turn" roll repetition of pure simulation?
Story-wise, the elf ranger gets one attempt to lead the party through the evil forest. On a pass, the story goes one way, on a fail, it goes the other. Both results could have goods and bads, without taking a month off to "take a 20" for a navigation roll and just assume success.
If you are putting in a system to auto-assume success in a story game, then your failure results need fixing. They are not interesting, block the story, and provide no enjoyment other than delay. In an old school game? Fine, fail and suffer! In a story game, a failure condition should branch the narrative - not stop it dead in its tracks. Otherwise what is the point?
Some modules with those "locked doors that block the story" suck for a story game and those doors should not be in there. Or there should be another way around. A referee needs to spot these module design issues and make allowances - designers make mistakes, and not all modules are good for all types of games (without modification). Again, in an old school game? Different entirely, you are locked behind that door until you turn into the skeleton encounter in room #10.
If you are going to automate something away to the point of not checking for it, the question has to come up - why not eliminate the mechanic entirely from the game? I feel there is just way too much silly automation and allowed repetition in games these days, where they assume a passive perception check like a radar system, or taking "extra time" to guarantee a certain roll because they are hand waving around rolling a d20 for every skill check all night until it passes.
The game may have a problem that if repeated checks are necessary for most skill rolls, then I would say your game's difficulties should be lowered and make them a single pass-fail check and be done with it. Also, if your game needs passive skill levels, you are introducing another system of "number versus number" checking whenever the party enters a room. What is everyone's passive perception? Number versus number time again!
Why?
Even if you write them all down, does checking that list of numbers every time the party moves into an unexplored area really save you much time over the old way? It just feels like more bookkeeping and simulation to me, like a game with submarines and passive sonar ratings with circles of detection radius sliding around a map.
You could probably eliminate passive perception in a purely storytelling game just through writing careful room descriptions that allow players to pick up on inconsistencies in the environment. The light from the chandelier passes right through the table. The shelf is not flat against the wall. One of the chairs it tipped over. The coat rack is full except for the second hook. The floor has a strange star like pattern that repeats down the center of the hall until the doors.
Those could be nothing or they could be something. Let the players pick up on it and ask the referee questions.
If you eliminate passive perception, you are eliminating the builds that specialize in passive perception. But, really, are those needed? If everything was included in the room descriptions those points would be freed up for other abilities. There are times when creating a passive perception game only feels like it serves the passive perception system that originated in versions of the game that were more geared towards simulation than storytelling.
Also, in old school games the way I play them, there is no perception roll (outside of the special cases, such as the passive abilities for dwarves and elves). Listen to the referee's words and pick up on things. Pay attention and react accordingly. My way of doing it, of course, is not the best and everyone has their own style and preferences. My way of playing is to eliminate the "layered systems" that feel more like patches, and get closer to that one-on-one of a referee and those listening to the words spoken.
No comments:
Post a Comment