Skip to Content

Best way to describe a 'Skill Check' for non RPG players

9 replies [Last post]
HPS74
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009
SkillCheck.jpg

I'm going through a revamp of team cards (Cycling & Football) but I'm having trouble simply explaining the special plays.

I thought about referring to it like a 'skill check'. Your opponent has one roll only of the defense die (1-5) to prevent to play.

This is what I have so far, but I hope someone may be able to simplify it even further....

"Skill checks will always be rolled by your opponent to determine
success or failure on any Offensive or Defensive plays listed above."

Thanks

SPHansen Games
SPHansen Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/25/2015
Simplified

Don't use 'will be' in these cases... if play doesn't succeed, then it fails, no need to have both words...

"Skill checks are rolled by opponent to determine if Offensive or Defensive plays listed above succeed."

Soulfinger
Soulfinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
"Your opponent must attempt a

"Your opponent must attempt a skill check to determine the success or failure of any play."

No need to specify Offensive or Defensive if the roll is applicable to both.

SPHansen Games
SPHansen Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/25/2015
close

The opponent is not 'attempting' a skill check, they are making one... still don't need both 'success' and 'failure'... it's always going to be YOUR opponent, not someone else's, so 'your' is not needed.

"Opponent must make a skill check to determine success of play"

HPS74
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009
Thanks for that. Much

Thanks for that. Much appreciated and trimmed down quite well.

Soulfinger
Soulfinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
SPHansen Games wrote:The

SPHansen Games wrote:
The opponent is not 'attempting' a skill check, they are making one... still don't need both 'success' and 'failure'... it's always going to be YOUR opponent, not someone else's, so 'your' is not needed.

"Opponent must make a skill check to determine success of play"

The problem there is that the sentence is stripped down into a not quite legible fragment, which is fine for a VCR manual, but casual gamers need a little more. The simplest form of the sentence would be something like "Skill checks determine the success of any play." Anything extra is there to aid the reader's comprehension.

"Attempt" is a viable option as the action is not certain to succeed, which is why "make" would likewise be an abbreviated form of "making an attempt." It is semantics, but since the OP wanted something for people unfamiliar with RPGs, I figured the RPG shorthand of "making a roll," which really isn't clear for casual gamers, wouldn't apply.

SPHansen Games
SPHansen Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/25/2015
More on Attempt...

You would attempt to make 'the play', but not attempt to make 'the roll', there is a distinct difference, which is why 'attempt' is not correct in this instance.

Also, this is supplemental text on the card, to remind players of a most likely longer explanation in the rule set, and does not need to be as verbose.

Thus:

Rules might say something like this - "When the opposing player attempts an offensive or defensive play listed on the card, they are required to make a skill check by rolling a single d6. Rolling x number means the play has succeeded..."

But the card, which has limited real estate, would use only a reminder text - "Opponent must make a skill check to determine success of play"

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
But... But...

But it's my play, so I expect to be the one making the skill check, not my opponent. I wouldn't be surprised that I subtract my opponent's defense value from the roll, but I still expect to be the one rolling.

Also, Soulfinger made this change, but didn't draw attention to it. OP, you should remember this rule when writing: "Passive voice should be avoided whenever possible." (That is, "skill check should be made by opponent" is passive voice, where "opponent should make skill check" is active voice -- the one doing the action is the subject of the sentence, not the action. It's intentional that the rule violates itself.)

HPS74
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009
Zag24 wrote:But it's my play,

Zag24 wrote:
But it's my play, so I expect to be the one making the skill check, not my opponent. I wouldn't be surprised that I subtract my opponent's defense value from the roll, but I still expect to be the one rolling.

Also, Soulfinger made this change, but didn't draw attention to it. OP, you should remember this rule when writing: "Passive voice should be avoided whenever possible." (That is, "skill check should be made by opponent" is passive voice, where "opponent should make skill check" is active voice -- the one doing the action is the subject of the sentence, not the action. It's intentional that the rule violates itself.)

This has really puzzled me....perhaps my explanation in what I'm trying to achieve has been lacking.

Looking at the image as the example.

The game revolves around the QB creating pass/run routes with a value that the defense has to equal or better to prevent. The dice have different routes with values.

Let's say the play has a value of 5.

For the defense to prevent this pass and force a down, my opponent has the sum of two rolls with a single defensive die numbered 1 - 5. IN standard play, this is usually achievable and a down is recorded.

Using a card ability "WR Decoy 3"(value) requires my opponent to firstly roll a 3 or better with a single defensive die roll to 'prevent' the decoy being effective.

If successful (rolling a 3/4/5), the decoy player has been ignored by the defense and they move to the normal two rolls to equal/better the value of 5.

However, if unsuccessful (rolls a 1/2), the decoy has taken up one of his standard two defensive rolls to prevent the pass value of 5, and ONLY a single roll remains, meaning he must roll a 5

Zag24 - I see how interpret it as 'your' play, but it's a play the defense must prevent, not for you to succeed. The same is done for a DEFENSIVE ability. The Offensive player is then the opponent trying to shake off the cover.

I should note that I don't play a lot of other TCG games and the system above may seem backwards. I'm looking at it from a Coach's perspective. By drawing defensive players away the receiver with a decoy, they would have less men to cover the intended target making it more difficult. Likewise a WR with a PASS DEFENSE covering man may end the play as the intended target was 'smothered'

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
I see your point -- really --

I see your point -- really -- but it still feels wrong to me. I think most of it is just wording -- the skill check is the defense's skill check, so word it from that player's point of view. For example...

The offensive player chooses a pass play with a value of 5.

For the defensive player to prevent this pass and force a down, he makes two rolls with a defensive die (numbered 1 - 5) and adds them together. In standard play, this is usually achievable and a down is recorded.

However, say the offensive player also uses the card "WR Decoy 3" to improve the chances of the pass succeeding. Before rolling the skill check for the defense, the defensive player first must roll to see if his players fall for the decoy. He must roll the decoy value (3, in this case) or higher with a single defensive die to prevent the decoy being effective.

If successful, the defense ignored the decoy so he still defends against the original play with two rolls, as above. However, if unsuccessful (rolls a 1/2), the decoy has taken up one of his standard two defensive rolls, and ONLY a single roll remains; he must roll a 5 on only one defensive die.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut