Can /tg/ name systems where using roguish skills like sneaking past people or picking pockets is NOT inherently screwed over because the rules makes no distinction between "low-risk noncombat rolls that have light consequences on failure" and "high-risk noncombat rolls that cause setbacks like 'someone noticed you trying to sneak past them/steal from them and is now angry about it!' on failure"?
Taking riskier actions that have more biting consequences on failure should logically have a greater reward for success than safer actions, right?
>>43838872
>Taking riskier actions that have more biting consequences on failure should logically have a greater reward for success than safer actions, right?
not really
There are a lot of cases where people take unnecessary risks due to stupidity, emotion, manipulation, insufficient information or coincidence.
>>43838872
What?
>>43838872
What you propose is balanced and fair but not correct. Smoking while pumping gas is a big risk with little reward
>>43839010
>>43839066
Does that mean roguish skills are inherently of greater risk, yet have no greater reward than any other skills?
So make sure the reward is actually high enough before you take the risk? Don't pickpocket the troll who owns nothing of value but can rip your limbs off without problem. Don't sneak around army camps without good reason. But if you can steal that magical artefact, or assassinate the genius commander of the enemy forces, that's some pretty fucking hefty rewards. The rewards here are seldom dictated by the rules, it's down to GM, players, setting and plot. You want the rules to state that a successful sneak roll makes Venus invite you to her place for some hot coffee on top of whatever else happens?
>>43839075
>>43839086
We can conceive a situation where you try to hide/steal something, fail to do so, and make things no worse for yourself: you try to do it but pull back at the last second, realizing that you are not in a good position.
We can conceive a situation where you try to remember a scholarly fact, gauge a person with your empathy, or try to fix a broken contraption, fail, and leave yourself no worse off: you just cannot figure out a way.
Why is it an unspoken assumption that the outcome of failure in the former is "you make things worse" while the outcome of failure in the latter is "you are back where you started"?
>>43839202
If there is no penalty to failure there is no need to roll dice or use a random element because you're just going to repeat the action until you succeed or clearly will never suceed
>>43839202
It isn't. Fail hard enough to figure out the weaknesses of a werewolf, and you may go into battle thinking yourself safe behind a sword made of copper.
>>43839230
>Fail hard enough
We can accept that this is what happens with such mental skills if you fail hard enough.
Why can we not accept that this is what happens with roguish skills only if you fail hard enough?
>>43838872
>Taking riskier actions that have more biting consequences on failure should logically have a greater reward for success than safer actions, right?
No, they shouldn't. Every situation is different, and what could be a wise course of acion in one case, is a suicidal stupidity in another.
>>43838872
3e D&D has circumstantial modifiers for skill checks. So if your rogue is a master thief trying to sneak past a blind dunk man who is masturbating while wearing earmuffs your DM can give you a +10 bonus or whatever.
5e has the advantage/disadvantage mechanic to use in similar circumstances, plus there's no reason a DM can't give +/- X modifiers if he/she feels like it.
>>43839236
Not knowing what a monster's weakness is is also bad and dangerous. Don't be such a nitpicking nancy.
>>43839202
>Why is it an unspoken assumption that the outcome of failure in the former is "you make things worse" while the outcome of failure in the latter is "you are back where you started"?
Because you are an autist with literally zero creativity?
>>43839280
Have you ever seen a GM say "you didn't succeed the pickpocket test, you didn't secure the goods but nothing bad happened"?
>>43839295
is your argument here basically "I DUN WAN BAD TO HABEN WHEN I FAIL"
because sometimes bad should happen, sometimes bad shouldn't happen.
I mean sure, I just strawmanned it a lot, but that really does seem to sum up what you're trying to say, you want "reward or no reward" not "risk/reward" basically.
>>43839236
>Why can we not accept that this is what happens with roguish skills only if you fail hard enough?
The risk and rewards will always depend on the exact situation, so discussing in blanket statements like that is utterly fucking retarded.
The situation is decided primarily by teh GM, but also in part by the players. Not by the system. So blaming the system here is also utterly retarded.
