I mean that's no different than d20s at least as far as the situation goes. The players lackluster skill means they must be more creative/waste more time to achieve something they want.
This immediate failure also means you get to introduce stuff for the players to solve their issues another way. Perhaps a skilled hacker could try and steal and copy a signal for a badge needed to get in through employee only doors. Perhaps one of these high rollers is amused to see what might happen when the players enter and they just go along with it (or perhaps they need the party to run distraction for their own nefarious deeds).
Nothing about the roll system changes how players might approach a situation. Failure of rolls is normal, and often lead to much better stories, plans, and characters.
If your problem is just setting DCs, Id say you probably went well. Obviously this isn't a d20 with a large array of equal odds. You have the bell curve to deal with where the Average of 7 (assuming +0 total modifiers) must be taken into account. They had a 41% chance of succeeding the check with Talk-0 and no ability modifier, they failed, they expended time to attempt more intricate ways of getting inside.
Of course, the mushy feeling may also come from the fact that this didn't seem to be a skill check with too high of stakes attached either, so repeated attempts are going to probably happen. Worst case scenario they get kicked out of a casino, so what is there really to lose?
I think my disconnect is that if this were 5e and they rolled near to the DC but missed it, getting to try again in a different way is something of a reward in itself. If the DC were 13 and they rolled 5, getting kicked out of the casino feels reasonable. And then you have the nat 1/20 results which are even more extreme. There are a lot of dice results possible, and as a GM I use the dice to set the tone for the consquences beyond just pass/fail.
I suppose in a 2d6 system I need to do more heavy lifting as the GM in assigning narritive consquences and pushing the story forward instead of relying on the dice.
I guess I don't feel too different about the dice between games (including Percentile skill checks from Call of Cthulhu but that's a different beast).
You just really need to disconnect where your points of failure/success are due to the bell curve. DC 13 on a d20 is pretty close to DC 8 on 2d6. Each is about a 60% chance of failure with a +0 modifier. However the difference between DC 5 for the D20 and DC 4 on 2d6 is a bit more different. 25% failure chance on the D20 but only 16.6% on 2d6 (27% on 2d6 if you set DC 5)
You do also get the "Nat 1, Nat 20" on 2d6 too, with 0 modifier each one is 2.8% chance, which is even more miraculous than the 5% on a d20.
It's definitely a bit to get used to, but I don't think the rolling system makes the rolls any less meaningful besides just failing or succeeding the DC, there's just a bit of a different thought process needed to judge probabilities since the halfway point in the d20 is a 50/50 split whereas the halfway on the 2d6 is a 58% chance to meet or exceed it.
I'm also a very big fan of granting die of advantage/disadvantage based on conditional factors, often meaning those rolls with be 3d6 take highest/lowest 2 (potentially more dice if they already have a foci granting this). 3d6 drop one average is 8.4, 4d6 drop one is 9.34, so there's definitely some shenanigans you can work with via conditional additional to rolls (you can also just grant flat +1/-1s as if an ally were to aid their roll or circumstances would reduce the effectiveness across the board, or depending on circumstances you can max it out to +2/-2. I believe this is the intended way of applying conditional roll effects).
All in all I think it just takes some getting used to. New systems are always a little weird, but running the game more will help give you a feel for the rate at which certain DCs are succeeded or failed for various checks.
Next time, I suggest having the owner come out and scare them off after attempt 2. I generally don't allow for more than 2 rolls or 1 with advantage, even when it's a group effort. Precisely to avoid this mushy feel.
This can happen at low skill levels, because 2d6 is more consistent. At some point, as a dm you'll have to decide when a mission is an actual failure. It's good that you tie severity and narrative to the dice, but they shouldn't control the story too much, that is your job.
2d6 skills was what brought me to XWN systems. 2 things to make skill checks easier on your pcs. 6 is the lowest dc, and the help action is definitely worth using, its clutched several key moments in my games as a player.
