Topic: Are first level characters too weak?

[Marc R]

Even if the lock is absurdly easy to pick, you can always roll a 01 then a couple of 99s and blow it.

The only all-or-nothing instances should be where something is used up, a fleeting chance is missed, or you die. . .You want to net a bird sitting on a rock, if you miss, it flies away. . .You fire your last arrow at the lever that will drop the drawbridge and let you cross over. . . .you're attempting to disarm a trap that will drop a 10,000 boulder right on you if you set it off. . .

I just don't see a lock falling into that category, up until you roll a fumble and break it, then you're down to the options of kicking in the door or not.

And you don't have auto success. . .if the mods say you have a -10 chance to pick the lock, then odds are, if you keep trying forever, you will break the lock before you pick it.

Put it this way. . .if you have a 90% chance to pick the lock due to your skill and it's complexity, and you roll a 91, it's not like it makes sense to say "Wow, this lock is just out of my league, I have no idea how to open it" when it's far more likely to say "You get the pins moved, but just as you start to turn the tumbler you slip a little and one of the pins pops loose."

Failing doesn't mean you fall into the land of "Duh!". . .you just failed. . .makes sense to be able to try again. . . .you're sewing a hole in your jeans, you put them on, you accidentally sewed the leg shut. . . .does this mean your jeans are permenantly ruined, or that you can cut your repair stitches out, and try again? There are points where all or nothing makes sense, but not most of the time.

[dutch206]

I always kind of liked the 3.5 "take ten" and "take twenty" rules.  If it isn't a life-altering skill roll and it helps move the plot along, just do it.  (or in RM terms, Take 50 and Take 100).

[Arioch]

Then why have a lock there at all?

To have the PCs lockpick it!  

Something about there is a lock, but you auto pick it because you have all the time in the world (sans fumbles, which, by the way, have a much less chance of happening than actually picking the lock) just rubs me the wrong way.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting to let PCs succeed automatically in any maneuver (btw, if PCs have all the time in the world and there's absolutely no danger around I wouldn't ever bother to roll, they'll open the door somehow, this is the distinction between simple actions and maneuvers, IIRC).
These are just suggestions on how to make failures effects less severe for low level characters.

[damilano]

That kinda thing treads inside my "If it's not fun I kick it out the door" radius.

There it is, folks.  This thing has to be fun, or it's a colossal and pathetic waste of time.  For everyone.

Let's say the lock is there because it's logical for the lock to be there (I'm a follower of the 'logical=credible' and 'credible=good' school).  Let's also say that the lock is hard to pick because it's logical for the lock to be hard to pick.  Let's go one further and say that the above mentioned hard-to-pick lock MUST be picked for the characters to gain access to some crucial story point.  

So Murtag (Assassin, Level 1) fails his lockpick roll, and the GM is reading the static maneuver chart.  The GM is pretty quick in the uptake, so he knows this is going to present an obstacle to fun.

He thinks quickly:

Option 1:  "You fail to pick the lock, and you don't think you can get it open.  However, you notice several fresh scratches  near or upon the keyhole.  There's a key to this lock, and it would appear that someone is using it regularly."

Option 2:  "You angle your lockpick every which way, but the tumblers just won't come.  You give up and pound your hand against the lock, and an instant later, a barely audible metallic clang is heard on the floor just behind the door.  It could be that the key was in the lock, and has now fallen to the floor!  But how to get at it?"

Option 3:  "You touch your scythe-shaped pick to the mechanism, preparing to gingerly maneuver it in to the keyhole when the back plate falls off the lock.  Someone has jemmied this lock and then put it back together.  And it was done recently!  It will be easy to get open now.  Of course, whoever put the lock back on did not pass through the door, but that doesn't mean that no one did."

Option 4: "With some work, you're able to get the lock open, but you were much louder than you wanted to be.  Roll perception."