>Why can we not accept
We can't? Who says we can't? Oh, you're saying it. But as shown above, you're utterly retarded, so there's no reason to give a fuck about your straw men.
>>43839240
Risk/reward and probability of success are not the same thing.
>>43839280
>>43839313
Let me rephrase:
Can /tg/ name systems with a consistent scheme for risk/reward scheme for noncombat roll outcomes?
For example, fail by X much and you end up where you started, fail by Y and you make the situation worse.
And if Y has a riskier threshold than for other noncombat abilities, then maybe it should have a built-in high-reward mechanism.
>>43839328
Every system has this.
It is called a GM.
>>43839328
Expounding: An example of this is Powered by the Apocalypse. I dislike PbtA in every other regard, but this is something that PbtA does right.
In PbtA, whenever you fail a roll, you make things worse. Whether you were trying to figure something out or trying to sneak past someone, if you fail a roll, the GM makes a move against you and ratches up the stakes.
Nice and consistent.
>>43838872
> WAHHH I failed a stealth check and my lol randumb character got caught by the city guard.
Get the Fuck over it, OP
>>43839240
Same with most systems, really, like Dark Heresy 2E with the -30..+50 bonuses for ease of task. In D&D, pulling the purse off a drunk at night should give you a +20 bonus to your roll, especially if you chat them up or otherwise roll something to distract them, plus a massive penalty to their roll, and it's unlikely that they'll be able to pursue you or even summon help if they do happen to notice.
>>43838872
OP, it sounds like you haven't tried using roguish skills in scenarios where they legit have few consequences for failure. D&D Sleight of Hand can be use to pickpocket, yes, but is also used to hide shit on yourself for your own benefit (like weapons, coins, or magic trinkets). Not to mention performing parlour tricks like pulling a coin from someone's ear.
Likewise, Stealth/Sneak/whatever and Disguise rolls could legitimately be used ahead of time to make you appear inconspicuous and innocuous and not worth attacking in a fight. Make yourself look like a helpless noncombatant, then stab the fuckers in the balls. There's no consequence for failure because they were probably going to chop off your head anyways.
Remember that at lvl 1 you are not a Prince of Thieves and pulling a purse is hard, tiring work. Look at the fighter with his HP chopped in half after a tough fight. Pick easy marks if you really plan on tugging wallets.
The other problem with whining about pick-pocketing having "unfair" consequence is that in medieval times people really didn't tolerate that kind of shit very much. Medieval European thieves could expect to (in ascending order of severity/repeat-offenderness) be fined, flogged, having their ear(s) cut off, having their hand(s) cut off, or sentenced to hang. The Ancients were even more strict; Roman and Greek laws permitted thieves to be killed if caught in the act, and if not then imposed heavy fines.
Take a look at some of the examples in this link:
http://www.historicallocks.com/en/site/h/articles/theft-and-punishment/
>>43839328
ANY system with degrees of success/failure.
Any game with a GM who is not a robot in human disguise.*World games.
>>43839350
Yeah, and it's literally stupid.
Not every failure needs to have disastrous consequences.
Dramafags lime you always make a simple fail into a fucking catastrophe, then bitch about rolling too many dice during a fucking role-playing game.
Go back to freeform. Failure should be interesting, but not in the way of your stupid Baker shit. In fact, baker is pretty am at, its his fans that are dumb and dogmatic as Hell.
>>43839374
>ANY system with degrees of success/failure.
.....so, pretty much all of them? Help even DnD third edition has that shit.
World games just made it into a restrictive core mechanic and now they are fellated by hipsters who can't be bothered to learn more than two pages of rules.
>>43839362
>>43839363
I play knowledgeable/perceptive types rather than roguish types and always ask to roll some sort of lore- or perception-based noncombat ability precisely BECAUSE most systems and GMs impose much less penalties on rolling failures for such skills, compared to rolling failures for roguish skills.
>>43839328
Someone just slammed his face so hard into the "gamist" corner that he now has a 60 degree face.