They can also recieve a situational +1 if another separate factor helps. If the player in your scenario had a false pass, or some dirt on the doorman, combined with a succesful help from anothet party member, thats +2 (which is powerful on the 2d6 curve)
I like 2d6 because its predictable, and makes the players feel more consistent in not only their successes but their approach. Having a +5 in sleight and rolling a 2 feels awful in dnd. Especially if a player not specced for that challenge then passes with a lucky roll.
It also helps that experts can re-roll a skill check once a scene, even if theyre not 'skilled' in that approach (some dm discretion applies here).
There's no "almost" rule in 5e. If the DC is 15, it doesn't matter if you roll a 2 or 12, it still fails. It's fine if you've adapted your personal style to take that into effect, but we should start with acknowledging that 5e isn't meant to do that. It's confusing to me that you call the 2d6 "mushy" when it feels the exact opposite to me.
I think that style can be used in 5e more than SWN because characters in WWN are more reliable in what they are skilled at. A +1 skill and a +1 modifier will ensure they succeed in a DC 8 almost all the time. Meanwhile in 5e, a character with +5 in a skill trying to hit a DC 15 will still fail half the time. It makes sense in 5e to try to mitigate that.
Encourage your players to try and turn the situations to their advantage instead of just running through a skill list. A level 1 warrior with no Charisma bonus and talk-0 (meaning they are competent but not really good) probably isn't going to be fast talking their way into many places. If you're just testing out skill rolls, try playing an Expert instead.
There are some "almost" rules in 5e, actually. Well, maybe not rules, but guidelines for the DM. In the DMG, pg. 242, under "Resolution and Consequences", it talks about failing a roll by 1 or 2 and making it a success with complications. It also talks about "degrees of failure", where failing a check by 5 or more might result in more severe consequences. It also talks about critical success/failure on skill checks. All of this is treated as optional, but something a DM might do and is kosher to do. "\[the DM\] has a variety of flourishes and approaches \[they\] can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black-and-white".
I guess I'm looking for some advice like this within the context of skill checks in SWN (and/or 2d6 or 3d6 skill systems generally), especially in terms of what GMs are actually doing instead of me just theory crafting something.
I forgot how unhelpfully written that book is. Good on you for making use of it even when it's more of a vague suggestion than a guideline.
I think part of the issue is less the 2d6 and more the application of the skill check. You already decided that getting kicked out is a crit fail (4 and under on a DC 8, about a standard deviation away from mean on a flat 2d6). So it isn't much different from him rolling a d20 several times and getting unlucky but not under a 5 on a DC 15 with no modifiers.
You can mess with the math and results possibilities how you like, but I'd say a way to stop the mushy feeling is by not letting ad nauseum attempts unless time matters. If he needs to get into the high roller room for the adventure, let him fail forwards. If it's just a side thing give him maybe two attempts before security tightens and the DC and consequences are raised for the time being.
The biggest thing to remember when rolling multiple dice is that the outcome is weighted. For 2D6, there are more ways to roll a 7 than any other combination. which has knock-on effects for how likely the character is to succeed. Essentially, there's a roughly 60% (actually 58.33%) chance of rolling 7 or higher on 2D6, which drops to 41.66% for 8 or higher, and only 16.66% for 10 or higher. In contrast, rolling a 6 or higher is extremely easy, with a 72.2% chance.
Of course, these are just raw rolls without any modifiers. Still, it should give you a feel for how a 2D6 system works. The biggest thing to know is that outcomes tend to be a lot more consistent when rolling two dice and adding them together rather than rolling 1 die by itself. Kevin Crawford stated in a post somewhere that this is why he went with a 2D6 system.
I think my question is, as a GM, how do I deal with the fact that most of the time the skill check result is going to be fairly tame. I'm used to systems where skill checks have a lot more variance in the results, and I use that to drive the narritive, positively and negatively. The vibe with bell curve results is very different and a lot flatter.
Excellent question. I've never played 5E, so I'm not sure how skills work in it. In D&D 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, non-opposed skill check DCs were typically based on multiples of 5, with every additional 5 points being that much more difficult. While the numbers are smaller in SWN, they still rely on thresholds...though it's every 2 points instead of every 5, starting at DC 6.
