Looking for Clues

An investigative role-playing game requires commitment from both the players and the GM to be a success. It is reasonable to expect more from a player than "I use my Spot Hidden skill" or even "I search the room." Players have skills just as their characters do, and role-playing is a far richer experience when they use those skills. Investigation should be described by the player in sufficient detail that anyone can imagine what the character is doing and the GM can ascertain whether any clues, if extant, would be discovered. It is also reasonable to expect more from a GM than "Roll your Spot Hidden skill." If a player has done what is necessary to be reasonably assured that a clue, if extant, would be discovered, then no roll should be required. If the clue is there and the effort is made to find it, it should be considered found. It's shocking in its simplicity.

The designers of Trail of Cthulhu may consider the rules they crafted a solution to the alleged problem inherent in Call of Cthulhu, i.e. "one bad die roll can derail an adventure," but that rests on the presumption that the existence of an investigative skill roll requires making an investigative skill roll. I would argue that these rolls, like other detection rolls in other role-playing games (q.v.), serve mainly as a second chance to make a discovery when a player mistakenly neglects to properly investigate an area through which he or she passes. As long as the GM and the players are doing their share of the role-playing and providing the necessary descriptions, then nothing can derail an adventure except the actions of the player characters.

As for the "solution" proposed in Trail of Cthulhu, I think never having to roll an investigative skill is just as misguided as always having to roll an investigative skill. In cases where player skill comes into play, such as describing how one searches a room, results should depend on neither dice rolls nor automatic success, but on the logical consequences of the actions described. If the player, having described the extent of the search, fails to describe an action that would lead to the discovery of a particular clue, but the character possesses a skill that would have a bearing on the search (such as Spot Hidden or another skill that applies), then the GM may make the roll secretly. If the pertinent skill is high enough or the clue obvious enough, then the GM may rule that the clue is found without making a skill roll. It all depends on the circumstances. Recognizing which rules to use, alter, or ignore in a given situation is really the basis of GMing itself.

If, on the other hand, a character possesses a specialized skill that the player does not have, then it is acceptable to assume that under ordinary circumstances the skill will be automatically successful, or that under extraordinary circumstances a skill roll will be required. In neither case will a detailed description of the action on the part of the player be necessary. In other words, one needn't be a doctor in real life to play one on T.V. (or in a role-playing game).

Character skills should extend the capabilities of the player, not limit them. Similarly, skill rolls should be made to extend the plot, not kill it. Even if a crucial roll results in failure, it should merely delay or misdirect the investigators [Edit: or allow them to succeed, but at a great cost]; it should not prevent them from reaching their ultimate goal. Only their ability as players should have a bearing on that.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 1 March 2012.]

Detect Player Skill

The debate of player skill versus character skill, which extends to the dichotomy of class-based role-playing games versus skill-based role-playing games, is one that has its origin in a single game that encompassed both views: Dungeons & Dragons. Even within the covers of a single book, the original Advanced D&D Players Handbook, we find advice advocating player skill ("Observation and clever deduction, as well as proper caution, should negate a significant portion of traps.") alongside the suggestion that having "a dwarf for trap detection" goes "a long way toward reducing the hazard." Clearly, if player skill were sufficient, the inherent abilities of dwarves to "Detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stonework" would be irrelevant, and the same is true for the thief's function of "Finding/Removing Traps." Another example would be the rules for detecting secret doors. Is one supposed to describe the act of searching for a secret door, or is one supposed to roll 1d6 and abide by the result?

This apparent contradiction has led some gamers to assume that the existence of character skills that echo player skills means that a roll of the dice (or expenditure of a meta-game resource) should resolve all situations that arise, and that disallowing them or minimizing them somehow "punishes" less-skilled players. (This is an argument that I believe is popular amongst players of "story games.")

Outside the philosophical considerations of role-playing versus story-gaming, some gamers are simply content to roll-play rather than role-play out of sheer laziness or lack of interest. The "Spot Hidden" skill of Basic Role-Playing infamy is often subject to this mishandling. When the GM's question, "What do you do?" is answered with, "Roll my Spot Hidden skill," the game loses an entire dimension. (There is a flip side to the abuse of this skill, which I will discuss in another article.)

I consider it far more enjoyable to prevail by using my own abilities as a player than by using the arbitrary abilities of my character. Both as a GM and as a player, I derive much more pleasure from providing or listening to descriptions of a character's actions than from endless calls for dice rolls. That being said, I enjoy skill-based role-playing games like Fudge just as much, if not more, than class-based role-playing games. How, you may reasonably wonder, can that be?

Since a role-playing game is, above all else, a game (albeit an unconventional one), I think it is important to reward those who demonstrate actual skill at playing it. Ingenuity, preparedness, coolness under fire, and the ability to think quickly are all qualities that ought to translate into success for the player demonstrating them. The player's description of the character's actions ought to be the primary consideration of what transpires in the game. Detection rolls, as I see it, represent a second chance that the character, who may be an expert at such things, confers to the player. If, for example, the player fails to mention that his thief examines or prods (with a 10' pole, of course) the mosaic on the floor in front of him, the GM may secretly make the character's Find Traps roll. If successful, the GM mentions that the thief notices something suspicious about the mosaic in a trappy sort of way (if it's a trap) or says nothing (if it isn't). If unsuccessful, the GM says nothing regardless of whether it's a trap and waits to see of the thief walks across it. If the player had mentioned taking measures to inspect the mosaic cautiously, then no roll would have been necessary and the GM would have confirmed or refuted the player's suspicions. This basic idea can easily be applied to other situations: secret doors, hidden items, clues, etc. Effort and caution yield results; pertinent character skills yield a second chance.

This is not to say that a player's problem-solving skills are the only important aspects of role-playing. Tactical combat skills and actual role-playing skills (i.e. portraying one's character faithfully) are all sides of the triangle that represent good playing to me.

Remember that role-playing is like improvisational acting plus strategy. Playing a doctor doesn't mean a player must know how to diagnose or treat a patient in the real world. Playing a knight doesn't mean a player must know how to ride a horse. Playing a thief doesn't mean a player must know how to successfully pick someone's pocket. It does mean that a player should know when to render medical assistance to someone, which enemy to charge first, and whether it would be a good idea to pick this particular merchant's pockets in this particular time and place. Your character has skills in a game world. You, as a player, have skills in the real world to make decisions for your character in the game world. When your skills guide your character's skills toward success (however that may be defined for that character), then you are playing the game well.

[Originally posted in Fudgery.net/fudgerylog on 28 February 2012.]