What you get out of success, failure, and if it's possible to just stand there marching on the spot aren't strict rules questions. It's a matter of what's happening. This goes for combat too, if someone swings a cucumber at you then failing that dodge roll ain't gonna hurt much, while a pissed off Tor hurling Mjölner at you means you dodge or cease to be. But as different as the penalties for failure are, the reward in both cases is to simply not get hit.
This also shows that the same skill can have very different risks associated with it. For a rouge skill, try sneaking past a hare or try sneaking past a greater demon. Fail the first one and the hare will just run like hell. Fail the second one and you'll be run through and get dragged to hell. Same skill, entirely different risks.
Non combat? Loose one gambling roll, miss out on a few coppers. Fail another one, and Vito "Chainsaw rape" Stradini now owns your sorry ass.
And for a lot of rolls, "getting back to where you started" is utterly meaningless. It just means you roll again until things swing one way or the other. So you throw out the entire "nothing happens" bit and let the first roll decide the final outcome.
>then maybe it should have a built-in high-reward mechanism.
"I'm going to sneak into the oval office. I have no idea what this would be good for, but it's really hard, so if I succeed sometime really good must happen!"
Full fucking retard.
>>43839521
By this logic, should noncombat abilities never be rolled unless there is a real risk associated with failing?
So "I want to roll to see if I know about X" should never be rolled, and simply given to the character automatically based on a relevant lore-like skill?
>>43839611
No, because you're rolling to see if your character remembers the information properly, and there's a lot of difference between 'misremembered the recipe for chocolate cake' and 'forgot that thumbs up means fuck you in this country'.
>>43839642
Is there a greater chance to not have information on hand than to erroneously recall information?
>>43839611
>By this logic, should noncombat abilities never be rolled unless there is a real risk associated with failing?
YES. Rolls should only be made when one or more of the following conditions is met:
1. Your action is being opposed by another character or force
2. There is significant risk and consequence associated with performing your action
Example 1: You don't roll to hit a punching bag at the gym, but you roll when you try to punch an enemy in the face.
Example 2: You don't roll to keep your balance when walking across the street, but you roll when you're walking across a narrow board over a 500-foot-deep chasm.
In all other situations you should tell players that they do what they describe, or tell them that they can't do it because it's impossible.
>>43839781
How do you normally handle knowledge/lore-like rolls in your game?
>>43839815
Either they know the fact in question or they don't. It's pretty simple.
>>43839815
If the information is common knowledge that anyone would know, there's no roll. If the knowledge is not common the GM rolls secretly and tells the player what they know. A success means they more or less know everything on that subject that isn't secret or completely unknown to the world. Failure by 1-2 means they know something about it, but not everything and none of the small details. Failure by 3 or more can mean anything from knowing nothing about the subject or actually having factually incorrect knowledge of it.
Since the roll is secret the players don't know if they've rolled high or low, and I've been with my group long enough that they trust me not to fudge rolls. For rolls where the results don't need to be secret, like monster attack and damage rolls, I roll openly as that builds trust with my players. I think I've fudged a total of two rolls in the last year of GMing, if that much.
>>43839893
Does that mean that knowledge/lore like abilities are inherently less risky and thus the type of noncombat ability that every player SHOULD roll at every opportunity, all the time?
>>43839965
I'm the one who posted >>43839781 and >>43839898.Gah, now I see why some people use names.
>Does that mean that knowledge/lore like abilities are inherently less risky and thus the type of noncombat ability that every player SHOULD roll at every opportunity, all the time?
Not in my games, because being misinformed can be pretty dangerous.
>>43839965
see
>>43839230
So the answer is clearly, obviously, and resoundingly NO.
>>43840039
>>43840070
If you have a high ability with such skills, then you will succeed more often than you fail and thus be well informed more often than you are misinformed. Therefore, you should be rolling all of the time.
More roguish types have less of an incentive to roll all of the time.
>>43841203
I'm going to try to break this down for you without sounding condescending. If I come off that way, I apologize in advance, because that's not my intent.
>If you have a high ability with such skills, then you will succeed more often than you fail and thus be well informed more often than you are misinformed.
This is true. Higher bonuses equate to higher chances of success.
>Therefore, you should be rolling all of the time.