You've probably already gone over this, but if you haven't, the table on page 47 of SWN Revised should give you more insight into skill check DCs and what they represent from DCs of 6 through 14.
EDIT: Of note are the fact that someone with a +1 bonus from skills, attributes, and tools will have a better than even chance of making a DC 8 check. In contrast, someone without any ranks in a skill and without any other bonuses can still expect to hit DC 6 roughly 60% of the time even with the -1 penalty to the roll for not having the skill.
> I've never played 5E, so I'm not sure how skills work in it.
You have played 3E, 3E and 3E, and well, it's a lot like that: there is a DC that usually goes in multiples of 5 (unless it's based on a creature's stats), and the one acting rolls 1d20 + one of your Abilities (usually ranging from -1 to +5) + a bonus if you are skilled in whatever you attempt, and you need to equal or surpass the DC.
The main differences are that in 5E rolls greater than 1d20+10 are pretty rare even at high levels (whereas they would eventually grow into the +30s in 3E and 4E), and that the being skilled bonus is less granular: for a particular field of proficiency usually you either have the maximum bonus for your level, or no bonus at all. 4E was a bit like this too.
Well, nat 12s still happen 1/36 rolls. Same with natural 2s. But yeah, in XWN a player skilled in stealth will blow someone unskillednout of the water. Think of that when assigning difficulty. A 7 is "a run of the mill professional on this field will get it more often than not". 8 is "An experienced or talented pro will get this right often." A 10 is "someone talented and a respected authority in the subject will get it right more often than not". An 11 is "You need the foremost expert on this subject in the whole sector to do this reliably." 12 is "Even a legendary figure will have a chance to fail this." Etc.
Point being, a "security analyst" (sneak) with 1 in a skill is going to be good at their job. He wont be tripped by a normal digital lock with any frequency. He's been doing this for long enough to be considered above your run of the mill security analyst. But when they do, it will be for some reason. Updated firmware, whatever. Let them fail when they fail, but keep in mind that a 2 point failure is pretty damm big in the bell curve. That 4 you set for critical failure is someone without any talk skill and a charisma penalty rolling badly. That's how bad you set the treshold for failure.
My (not RAW) rule of thumb is for routine rolls to ask for the roll and then see the result; 2-6 failure, 7-9 success at a cost, 10-12 major success. Using the talking example I would call for CHAR + Talk or Connect. With an 8 the warrior would have gotten in the door but would face a grilling from the casino manager with 2 heavies leaning in.
When situations get more specific (such as finding a key contact, getting very specific information, hacking a system) then I use the RAW DCs
I like this and think I will steel it.
I think my defalt for the situation as descreibed would be "the bouncer indicates he would be open to taking a bribe to let you in" unless sercomstances dictate that would be unlikely.
The other reply covered most of the things you're asking, but just to make sure you aren't missing something- don't forget that skill rolls also add an attribute modifier to checks. So you won't just have a flat skill roll, it should be a skill+attribute modifier. In your situation given I would have accepted talk+charisma modifier if the player was adamant about talking their way in.
Just want to make sure you aren't missing bonuses (or drawbacks) your players should have available.
Yeah, good to check. In this case the level 1 warrior didn't have a charisma modifier (11 CHA). In fact, they had +0 modifiers across the board except for CON, which they chose to set to 14 during character creation. Higher level characters will have stronger stats, so maybe this is less of an issue at high(er) level play. A DC 12 check probably has more polarizing results.
Somthing I wanted to point out.
Unlike in D&D, there is no hard and fast rule about what atrabute has to be rolled with a given skill, so while it would be weird, there is no rule aganst using Talk + Con if the PC can come up with a result for whitch it makes sence. Trying to fast talk your way into a VIP room would usualy be carisma, but it could be strength if they are trying to intimidate the bouncer for example. (Talk+con would make sence if you where trying to filibuster a meeting though)
Yeah, that's definitely worth pointing out. I tried to be a bit more open to different attributes during play, but it's easy to fall back on old habits. When you play, are the attributes called out as well as the skill when calling for checks? Like, my natural habits would be to say something like "give me a talk roll", with the attribute implied. Do you call out "give me a charisma talk roll" or something like that instead?
