Skill and Task checks aren't role-playing! They are roll-playing!
So, the argument goes, but is it correct? Certainly the addition of these types of checks has complicated the game and in some cases seems to have encouraged players to focus more on their character sheets and less on the narrative of the game. Some Old School gamers have pointed to these checks as markers for New School vs Old School. Some have blamed them for the current state of RPGs (which interestingly seem to be once again at the height of popularity).
Any tool can be misused or perhaps used with bad form. I think this is the case with skill systems and task resolution checks. With "Mythic Heroes and Legends" I struggled with how to include these checks. I wanted one unified system that a Referee could use for universal task checks that change the narrative as well as ones that would take into account the special class abilities of Rogues and Rangers. I also wanted a system that would account for high ability scores that gave gifted characters a boost. In many of the original Old Schools games, abilities gave only small benefit. It was up to the Referee to adjudicate a superior strength or dexterity score. Many times, these were simply ignored or forgotten.
I chose a simple "Old School" d6 roll modified by attribute bonuses against a limited range of difficulty levels . The starting difficulty level was a 6. The next level of 8 was for a very difficult tasks. Even the most gifted individual would be pressed to accomplish such a task. The final level of 12 was reserved for truly super heroic tasks that required special skills or perhaps magical enhancement. (Some Referees also use 4 for mundane and somewhat easy tasks. Though many characters will pass these tests without issue, those with low ability scores may well fail, often producing comical effects.) Thus a standard character with average character attribute could bust open a simple door (defined as a difficult task) on a roll of a 6. A character with excellent strength (16-17) could bust it down 50% of the time. A character with a superior strength score (18) would bust through 66% of the time. A party confronted by a magically locked door would need much higher scores. Indeed only someone of excellent or superior strength would have a chance.
This system seemed to work well with Rogue and Ranger skills added. A standard locked door would be a difficult task to open. A 1st level Rogue would have twice the chance of an average fighter to open it by picking the lock. The probability would probably be even higher as most Rogues have high dexterities. Their Elf companion with a truly superior Dexterity would have even a higher probability of picking the lock. It is good to be an Elf. Just wait until the Rogue advances in level!
The above however doesn't address the issue of role-playing vs roll-playing. How does a Referee encourage player creativity? How can a Referee engage the players with furthering the narrative? Doesn't the very existence of a "Task Check" allow a player to rely on a dice roll instead of their wits and creativity? "I can't figure out the riddle". "Let me make a Wisdom Check to solve it!"
I struggled with this issue. My final solution was to add the concept of advantage and disadvantage to the Task Check. How does this encourage role-playing? The answer is simple I think. A good Referee should be able to utilize the mechanic to engage players in furthering the narrative.
The Referee will assign a number of disadvantages to any task in addition to the resolution level. It is up to the players to announce/define/role-play their advantages. If the number of advantages outnumber the disadvantages, the player gets to roll two dice and take the highest number. For equal numbers, the player rolls a single die. For more net disadvantages, the player rolls two dice and takes the lower roll. This is simple and quick. It encourages the players to further the narrative and gives them agency in the narrative. A good Referee will also use the narrative produced to add to the game. Even an inexperienced Referee will see the possibilities that are created.
So, how does this work? Here is an example. Two adventurers, Rolf the Fighter and Brandon the Rogue are exploring an ancient, haunted ruin at the edge of civilization. As they expected, the ruin isn't empty. Orcs and even fouler things have made it their home.
While exploring an underground passage that may have once been a cellar, they encounter a locked door. The door is an oak door that has been stoutly reinforced. Rolf, being impetuous, announces that he will break it down, much to Brandon's chagrin. Weren't they trying to be somewhat stealthy? Rolf announces that he will throw his weight against the door, but then realizes that he just has a strength of 15. This is a good strength and it renders a +1 on his check. The Referee however did announce that the door was stout and reinforced. Rolf is a fighter and has Strength as his Prime Attribute. This gives him and advantage, but Brandon's complaining has him worried. He call out, "Ok, Brandon, if you are so worried, then hit the door with me!"
The Referee rules that open the dungeon door is a difficult task. The door is oak and stoutly reinforced. This renders two disadvantages. Rolf has a good strength and his Prime Attribute is Strength. This gives an advantage to Rolf. Rolf also has help as Brandon, rolling his eyes, agrees to help. This awards a second advantage. The Referee hears nothing else from the players, so the two advantages offset the two disadvantages. Rolf is told to roll a single die. He rolls a 4, adding 1 gives a 5. Our two adventures bounce off the door with sore shoulders and no benefit. If Rolf had come up with another idea. He may have been able to generate another advantage. Perhaps by taking up a fallen beam from the room before, our adventurers could have used it as a battering ram... another advantage! The possibilities are endless.
Stymied by the door, Brandon pulls out a set of lock picks. "Let me do this", he exclaims in a somewhat exasperated voice. The lock is simple but well made. This gives in the Referees mind one disadvantage. Brandon is Rogue with a good Dexterity (+1) and picking a lock is a Task Check against Dexterity. As a Rogue, his Prime Attribute is Dexterity, which gives him an Advantage. The lock picks give him a second advantage. Finally, Brandon, being a careful Rogue (is there such?) informed the Referee that he had spent the previous week studying and working with the local lock makers and tinkerers to learn the idiosyncrasies of the lock making in the area (while Rolf was drinking the local tavern-but that is another story). He reminds the Referee of this (and the fact that he had to bribe/pay the locals for the knowledge... set him back 100 silvers! The Referee rules that he has three advantage versus one disadvantage... a bit of overkill. Brandon rolls two dice, a 2 and a 5. Adding his Dexterity bonus and his Rogue bonus to the highest roll, he easily opens the lock. The door opens.
The number of disadvantages could have easily been increased. Were the characters being chased? Were they exhausted? Were they hungry or badly wounded? Was the lock Dwarven made? Was it a superior lock? The advantages could have been increased as well. Did Brandon study with the lock maker that manufactured the locks to the ruin (it may not be that old of a ruin)? Did Brandon have a second Rogue to help him? The possibilities are endless and often produce alternate, unexpected, and fun narratives in themselves.
How does a Referee encourage his players to think up advantages? The answer is simple. When players are lazy and not role-playing, they won't produce advantages. There is nothing like a few rolls of two dice taking the least to encourage players to "up" their game and be creative. A few failures are stimulus enough!
A tool used well does a good job. Try the above and see if the Role-Playing increases... This indeed is "Old School".
Comments