This is not true. If a failed knowledge check results in misinformation or even just incomplete knowledge of the subject, it can be far more dangerous than not making a check at all.
For example, a character is talking with a nobleman and makes a Knowledge (History) check to learn about his noble house. The GM rolls secretly, the player fails, and the GM tells them that the nobles are famous for their silver mines. The character brings this up during conversation with him and the noble becomes displeased, since the truth is their silver mines were taken from them by the King after a scandal involving child slaves used as miners.
Another example, as cited above, would be a person believing that copper is effective against werewolves instead of silver and thus entering battle completely unprepared, and using a fairly useless weapon (as copper is soft and pretty much useless for weaponry).
>More roguish types have less of an incentive to roll all of the time.
The difference between, for example, a knowledge check and a stealth check is the degree of risk and reward as consequence of the roll. A Knowledge check might give a character context or a better understanding of a monster or political situation, the benefit is usually small and the costs of failure are usually slight. A Stealth check, however, may have a significantly higher benefit (avoiding a battle entirely or getting a sneak attack in) and significantly higher costs upon failure.
>>43838872
What? Sorry, I couldn't concentrate on the words you wrote because of some very high-pitched noise in the background.
>>43841630
>This is not true. If a failed knowledge check results in misinformation or even just incomplete knowledge of the subject, it can be far more dangerous than not making a check at all.
If you have strong knowledge/lore skills, then you will succeed more often than you fail. This is simply the way of having high skills.
The two example scenarios you write are outnumbered by the scenarios wherein the character succeeds at using a knowledge/lore skill and gaining insight into the situation, or simply not knowing anything at all.
If the example scenarios you write about are common, then what hope could the NON-knowledge/lore specialized characters possibly have of using their knowledge without looking like bumbling fools more often than not?
>The difference between, for example, a knowledge check and a stealth check is the degree of risk and reward as consequence of the roll.
Sheer volume leans things in favor of the knowledge/lore noncombat abilities here. If the risks are significantly less, there is more of a reason to use it whenever possible, and thus it will gain more mileage.
Yes, if you have a strong sneak/stealth/hide skill, you will also succeed more often than you fail. But why risk it much of the time? Especially when the systems that try to make stealth useful when OTHERS in the party are noisy are few and far between.
>>43838872
Well, now I'm gonna be serious for a second here so try to keep up with me will you?
The high risk/high reward is true, but that's why the rogue has to be careful about what he wants to try and swipe off of whom, alright?
Me, as a rogue, am not going to just mindlessly try to snatch some average-looking dude's wallet, but rather the lady who is wearing jewellery and looks pretty wealthy compared to the rest of us schmucks.
The whole Shtick relies on having a high reward for an eventual high risk.
It's not like you're going to be able to grab the +1 dagger with your Knowledge (nature) now will you?
Sleight of hand has the possibility to get you some neat things, if you succeed to nab them of course. Other skills don't have such a huge payoff.
What it essentially boils down to: You, OP, don't have to play rogue if you lack the cojones to do so.
Things have a chance of failing and going horribly wrong? Boo-fucking-hoo.
You can be a beggar for all I care, I'm going to go grab myself some dinner from the stall while the merchant's distracted.
>>43842266
I like high risk, high reward, but only when this is consistent across all noncombat abilities.
This is why I like Powered by the Apocalypse's way of handling even rolls to "know things."
Do you want to gain an insight into the situation? Great. Make your roll. The payoffs are very strong and helpful, hard-coded into the system.
If you fail? The GM is free to reveal an unwelcome truth (unveil something that does not bode well for the party at all), make you mistaken, make you waste too much time and concentration thinking, or any number of bad things.
>>43842326
Basically, I just want some hard-coded, guaranteed consistency with risk and reward, rather than nebulous and inconsistent risk and reward across noncombat abilities.
>>43842326
If you're going to say that, the least you could do is provide some examples aswell.
As you said though
>The GM is free to reveal an unwelcome truth (unveil something that does not bode well for the party at all), make you mistaken, make you waste too much time and concentration thinking, or any number of bad things.
Why should this not happen in other systems aswell, then?