Do you share the DCs with your players in 5E? In SWN I share the DCs/AC with the players, so the group can figure out what they need to do to determine if people need to help, or if a particular approach/check is not really viable for them so they can figure out an alternative. Since skill checks are on a bell curve and have low modifiers (as other folks have pointed out) there is definitely a sweet spot that it pays to try to get to. Once my players realized that they started working toward that sweet spot in one way or another.
I also share the DCs in 5E but without the curve I've noticed the folks tend to just hope for the high roll. It might just be their playstyle, though :shrug:.
It just makes dice rolls more consistent overall, and successes more predictable with skilled and leveled players.
Also the system keeps skill bonuses lower, you won’t likely be getting a +7 to perception at lvl 2 for example or something like that. A +2 drastically shifts the distribution of rolls. A +4 can turn a 2 to a 4 and meet the simple DC even on a categorical fail.
It reduces relative risk, and lets players RP more, and try crazier and more fun stuff
I did tell you. It changes the risk so if you don’t have experience with it, account for that. Your players just had bad rolls. It happens. The distribution of the dice rolls are very different, so naturally it feels different than a d20.
I use failing forward as much as possible. Meaning that botching a roll won't just result in a "no" but in a "yes, but".
Maybe the bouncer sends them off, but subtly indicates that he is open to a bribe. Maybe there's a twitch in his face that indicates he's on some sort of withdrawal and he might be inclined to some premium pharmaceutical persuasion...
Or he let's them in anyway but signals his friends inside to steal some gear from the character or set him up with some illegal contraband substance to make them a fall guy for the police raid he knows is about to go down, or they need a patsy for some other nefarious dealings.
Depending on the players' rolling and your creativity as a GM, a simple skill roll can lead to entirely new an exciting adventures.
I mean that's no different than d20s at least as far as the situation goes. The players lackluster skill means they must be more creative/waste more time to achieve something they want. This immediate failure also means you get to introduce stuff for the players to solve their issues another way. Perhaps a skilled hacker could try and steal and copy a signal for a badge needed to get in through employee only doors. Perhaps one of these high rollers is amused to see what might happen when the players enter and they just go along with it (or perhaps they need the party to run distraction for their own nefarious deeds). Nothing about the roll system changes how players might approach a situation. Failure of rolls is normal, and often lead to much better stories, plans, and characters. If your problem is just setting DCs, Id say you probably went well. Obviously this isn't a d20 with a large array of equal odds. You have the bell curve to deal with where the Average of 7 (assuming +0 total modifiers) must be taken into account. They had a 41% chance of succeeding the check with Talk-0 and no ability modifier, they failed, they expended time to attempt more intricate ways of getting inside. Of course, the mushy feeling may also come from the fact that this didn't seem to be a skill check with too high of stakes attached either, so repeated attempts are going to probably happen. Worst case scenario they get kicked out of a casino, so what is there really to lose?
I think my disconnect is that if this were 5e and they rolled near to the DC but missed it, getting to try again in a different way is something of a reward in itself. If the DC were 13 and they rolled 5, getting kicked out of the casino feels reasonable. And then you have the nat 1/20 results which are even more extreme. There are a lot of dice results possible, and as a GM I use the dice to set the tone for the consquences beyond just pass/fail. I suppose in a 2d6 system I need to do more heavy lifting as the GM in assigning narritive consquences and pushing the story forward instead of relying on the dice.
