Skill Checks Discussion - Random Chance vs Deterministic Threshold, Visible vs Invisible

[rusty_shackleford]

Incredibly dumb opinion. It feels more realistic because even experts can fuck up. The problem isn't the failure, it's showing the player what the probability of success is. No idea why cRPGs do this, it's a mistake. Are the characters mindreaders or something?

His opinion on 5E is retarded too.
For starters, he fucked the math up. The bonus it provides is entirely relative to the DC e.g., if you're trying to pass a DC 10 check(assuming >=) with a +0 bonus you have a probability of 55%. With a +4 bonus, that probability becomes 75% nearly halving your probability of failure.
And that's a journeyman who has just begun, no shit he can bungle things up. Why would they already be a master at something?

You know what's bad design though? Allowing a player to have a party that can easily pass any and every check in the game without fail. Because Deadfire is exactly like that.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

I agree with general Sawyer's point about dice rolls in skill checks but I think he is wrong about Disco Elysium in particular. For one very simple reason -- failing skill checks in DE is often more fun and satisfying than passing them. Therefore, the deterministic system would reduce the potential for fun in DE.

 

[Alienman]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

 

[Infinitron]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

Oh, what's that? Your skill is 1 point too low for the check? You always fail just like someone who is completely untrained!
Wow, what an amazing system Sawyer. Bravo.

 

[Alienman]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

What's the point if it's an auto-fail?

 

[Strange Fellow]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

Agreed, with the caveat that there should be a floor and a ceiling. The best thing is to have a range where you can roll the dice, but anything above/below it is an automatic pass/fail. Mostly to avoid situations like talking president Eden to suicide with no points in speech.

 

[Quillon]

I agree with Josh on a lot of things including shitty dice rolls; he just needs to do away with dictating formulaic quest/reactivity design; its more work yes but it does make your games NOT SUCK ASS, maybe then Obs will make games that are worth playing again

 

[Bigg Boss]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

What's the point if it's an auto-fail?

R O L E P L A Y I N G.

 

[Flying Dutchman]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

Yeah, but except for "reading" the bad response without selecting it, it doesn't actually lead anywhere interesting. In fact, because you know you're going to FAIL, there's little to no point in selecting it.

Arguably, if failures DID lead somewhere equally interesting (I think they should), they shouldn't be framed as failures, but choices and not telegraphed as being failures because hey, guess what, no one wants to fail skill check.

 

[Butter]

Randomness belongs in combat because there are many instances of randomness that balance each other out. There's also a strategic element to combat, and the result can be anywhere from death, to barely surviving, to surviving but having to use all of your ammo, to effortless success. The act of combat is also fun, so reloading to try for a better result is something people like doing (as long as they don't get stuck for too long).

Dialogue is too simple for randomness. There's only pass and fail, and the difference in outcomes is usually too large to not try again. Ironically Fallout 4 actually "fixed" the problem by making the benefits of passing a dialogue check negligible, so nobody cared enough to try again.

 

[Bigg Boss]

I fail the skill check when I have to use a butter knife to open the sauerkraut jar. I still win. STILL WINNING.

 

[Flying Dutchman]

Oh, what's that? Your skill is 1 point too low for the check? You always fail just like someone who is completely untrained!
Wow, what an amazing system Sawyer. Bravo.

If you are against save scumming, then this design decision is for YOU.

Probably dealing with F1 and F2 "skill failure trauma" where you can have a 200 Speech and still fail if the roll is not in your favor.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

There was a great mod for New Vegas that removeD the “tags” in the dialogue menu for skill checks (so they just looked like totally normal dialogue Options, giving no indication they were actually skill dependent) It really improved the whole system, and it’s baffling to me that OES didn’t implement it like that in the base game. Unfortunately I believe the modded dropped off the face of the Earth shortly after release and Lonesome Road broke the whole thing.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Oh, what's that? Your skill is 1 point too low for the check? You always fail just like someone who is completely untrained!
Wow, what an amazing system Sawyer. Bravo.

If you are against save scumming, then this design decision is for YOU.

Probably dealing with F1 and F2 "skill failure trauma" where you can have a 200 Speech and still fail if the roll is not in your favor.

Complete opposite.
It's a perfect example of how savescummers end up ruining RPGs for everyone else. Designers are designing games around the people who cheat.

 

[Butter]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

There was a great mod for New Vegas that removeD the “tags” in the dialogue menu for skill checks (so they just looked like totally normal dialogue Options, giving no indication they were actually skill dependent) It really improved the whole system, and it’s baffling to me that OES didn’t implement it like that in the base game. Unfortunately I believe the modded dropped off the face of the Earth shortly after release and Lonesome Road broke the whole thing.

lStewieAl's Tweaks includes this feature and is still being supported.

 

[Flying Dutchman]

There was a great mod for New Vegas that removeD the “tags” in the dialogue menu for skill checks (so they just looked like totally normal dialogue Options, giving no indication they were actually skill dependent) It really improved the whole system, and it’s baffling to me that OES didn’t implement it like that in the base game. Unfortunately I believe the modded dropped off the face of the Earth shortly after release and Lonesome Road broke the whole thing.