Other skills have risk associated with them aswell, by the way. Like Swimming and climbing: you risk to take damage or even die if you fail, but you don't seem to bitch and moan about that much, do you now?
What about riding and animal empathy aswell? Or untrained diplomacy where you can risk to make an unfriendly into a hostile?
>>43842366
Let me get this straight: whenever you encounter a random nob who asks you a question about history and you have to roll knowledge, you want it to have the repercussions of a thief who's just tried stealing the wallet of a noblewoman, is that correct?
>>43838872
I don't think you understand what a role-playing game is, OP. Or maybe you're just the kind who starts crying about the GM being unfair and the game's broken every time you fail a roll oe make bad decisions.
>>43842395
>Why should this not happen in other systems aswell, then?
Poorly defined consequences for failure that never make it clear just WHAT happens on a failure.
>Other skills have risk associated with them aswell, by the way. Like Swimming and climbing: you risk to take damage or even die if you fail
If you are talking about 3.Pathfinder, those are too narrow (bad) but have better definitions for degrees or failure (good), which is appreciated.
>Let me get this straight: whenever you encounter a random nob who asks you a question about history and you have to roll knowledge, you want it to have the repercussions of a thief who's just tried stealing the wallet of a noblewoman, is that correct?
Honestly, yes. If the character flubs that roll, that is an opportunity to introduce drive the story forward: maybe while expositing the answer to that question, the character realizes that their coin purse has been stolen. That random nob must have been trying to distract the character while an accomplice stole something!
>>43842482
>Poorly defined consequences for failure that never make it clear just WHAT happens on a failure.
It's the GM's job to define what happens on a failure. If you fail an insight check (sense motive) or a knowledge roll at a critical time, you might very well be neck-deep in a pit of shit.
>If you are talking about 3.Pathfinder, those are too narrow (bad) but have better definitions for degrees or failure (good), which is appreciated.
Those two skills are also present in other systems.
>Honestly, yes. If the character flubs that roll, that is an opportunity to introduce drive the story forward: maybe while expositing the answer to that question, the character realizes that their coin purse has been stolen. That random nob must have been trying to distract the character while an accomplice stole something!
That's not an intellect roll anymore then, that's a perception check which is very different. You were talking about failing knowledge rolls, instead.
Here, let me make a more correct example of how a flubbed intellect roll can make your day shittier.
Let's say your friend is trapped in a cage with spinning cilinders full of blades moving closer: if you can't hack the computer in time to stop the blades, your friend is going to be hacked to pieces.
You roll and you fail, now instead of stopping, the blades start to close in faster.
This makes a lot more sense than what you gave me as an example.
Like another anon said before: sleight of hand checks are not only there to pickpocket and swipe something from a table or whatever. It's also for quick, simple tricks, like pulling out a coin from behind someone's ear or quickly putting away something you held in your palm to make it so as if it disappeared.
It's when and how you use the ability that will determine the consequences of your actions.
>>43838872
>I don't want to be punished for being a criminal
>>43842642
I'm also starting to think that I'm arguing against this kind of thought...
>>43842610
>It's the GM's job to define what happens on a failure.
Let me stop you there for a moment. Yes, I have read your post, and I acknowledge that fail knowledge/lore/intelligence rolls can cause trouble at times.
However, I have boiled down what I have been trying to express to this:
I would like for more systems to have better guidelines on risk and reward for skill, better define WHAT happens on a failure, and better help the GM craft a more consistent experience for the players, where the GM is in a better position to dole out an appropriate failure result and where the players can more accurately weigh risk and reward.
I am not even saying this as a player's desires. I GM more than I play (but I still do both frequently). This is not even a D&D issue; I do not run D&D.
When I GM, I notice that I make purely arbitrary judgment calls on what happens on a failure and how bad things make it. The systems I have come across rarely bother defining such things (again, except for PbtA), but they commonly give an implication that flubbing a roguish skill roll is worse than failing any other roll. That just does not seem fair to players. I feel the same way when I play. I could use more consistency.
I suppose that is what I have been poorly trying to express.
>>43842752
Failing a Rogue skill is more dangerous due to the context in which those skills are primarily used.