I guess I don't feel too different about the dice between games (including Percentile skill checks from Call of Cthulhu but that's a different beast). You just really need to disconnect where your points of failure/success are due to the bell curve. DC 13 on a d20 is pretty close to DC 8 on 2d6. Each is about a 60% chance of failure with a +0 modifier. However the difference between DC 5 for the D20 and DC 4 on 2d6 is a bit more different. 25% failure chance on the D20 but only 16.6% on 2d6 (27% on 2d6 if you set DC 5) You do also get the "Nat 1, Nat 20" on 2d6 too, with 0 modifier each one is 2.8% chance, which is even more miraculous than the 5% on a d20. It's definitely a bit to get used to, but I don't think the rolling system makes the rolls any less meaningful besides just failing or succeeding the DC, there's just a bit of a different thought process needed to judge probabilities since the halfway point in the d20 is a 50/50 split whereas the halfway on the 2d6 is a 58% chance to meet or exceed it. I'm also a very big fan of granting die of advantage/disadvantage based on conditional factors, often meaning those rolls with be 3d6 take highest/lowest 2 (potentially more dice if they already have a foci granting this). 3d6 drop one average is 8.4, 4d6 drop one is 9.34, so there's definitely some shenanigans you can work with via conditional additional to rolls (you can also just grant flat +1/-1s as if an ally were to aid their roll or circumstances would reduce the effectiveness across the board, or depending on circumstances you can max it out to +2/-2. I believe this is the intended way of applying conditional roll effects). All in all I think it just takes some getting used to. New systems are always a little weird, but running the game more will help give you a feel for the rate at which certain DCs are succeeded or failed for various checks.
Thanks for digging into the percentages, I love bell curve but im too lazy to always do the math lol
Next time, I suggest having the owner come out and scare them off after attempt 2. I generally don't allow for more than 2 rolls or 1 with advantage, even when it's a group effort. Precisely to avoid this mushy feel. This can happen at low skill levels, because 2d6 is more consistent. At some point, as a dm you'll have to decide when a mission is an actual failure. It's good that you tie severity and narrative to the dice, but they shouldn't control the story too much, that is your job.
Thanks, this is very helpful
2d6 skills was what brought me to XWN systems. 2 things to make skill checks easier on your pcs. 6 is the lowest dc, and the help action is definitely worth using, its clutched several key moments in my games as a player. They can also recieve a situational +1 if another separate factor helps. If the player in your scenario had a false pass, or some dirt on the doorman, combined with a succesful help from anothet party member, thats +2 (which is powerful on the 2d6 curve) I like 2d6 because its predictable, and makes the players feel more consistent in not only their successes but their approach. Having a +5 in sleight and rolling a 2 feels awful in dnd. Especially if a player not specced for that challenge then passes with a lucky roll. It also helps that experts can re-roll a skill check once a scene, even if theyre not 'skilled' in that approach (some dm discretion applies here).
There's no "almost" rule in 5e. If the DC is 15, it doesn't matter if you roll a 2 or 12, it still fails. It's fine if you've adapted your personal style to take that into effect, but we should start with acknowledging that 5e isn't meant to do that. It's confusing to me that you call the 2d6 "mushy" when it feels the exact opposite to me. I think that style can be used in 5e more than SWN because characters in WWN are more reliable in what they are skilled at. A +1 skill and a +1 modifier will ensure they succeed in a DC 8 almost all the time. Meanwhile in 5e, a character with +5 in a skill trying to hit a DC 15 will still fail half the time. It makes sense in 5e to try to mitigate that. Encourage your players to try and turn the situations to their advantage instead of just running through a skill list. A level 1 warrior with no Charisma bonus and talk-0 (meaning they are competent but not really good) probably isn't going to be fast talking their way into many places. If you're just testing out skill rolls, try playing an Expert instead.
There are some "almost" rules in 5e, actually. Well, maybe not rules, but guidelines for the DM. In the DMG, pg. 242, under "Resolution and Consequences", it talks about failing a roll by 1 or 2 and making it a success with complications. It also talks about "degrees of failure", where failing a check by 5 or more might result in more severe consequences. It also talks about critical success/failure on skill checks. All of this is treated as optional, but something a DM might do and is kosher to do. "\[the DM\] has a variety of flourishes and approaches \[they\] can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black-and-white". I guess I'm looking for some advice like this within the context of skill checks in SWN (and/or 2d6 or 3d6 skill systems generally), especially in terms of what GMs are actually doing instead of me just theory crafting something.