Option 5:  "Lockpicks won't open this bad boy.  This is a professional lock.  But there is a disused key on an old ring that you keep in your kit.  The fit looks about right.  You can attempt to pick it with that, at a +10 for your familiarity with the mechanism."

Option 6:  "You're still fishing through your lockpick tools when a familiar sound is heard on the other side of the lock.  Someone is attempting to pick it from the other side!"

Option 7:  "The lock springs off the door!"

And so on.

CMC

[rdanhenry]

Then why have a lock there at all?
Locks are suppose to keep people out (or at least try).
If it is so important that the PC's get through that door immediately, don't lock it... or make it easier to pick.

Or leave the key where they can find it.

As I wrote earlier, for lower level characters, it is very useful to make sure there is more than one way to accomplish a task. They should still be able to fail, but having to blow *both* the lock picking roll (and it shouldn't be a Very Hard lock if you want a 1st level Thief to succeed picking it) *and* their rolls searching the storage room so they didn't find the key there makes failure less likely than if only the lock picking roll has a chance. (There could even be another way in, with a different lock, providing a chance for the Thief to redeem himself.)

Anyway, if they fail, first level characters can take comfort in the fact that you probably didn't place more than a few coppers and a rusty knife as treasure anyway. 

[Right Wing Wacko]

Or leave the key where they can find it.

As I wrote earlier, for lower level characters, it is very useful to make sure there is more than one way to accomplish a task. They should still be able to fail, but having to blow *both* the lock picking roll (and it shouldn't be a Very Hard lock if you want a 1st level Thief to succeed picking it) *and* their rolls searching the storage room so they didn't find the key there makes failure less likely than if only the lock picking roll has a chance. (There could even be another way in, with a different lock, providing a chance for the Thief to redeem himself.)

Yeah, stuff like that is what I am talking about. I would much rather do that than have the player roll dice for 30 minutes until he fumbles or succeeds.

Anyway, a lot of interesting ways to mitigate low levels in this thread!

[Marc R]

Heh. . . .I can roll d100 more than 10 times a minute. . .if you know what your threshold for success and fumble are, it's pretty fast to get to a resolution one way or the other.

To a degree, there is a school of GM thought that is oriented to simulation, in that there are people and things around, the PCs interact with them. . .on the other hand is a school of thought relating to storytelling, where necissary story elements dictate, or at least influence events, and objects and people generally appear as elements of the overall plot.

If you'd prefer not to roll 10x to pick a door, then why bother rolling once to pick the door. . .if you take the angle of "the story dictates that the door must be opened, so a key will be found if it's not picked" then you've crossed over into the storytelling school of logic.

I have run games based in the logic on either side, or a mix of both, but once I put my storytelling GM helmet on, arguing about minutia of game mechanics seems counter productive, since the overarching concept is that story trumps rules, you really shouldn't need to actually put that much thought into rules.

If you're wearing your simulator GM hat, then the minutia of the rules often become important. . .and the door is locked because situational logic dictates a locked door there. . .and the key is in the pocket of the person who locked it. . .and I'd prefer to allow the PCs to try to pick more than once, taking more and more time, than just say "It's alien magic lock go buy another rank before you try again". . . .

By that same logic, in terms of what Arioch said. . .storyteller hat, a muffed lockpicking  roll drawing guards makes perfect sense. . .simulator hat, the moment they arrived at the door, as GM I said to myself "The patrol guard will check the door in 3 minutes." and so that's when the guard will arrive, regardless of rolls.

[dutch206]

I see your point, LM.  However, the rule I am referring to from that other game system states that:

1)  You can't be in combat
2)  There can't be any negative consequences for failure

If you are operating under the pressure of a guard's patrol schedule, that would most definitely constitute a "consequence for failure".   In that instance, rolling to see if the lock opened would be building tension, which is always good storytelling.