The actual consequences of failing these skills are really just "you got spotted". Everything else is dependent on how that skill was being used, which usually involves a dangerous or sensitive situation.
>>43842752
Games I am familiar with: the many D&Ds, 13th Age, World of Darkness, Mutants & Masterminds, assorted Japanese games (Maid, Ryuutama, Golden Sky Stories, Double Cross, etc.), assorted Fate games, Cypher system (Numenera, the Strange, etc.), assorted PbtA games (Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Monster of the Week, Worlds in Peril, etc.), assorted ORE games, assorted Lady Blackbird games, Legend, Magical Burst, Strike!, Legends of the Wulin, Mongoose Traveller, and some REALLY obscure games (Fluxborn, NRG, Mermaid Adventures, Beasthunters, etc.).
Of these, the only RPGs that have a consistent guideline for what happens on failures for noncombat rolls is PbtA. Why is this not more common?
>>43842752
>I would like for more systems to have better guidelines on risk and reward for skill, better define WHAT happens on a failure, and better help the GM craft a more consistent experience for the players, where the GM is in a better position to dole out an appropriate failure result and where the players can more accurately weigh risk and reward.
So basically
>I want to know exactly what could go horribly wrong if I did anything so that with my meta-knowledge I can decide whether or not I will do it, regardless of what I know in-character about the actions I am about to take.
Correct?
>but they commonly give an implication that flubbing a roguish skill roll is worse than failing any other roll
This should rightly be so, since rogues are usually based around lying, cheating, stealing and other criminal things which a person would usually find pretty shitty on their part.
>That just does not seem fair to players.
How so, exactly? They decided to play the thief, the scoundrel, the mugger and burglar so they shouldn't complain out of character if they get their hand cut off by angry turks.
>I could use more consistency.
I guess what you mean to say is that you want everyone in every setting reacting the same way about someone stealing, correct?Unlike the world today, where people in islamic states get their hands cut off and people in a better society get thrown into jail.
Funny thing is: not everyone reacts the same way to things. But you can gather from everywhere that if you steal something, you're not going to make friends: who knew, right?
>>43842859
>Correct?
More or less, yes. I really do NOT care how metagame-y it is or how it becomes a player decision rather than an in-character decision. I want fairness and encouragement of weighing risk and reward. Having a sense of what the possible risk is is necessary for letting people judge risks. With the overall difficulty unknown, there is still uncertainty, but with the overall difficulty unknown AND what happens on a failure unknown? You have no basis at all for weighing risk and reward.
>>43843116
Great. I've been wasting time trying to argue with a game-y player.
Well, you have fun with that, it's clear you and me want different things from RPGs.
This entire thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A
OP's thread topic is interesting, and something that has to do with /tg/. I'm seeing an unreasonable amount of hostility in some of the posts in this thread directed at him or people just trying to discuss tabletop rpg mechanics. If you're reading this OP, I'm sorry that /tg/ has fallen so far. /tg/ may have never been good, but it was a hell of a lot better than this.
>>43842395
>Other skills have risk associated with them aswell, by the way. Like Swimming and climbing: you risk to take damage or even die if you fail, but you don't seem to bitch and moan about that much, do you now?
If i know this guy well, it's because he made a ridiculously minmaxed thief and is trying to solve every single problem with stealing, hogging the spotlight like his life depends on it.
>>43842366
>basically, i'm too retarded to ever think about the possible consequences and repercussions of my actions, the rules must do the thinking for me.
>>43839440
Because you're using it in a situation that doesn't require it, retard. Nobody cares who you are outside a general where your specialized knowledge might come in handy
>>43843387
Anon, you may have infinite reserves of patience for the person who wants GM's job to be just reciting one of book's 932875436891094 tables, but the rest of /tg/ doesn't.
And yes, this guy creates around 20 threads per week with the same NO IMAGINATION ALLOWED PLEASE I NEED MY TABLES I CANNOT INTO PEOPLE bullshit. Honestly, he'd be better off playing vidya/board games/tabletop wargames than trying to fit into hobby where imagination, creativity and understanding of consequences is the key.