That's a good idea and feels more natural.

I always got the impression for dialogue, Sawyer wanted even dialogue choices to function like picking a lock or hacking a terminal so you could evaluate, then back out and pump up your stats before jumping back into the dialogue option.

Personally, I always felt it was an attempt to justify magazines in the game, which I didn't really like. I don't think dialogue should be over-systemized (a clear sign of autism), but if you can't help yourself, you can't help yourself.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

There was a great mod for New Vegas that removeD the “tags” in the dialogue menu for skill checks (so they just looked like totally normal dialogue Options, giving no indication they were actually skill dependent) It really improved the whole system, and it’s baffling to me that OES didn’t implement it like that in the base game. Unfortunately I believe the modded dropped off the face of the Earth shortly after release and Lonesome Road broke the whole thing.

I disagree strongly with showing players the odds of succeeding/failure, minimum skill needed, dialogue nodes they can't select because they don't meet the requirements, etc.,
Imagine if a game had a dumb playthrough and you had to see all the dumb dialogue options but you can't use them because your INT is too high.

It's one of those things that nearly every game developer does and doesn't really stop to think about how dumb it is. You shouldn't need a big [MECHANICS 10] tag to know a dialogue line about discussing how to repair something will probably involve a mechanics check. And if they can't select that option anyways, it shouldn't be present at all. Are the characters some kind of quantum mindreaders? Surprise me in my next playthrough.

 

[Nano]

Are we going to expect Sawyer to find the cure for cancer next?

 

[Alienman]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

What's the point if it's an auto-fail?

R O L E P L A Y I N G.

Then R O L E P L A Y I N G with a chance is more fun.

Edit:

I mean, I find it a bit weird that you character would attempt something without a chance of success. Picking the choice that has zero chance feels actually damaging to the roleplaying experience, at least to me.

 

[Alienman]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

There was a great mod for New Vegas that removeD the “tags” in the dialogue menu for skill checks (so they just looked like totally normal dialogue Options, giving no indication they were actually skill dependent) It really improved the whole system, and it’s baffling to me that OES didn’t implement it like that in the base game. Unfortunately I believe the modded dropped off the face of the Earth shortly after release and Lonesome Road broke the whole thing.

I remember I used that mod, usually you could tell which choice was the skill check.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I will kill you
4. Long explanation why taking this or that action is bad for you and the whole of Nevada

 

[Gordian Nutt]

Are we going to expect Sawyer to find the cure for cancer next?

The difference is Sawyer has yet to declare himself an expert on curing cancer, unlike game design

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

% based checks is the one thing Fallout 3 have over New Vegas in my opinion. At least in 3 I can take my chances and roll for a speech check, if I fail, when then I guess my character stumbles over his words or something, in New Vegas I'm just denied even making the attempt.

There was a great mod for New Vegas that removeD the “tags” in the dialogue menu for skill checks (so they just looked like totally normal dialogue Options, giving no indication they were actually skill dependent) It really improved the whole system, and it’s baffling to me that OES didn’t implement it like that in the base game. Unfortunately I believe the modded dropped off the face of the Earth shortly after release and Lonesome Road broke the whole thing.

I remember I used that mod, usually you could tell which choice was the skill check.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I will kill you
4. Long explanation why taking this or that action is bad for you and the whole of Nevada

I would argue that you are largely exaggerating, but will acknowledge that it was certainly imperfect; still it was a substantial improvement on what was in the base game.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You can click a dialogue option whose requirement you don't meet in FO:NV, and fail it.

Yeah, but except for "reading" the bad response without selecting it, it doesn't actually lead anywhere interesting. In fact, because you know you're going to FAIL, there's little to no point in selecting it.

Arguably, if failures DID lead somewhere equally interesting (I think they should), they shouldn't be framed as failures, but choices and not telegraphed as being failures because hey, guess what, no one wants to fail skill check.

People would also click on those if they didn't blatantly tell you that you already passed/failed or what the required skill level is.

A related bugbear of mine is actively using a skill that is passive, this comes up frequently in modern cRPG dialogues. For example, you can't actively know something, you either do or you don't. If a merchant at a market is selling a toaster you shouldn't be given an option to actively identify it. To an untrained person, it's merely a toaster and they walk right past it. To a person proficient in [Toaster Lore] it's actually a very rare First Edition Faryn Brygo Celtic Collector's Edition Toaster and you want to add it to your toaster collection, luckily for you the merchant isn't a [Toaster Lore] expert and you can get it for cheap.
The player with [Toaster Lore] proficiency feels rewarded. The player without it doesn't feel bummed out because they failed a skill check, it's an unknown unknown. The illusion is maintained, there was no frustrating binary pass/fail check in their universe. A pleasant surprise awaits this player in their next playthrough.

Nothing would be gained from presenting an option using [Toaster Lore] to actively try to identify the toaster, and it misrepresents knowledge being something that's passive.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I'm not really a fan of speech choices telling you that there's a skill check. It just makes it too easy, simplifies it too much. The original fallout had something you could see with a perk, coloring the speech choices to get the best reactions, but that wasn't necessarily the best possibility because the Lieutenant liked it when you told him where the vault was.