[Marc R]

Oh, I got your point dutch, if they have any positive chance of success, and there's no fumble range, and they have unlimited time, success is guaranteed. I was responding to RWW's comment about not wanting to spend 30 min of real time rolling dice to open a door, and arioch's earlier comment about a failed or partial failed roll resulting in an event or partially unsavory result, like a guard, or crossing the river but getting wet.

When a good GM is running, all you need is the potential that someone might be coming, and you have tension. . . .guard or not, if the PC goes for a lock pick, fails, and you say "Roll again to pick for a minute or what?" then it's boring, and you're only rolling to catch a fumble breaking the lock or pick or stabbing yourself in the finger with a pick or whatever. . . .

But if you say "You fail to pick the lock on your first try, the position here has no cover or concealment. Will you spend another minute out in the open picking the lock?"

tension, regardless of if there's anyone coming. . .the PCs might have a month before anyone will arrive at that door, but how would they know? Keeping the tension up is all part of a GMs institutional paranoia mongering, regardless of if it's actually anything going on in game or if the players are just imagining it. Like, if I were in some abandoned spot trying to break and enter into a door, I'd likely be paranoid someone was going to come along, even if I was the only person for miles around.

If you only hit the tension buttons when there really is a guard, then it kills the tension, since they know not to worry when you're not messing with them, and they know to get ready when you are. . .so I just mess with them all the time.

[RandalThor]

Wow, this thread readlly did take off. Very cool. Lots of good stuff.

An idea here, purely for a game-mechanic-balance, is to allow a certain number of chances. That way those obstacles can still be obstacles without the single all-or-nothing aspect. Just an idea.

Maybe SD can come into play here. This is like me and putting the prefab furniture together. My low SD means that I get frustrated fast with these types of projects and can mess them up - hence, 'failing' at something even when taking time to do it. Maybe SD can be used as a limiting factor. That thief might be fantastic at lock-picking, but when he does fail his low SD means he gets too frustrated to keep trying. Heck, maybe he won't even wait for the fighter to kick in the door - he may try that himself.

Of course, there are numerous ways to limit their time, in game, but those cannot be there everytime.

Thor, I couldn't disagree more.  Interactions with NPCs, information gathering, solving puzzles (whether they are presented as puzzles or not), learning to work together as a team, creating combat and scouting strategies, and trying to obtain assistance from NPCs are all things characters can do with few or no rolls.

Though, the solving puzzles thing (with a caveat, see below*) and learning to work together as a team are things that usually don't require skill rolls and can be very fun to enact, the others have numerous skills that cover them. Yes, I prefer to do them in combined manner - using the skill rolls, but modifiying them by how well or poorly the player is handling the 'role'-playing.

*The character usually has much different "stats" & skills than the player so they should not be punished (too much) for not being as good as their character. I'm not a (compleat) idiot, but I am sure a character with a 101 reasoning , a 98 memory, & a 99 intuition would be able to handle puzzles much, much better. The same goes for social skills and presence.

I firmly believe that RPGs are an exercise in the balance between the 'role'playing and the 'roll'playing. Usually, I lean more toward the former, but I always try to keep the latter in mind as I game.

1st level characters are weak, and like many people said, they should be. My only input on this is that to go out adventuring on your own, you shouldn't be 1st level. But that's just my take on the subject.

[rdanhenry]

And assuming RMSS, if you want the lock picking to succeed you can also...

...rule that the PC has picked this type of lock before (+25 bonus).
...have the PC get a description of the mechanism (+10 bonus).

But then again, in RMSS, standard failure simply means you must wait 24 hours to try again. This is quite reasonable. When stymied by a problem, it is often necessary to get some distance before reapproaching it in order not to run up against the same erroneous thinking as before. Only an Absolute Failure means you cannot retry. A Spectacular Failure is the "break your pick in the lock" level of failure.

