What is a good guesstimate for how many skill checks happen in an average TTRPG session? I realize it depends on the GM and the system, but you can state which one you play if you think it's relevant. I never play online so I can't check roll history or anything like that.
Obviously, session length plays a role. My group tends to play AT LEAST 4 hours but sometimes go all night when we do play since we usually have nothing else planned during game days. I have no idea how long is normal for a group.
The reason I ask is because I am deciding between 3d8 or 3d6 for my system. The curves for both are nice, but maybe the edge-cases of 3d8 (1 in 512, though it would be halved if considering both positive and negative) are too rare. I plan to do something special with those due to arcane background radiation in the universe. I don't want them to almost never happen, but I also don't want the novelty to wear off. I am aware GURPS uses 3-4 for automatic success and 17-18 for failure, but I do want it to be narrower than that and restricted to a single value each.
3d6 has the benefit of using regular dice and making it easier to compare balancing with existing systems (AGE and GURPS), while 3d8 would give me a broader range to work with, more variability in middling values, and would make the system more unique.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Maybe three or four per player if you don't count rolls related to attacking, dodging etc. Good GMs don't make players roll for every little thing.
Attacking definitely counts in this case. How long are your sessions?
Three or four hours, we don't have combat every session so when we do there will be a lot more rolls than when we don't.
>How many skill checks in an average session for your group?
I've never kept track, but lots. I'd say up to a hundred in a standard 6-hour sesh. Way more skill/stat checks happen in our games than combat rolls, even in combat focused games.
If you want a scientific number of some sort, look up Critical Role streams and count them yourself.
A rough estimate will do, no need for exact numbers. I am very bad at knowing realistic estimates in anything, so I figured the wisdom of a crowd will help.
>I am deciding between 3d8 or 3d6 for my system
You should pick 3d6 just because d8's roll like shit. Second worst die to roll after the caltrop.
the point of a die is to generate a random number not to make a lot of noise and bounce around
Spoken like a nogames tourist. If you had ever held a d8 in your hand you would never even think about creating a system based around it.
I started playing using the AGE system which uses 3d6 (my first GM was a huge DA Origins fan and enjoyed the setting a lot before the Doctors left Bioware). After that, we tried Pathfinder and DND but neither stuck. SW FFG RP was a mainstay for a while. Most recent is Dark Heresy, though we did a one-shot called something like Under Pressure or something like that about an experimental submarine in the 90s.
For the record, dice don't need to roll on the table as long as you can shake them in your hand.
d8s are one of the most pleasing shapes and you are a barbarian. Shake dice in your hand and drop. It's not bowling.
it's two d4s stuck together
No moron, 2 d4's glued together would make a shitty d6
NTA, but if I made a game I'd make it around a number generator in software, and if d8s gave a good distribution / granularity for whatever I needed, I would use it.
I played for four hours this week and during that time i made two checks to sneak, made one check to identify something and tried to pick four locks.
As for attacks i made about 12, and in the process of that i forced one enemy to make a save, and i was forced to make one save.
The point of a curve is to change how much a +1 affects the outcome. If i have +1 on 3d6 my odds of success go up as much as 12% for the mid values but make very little difference to very easy or very hard tests. A larger dice flattens that out a lot, 3d8 only gives a max of 9% across a wider mid range, and id expect stats to go to about +21 instead of +15
I would say it makes a lot of difference towards the tail ends if you compare the relative likelihoods of getting certain values. I always think of it as moving the curve forward 1 step if it's+1. It also changes how much extra points are worth in the long run. Meanwhile, flat chances are always worth the same.
+15 and 21? That's a lot of modifiers, but breaking a game can be fun too sometimes.
>it makes a lot of difference towards the tail ends
It doesnt. Being 5x as likely still isnt worth risking if its still only a 5% chance to pass the check. Its not wise to invest in perks that will only come up once in a few weeks or less. In D8s id need a +6 to turn a 1% chance into a 25% chance, which is the minimum i would consider consistent enough to justify, even for reactive abilities. For active stuff id want at least 75%, so that 1% chance needs a +11.
For midranges i can take a 50% chance up to a useable level with just a +3
The range on a 3d8 is 21, so if you want a max level character to be able to always pass an impossible roll for an amateur they will need +21 to that roll. If you want them to pass it half the time they need +10. The sizes of the modifiers are dictated by the dice you use and the performance you expect
Zero.
Skill checks are stupid.
>anime forum roleplayers
This is a GAMES board
>one of them said skill checks are stupid, so that automatically means "anime forum roleplayers"
How so?
I'm still waiting on that explanation of how saying skill checks are stupid means "anime forum roleplayer".
I have a hard rule of keeping total skill checks per session in single digits. Any more and it risks players ruining the game experience and story I've prepared for them.
If we're worried about having cool and fun dice, I personally enjoy the humble d12, he's like a little rock buddy. Couldn't speak to the mathematical soundness or practicality of 3d12 though.
>0, Skill checks are a crutch for neophyte roleplayers, in my games players describe their actions or roleplay and we adjudicate based on what they do not an arbitrary number they roll.
How do you determine the outcome between two evenly matched opponents?
When has such a battle ever occurred? Can two men ever be said to be truly "evenly matched"? A puzzle for the ages.
Sure, all the time. What do you think competitions exist to do? Separate people based on their efforts and abilities. But, to give a very common example from the majority of games, how do you determine who wins in a sword fight between two strong guys? Player A has a knight, this knight encounters an orc, who wins, why?
There are no rolling in my games. Players describe how their charecters do it and I decide if they succeed. You better describe actual historical martial arts techniques or you won't be much of use in combat.
Fewer than a couple dozen, truth be told, and doing more would be incredibly annoying. Most rolls at most tables don't really need to happen.