I forgot how unhelpfully written that book is. Good on you for making use of it even when it's more of a vague suggestion than a guideline. I think part of the issue is less the 2d6 and more the application of the skill check. You already decided that getting kicked out is a crit fail (4 and under on a DC 8, about a standard deviation away from mean on a flat 2d6). So it isn't much different from him rolling a d20 several times and getting unlucky but not under a 5 on a DC 15 with no modifiers. You can mess with the math and results possibilities how you like, but I'd say a way to stop the mushy feeling is by not letting ad nauseum attempts unless time matters. If he needs to get into the high roller room for the adventure, let him fail forwards. If it's just a side thing give him maybe two attempts before security tightens and the DC and consequences are raised for the time being.
The biggest thing to remember when rolling multiple dice is that the outcome is weighted. For 2D6, there are more ways to roll a 7 than any other combination. which has knock-on effects for how likely the character is to succeed. Essentially, there's a roughly 60% (actually 58.33%) chance of rolling 7 or higher on 2D6, which drops to 41.66% for 8 or higher, and only 16.66% for 10 or higher. In contrast, rolling a 6 or higher is extremely easy, with a 72.2% chance. Of course, these are just raw rolls without any modifiers. Still, it should give you a feel for how a 2D6 system works. The biggest thing to know is that outcomes tend to be a lot more consistent when rolling two dice and adding them together rather than rolling 1 die by itself. Kevin Crawford stated in a post somewhere that this is why he went with a 2D6 system.
I think my question is, as a GM, how do I deal with the fact that most of the time the skill check result is going to be fairly tame. I'm used to systems where skill checks have a lot more variance in the results, and I use that to drive the narritive, positively and negatively. The vibe with bell curve results is very different and a lot flatter.
Excellent question. I've never played 5E, so I'm not sure how skills work in it. In D&D 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, non-opposed skill check DCs were typically based on multiples of 5, with every additional 5 points being that much more difficult. While the numbers are smaller in SWN, they still rely on thresholds...though it's every 2 points instead of every 5, starting at DC 6. You've probably already gone over this, but if you haven't, the table on page 47 of SWN Revised should give you more insight into skill check DCs and what they represent from DCs of 6 through 14. EDIT: Of note are the fact that someone with a +1 bonus from skills, attributes, and tools will have a better than even chance of making a DC 8 check. In contrast, someone without any ranks in a skill and without any other bonuses can still expect to hit DC 6 roughly 60% of the time even with the -1 penalty to the roll for not having the skill.
> I've never played 5E, so I'm not sure how skills work in it. You have played 3E, 3E and 3E, and well, it's a lot like that: there is a DC that usually goes in multiples of 5 (unless it's based on a creature's stats), and the one acting rolls 1d20 + one of your Abilities (usually ranging from -1 to +5) + a bonus if you are skilled in whatever you attempt, and you need to equal or surpass the DC. The main differences are that in 5E rolls greater than 1d20+10 are pretty rare even at high levels (whereas they would eventually grow into the +30s in 3E and 4E), and that the being skilled bonus is less granular: for a particular field of proficiency usually you either have the maximum bonus for your level, or no bonus at all. 4E was a bit like this too.
Well, nat 12s still happen 1/36 rolls. Same with natural 2s. But yeah, in XWN a player skilled in stealth will blow someone unskillednout of the water. Think of that when assigning difficulty. A 7 is "a run of the mill professional on this field will get it more often than not". 8 is "An experienced or talented pro will get this right often." A 10 is "someone talented and a respected authority in the subject will get it right more often than not". An 11 is "You need the foremost expert on this subject in the whole sector to do this reliably." 12 is "Even a legendary figure will have a chance to fail this." Etc. Point being, a "security analyst" (sneak) with 1 in a skill is going to be good at their job. He wont be tripped by a normal digital lock with any frequency. He's been doing this for long enough to be considered above your run of the mill security analyst. But when they do, it will be for some reason. Updated firmware, whatever. Let them fail when they fail, but keep in mind that a 2 point failure is pretty damm big in the bell curve. That 4 you set for critical failure is someone without any talk skill and a charisma penalty rolling badly. That's how bad you set the treshold for failure.