If your "story" cannot wait 24 hours for the players to get past the door, you should have given them some C4.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Oh, I got your point dutch, if they have any positive chance of success, and there's no fumble range, and they have unlimited time, success is guaranteed. I was responding to RWW's comment about not wanting to spend 30 min of real time rolling dice to open a door, and arioch's earlier comment about a failed or partial failed roll resulting in an event or partially unsavory result, like a guard, or crossing the river but getting wet.

When a good GM is running, all you need is the potential that someone might be coming, and you have tension. . . .guard or not, if the PC goes for a lock pick, fails, and you say "Roll again to pick for a minute or what?" then it's boring, and you're only rolling to catch a fumble breaking the lock or pick or stabbing yourself in the finger with a pick or whatever. . . .

Are you insinuating that neither Arioch nor I are good GM's? Because that's how it sounds to me.

But if you say "You fail to pick the lock on your first try, the position here has no cover or concealment. Will you spend another minute out in the open picking the lock?"

tension, regardless of if there's anyone coming. . .the PCs might have a month before anyone will arrive at that door, but how would they know? Keeping the tension up is all part of a GMs institutional paranoia mongering, regardless of if it's actually anything going on in game or if the players are just imagining it. Like, if I were in some abandoned spot trying to break and enter into a door, I'd likely be paranoid someone was going to come along, even if I was the only person for miles around.

I wouldn't.

[ironmaul]

Are you insinuating that neither Arioch nor I are good GM's? Because that's how it sounds to me.

RWW, from my view point it seems that he's putting you and Arioch in that category of good GM's.

I remember several years back that I mentioned it would be good to have a "How to be a Games Master." A lot of great ideas mentioned on these forums would be a benifit to a would be GM if they were compiled together.

[RandalThor]

And assuming RMSS,

Yeah, sorry, I forgot to put that in. I come from an RMSS/FRP background and don't have much (recent) experience in RM2 or the more recent RMC.

As far as I am concerned, everyone on these threads looking for better ways to run games are good GMs. The bad ones don't try, or assume they already know.....imo....

[providence13]

I think GM Law covered some good points... but perhaps it's time for an addendum.

[Marc R]

Heh, when I was replying to RWW and Arioch, dutch thought I was replying to him, and when I replied to Dutch, you assume I'm replying to you. Perhaps I should quote more.

I wasn't implying dutch was a poor GM either. . .I was merely stating that you don't need an actual deadline to make it feel like you have a deadline coming at you. . . .any GM can scare you with an Ordainer Moloch charging at you while you're trying to pick the lock. . . a good GM can scare you just by how they tell you nothing is happening, and asking what you're going to do (and perhaps checking their notes and rolling the dice once or twice).

I like the idea of the 24 hour rule in RMSS, but I prefer to come at it more incrementally than that. . .once time jumping gets to "8 hours" I usually don't mean the player needs to sit there picking at the door for 8 hours, that's kind of the "You need to get away from this lock, settle your head and re-consider your approach" time scale. . . .that's sort of "You really need to sleep on it" kinda thing.
 
I'd actually say that it's impossible to judge someone's GMing ability without letting them run you, which means there's only a small handful of board members I'm qualified to judge on the quality of their GMing. . .so you can safely assume if anyone reads something and thinks I'm judging their GMing skills as good or bad, that likely they're mistaken. Almost all we do here is discuss things in a very broad sense. . .since we all likely run very differently.

[Arioch]

I see your point, LM.  However, the rule I am referring to from that other game system states that:

1)  You can't be in combat
2)  There can't be any negative consequences for failure

In this case I would rule that the task is a Simple Action, not a Maneuver, so no roll required, the PCs take some time and open the lock.

[RandalThor]

I see your point, LM.  However, the rule I am referring to from that other game system states that:

1)  You can't be in combat
2)  There can't be any negative consequences for failure

In this case I would rule that the task is a Simple Action, not a Maneuver, so no roll required, the PCs take some time and open the lock.

Or you compare the skill level to the difficulty of the lock to determine whether or not they can open it. If they posses the skill level, they do, if not, they don't.