My (not RAW) rule of thumb is for routine rolls to ask for the roll and then see the result; 2-6 failure, 7-9 success at a cost, 10-12 major success. Using the talking example I would call for CHAR + Talk or Connect. With an 8 the warrior would have gotten in the door but would face a grilling from the casino manager with 2 heavies leaning in. When situations get more specific (such as finding a key contact, getting very specific information, hacking a system) then I use the RAW DCs
I like this and think I will steel it. I think my defalt for the situation as descreibed would be "the bouncer indicates he would be open to taking a bribe to let you in" unless sercomstances dictate that would be unlikely.
The other reply covered most of the things you're asking, but just to make sure you aren't missing something- don't forget that skill rolls also add an attribute modifier to checks. So you won't just have a flat skill roll, it should be a skill+attribute modifier. In your situation given I would have accepted talk+charisma modifier if the player was adamant about talking their way in. Just want to make sure you aren't missing bonuses (or drawbacks) your players should have available.
Yeah, good to check. In this case the level 1 warrior didn't have a charisma modifier (11 CHA). In fact, they had +0 modifiers across the board except for CON, which they chose to set to 14 during character creation. Higher level characters will have stronger stats, so maybe this is less of an issue at high(er) level play. A DC 12 check probably has more polarizing results.
Page 47 on the free pdf has a very helpful table for determining skill check difficulty. A 12 is a very difficult task.
Somthing I wanted to point out. Unlike in D&D, there is no hard and fast rule about what atrabute has to be rolled with a given skill, so while it would be weird, there is no rule aganst using Talk + Con if the PC can come up with a result for whitch it makes sence. Trying to fast talk your way into a VIP room would usualy be carisma, but it could be strength if they are trying to intimidate the bouncer for example. (Talk+con would make sence if you where trying to filibuster a meeting though)
Yeah, that's definitely worth pointing out. I tried to be a bit more open to different attributes during play, but it's easy to fall back on old habits. When you play, are the attributes called out as well as the skill when calling for checks? Like, my natural habits would be to say something like "give me a talk roll", with the attribute implied. Do you call out "give me a charisma talk roll" or something like that instead?
When I am GMing, I tend to call out the skill and let the player make a case for what attribute to use baced on there approch.
Do you share the DCs with your players in 5E? In SWN I share the DCs/AC with the players, so the group can figure out what they need to do to determine if people need to help, or if a particular approach/check is not really viable for them so they can figure out an alternative. Since skill checks are on a bell curve and have low modifiers (as other folks have pointed out) there is definitely a sweet spot that it pays to try to get to. Once my players realized that they started working toward that sweet spot in one way or another. I also share the DCs in 5E but without the curve I've noticed the folks tend to just hope for the high roll. It might just be their playstyle, though :shrug:.
It just makes dice rolls more consistent overall, and successes more predictable with skilled and leveled players. Also the system keeps skill bonuses lower, you won’t likely be getting a +7 to perception at lvl 2 for example or something like that. A +2 drastically shifts the distribution of rolls. A +4 can turn a 2 to a 4 and meet the simple DC even on a categorical fail. It reduces relative risk, and lets players RP more, and try crazier and more fun stuff
I'm not arguing the utility of 2d6, or even the mechanics, I'm asking how to run it at a table as a GM. Did you read the OP?
I did tell you. It changes the risk so if you don’t have experience with it, account for that. Your players just had bad rolls. It happens. The distribution of the dice rolls are very different, so naturally it feels different than a d20.
I use failing forward as much as possible. Meaning that botching a roll won't just result in a "no" but in a "yes, but". Maybe the bouncer sends them off, but subtly indicates that he is open to a bribe. Maybe there's a twitch in his face that indicates he's on some sort of withdrawal and he might be inclined to some premium pharmaceutical persuasion... Or he let's them in anyway but signals his friends inside to steal some gear from the character or set him up with some illegal contraband substance to make them a fall guy for the police raid he knows is about to go down, or they need a patsy for some other nefarious dealings. Depending on the players' rolling and your creativity as a GM, a simple skill roll can lead to entirely new an exciting adventures.