Inverting roll-under percentile systems?

[TheFlatline]

So Dark Heresy 2nd edition is on it's way and my old campaign group has asked me to start the game back up. While a lot of derp has been made less derpy in 2nd ed, I still believe the core resolution mechanic is percentile roll under. So like your target number is your stat plus training skills plus any modifiers. So dodge would be like a base of 32, plus 10 points for being trained in dodge, and maybe plus 10 for the situational modifiers, giving a total target number of 52.

I know Frank's advocated a roll-over system for percentile (when percentiles are used) of adding all your bonuses and skills up and rolling a percentile and trying to break 100. And conceptually this seems like it might make the game run smoother. Degrees of success are easier to determine (in DH every 10 points below the target number you get a degree of success. With roll-over the tens digit is the number of additional successes. Easy peasy). Overall it just seems like it'd be easier than adjusting against a constantly changing target number conceptually for my players.

It's early, and I haven't had enough coffee yet, but it seems like just house ruling that the basic resolution mechanic is moving to a roll-over system instead of a roll-under system wouldn't change the probability of success at all- it'd just change the method of math. Is this right?

Edit: The funny thing is that the wound system, insanity system, corruption system, and I believe the psychic side effect system all use a percentile roll-over resolution mechanic. So it obviously occurred to someone that this would be better at some point. I have no idea why it wasn't made unifying.

[Username17]

It's early, and I haven't had enough coffee yet, but it seems like just house ruling that the basic resolution mechanic is moving to a roll-over system instead of a roll-under system wouldn't change the probability of success at all- it'd just change the method of math. Is this right?

That is essentially correct. Many d% systems also use various other math bullshit that might or might not be affected. For example, some use blackjack numbers for opposed tests, which makes rolls with a low degree of success more likely to win in an opposed test. And while I think that is fucking bullshit, the math is not preserved by switching to roll over. Another issue is division, which a lot of d% roll-under systems want to do. For example, Call of Cthulhu wants you to divide your skill by 5 to find your percentage chance of getting a "special" or "impale" result. That is a warcrime, but if you want to preserve the 1 in 5 successes are special bullshit, you'll want to handle that by having "magic numbers" in the 1s place on the d%. Say, 3s and 7s or whatever.

-Username17

[TheFlatline]

Yeah in DH I believe a roll of 91-00 is a weapons jam or threat of a failure. But that's easy enough to swap over. Thankfully the only funky part was the degrees of success thing where every 10 points you succeed by is a degree of success. Switching over to a roll-over system would make that actually a lot easier.

Great I appreciate the input. There's no division I think involved so I should be good to go.

[hogarth]

Using d100 for your resolution system has exactly one advantage -- it makes it trivially easy to figure out what chance you have at succeeding at a task. E.g., you have an 87% chance of rolling an 87 or less.

If you're going to use a roll-over system, there's no point in using d100 for it.

[John Magnum]

If you make your system (1d100 + Skill) vs DC 100 roll high, then your chance of success is exactly equal to your Skill. It's just that degrees of success and opposed rolls are slightly easier to calculate, too.

[hogarth]

If you make your system (1d100 + Skill) vs DC 100 roll high, then your chance of success is exactly equal to your Skill.

That's great...except it only works if the DC is 100. So how do you make tasks more difficult? By applying a penalty to your roll? In which case UH OH HERE COMES THE DREADED SUBTRACTION!!!

[John Magnum]

Sometimes you take a hit to your attack bonus in D&D 3. Does that mean it's exactly as bad as THAC0?

[schpeelah]

That's great...except it only works if the DC is 100. So how do you make tasks more difficult? By applying a penalty to your roll? In which case UH OH HERE COMES THE DREADED SUBTRACTION!!!

Roll-under does not have task difficulty, so neither does a mathematically identical roll-over version. Just change the target number. You do lose the easy margin of success though.

[Username17]

Putting in success level minimums to perform certain feats isn't terribly difficult and still involves no subtraction. Doing that allows you to have superhuman feats, something which roll-under systems cannot handle at all. TN 100 roll-over is simply superior to roll-under.

You obviously lose the perfect "your roll modifier is your chance of success" if you allow superhuman tasks to be attempted. But at least you have the option of doing that if you want, which roll-under doesn't fucking have. So in Call of Cthulhu, an elephant has a 190% chance of succeeding at a strength test, which is absolutely the same as having a 120% or a 100% chance. And really it's 70% the same as having a 70% chance of succeeding on a strength test. In roll-over, you keep that part unchanged. The big difference is that our elephant has a minimum success level of 9, which means that if you care about how awesome their result was rather than simply binarily whether they had achieved success in a human context, that the elephant's strength output will always be better than the guy with a 70% strength test (whose maximum success level is 7).

So... no subtraction is added or necessary, and the roll-over system is easier to use and has more functionality. Functionality which is actually fairly important in a game that has non-human aliens.

-Username17

[Sakuya Izayoi]

I think the key component missing with a lot of % systems is that there's no transparency for the kind of skill checks you can auto-succeed at.

If chargen outputs characters with 33% being average, 20% being mediocre, and 50% being excellent, those are generally good probabilities for a "dramatic" skill check. But there's no way to really defend yourself from a GM who wants a comedy of errors, and force a vision of parochial stooge upon your character that doesn't really jive with your own. You can say, "if there's no stakes, don't roll," but there's always stakes when the GM can possibly think up a quantum ogre relevant to the current situation

My fix for Dark Heresy would be to go down the skill list and come up with some things you can auto-succeed at for each multiple of 10 you have in a skill, between 20 to 60 or so (beyond 60 being generally a Speesh Mahrine or a munchkin).

[TheFlatline]

I think the key component missing with a lot of % systems is that there's no transparency for the kind of skill checks you can auto-succeed at.

If chargen outputs characters with 33% being average, 20% being mediocre, and 50% being excellent, those are generally good probabilities for a "dramatic" skill check. But there's no way to really defend yourself from a GM who wants a comedy of errors, and force a vision of parochial stooge upon your character that doesn't really jive with your own. You can say, "if there's no stakes, don't roll," but there's always stakes when the GM can possibly think up a quantum ogre relevant to the current situation

My fix for Dark Heresy would be to go down the skill list and come up with some things you can auto-succeed at for each multiple of 10 you have in a skill, between 20 to 60 or so (beyond 60 being generally a Speesh Mahrine or a munchkin).

O.o

I get what your saying, since there really isn't a an analog of what your strength means in real life (I think there is in carrying capacity but that's buried) but I was looking for a quick fix to make the game run smoother. I already spend an inordinate amount of time writing the adventure, serious hacks to the system isn't something I simply have time for.

And having run the game for 2+ years, I can tell you that your suggestion would be... marginally useful compared to a streamlining of the RNG system. *Maybe* once per session it'd help avoid a roll, but even then probably not because you start adding difficulty modifiers into the situation and things get complicated fast. Compare that to even saving 2-3 seconds per die roll due to a more intuitive system and you could easily save quite a bit of time at the end of say a combat heavy session.

[silva]

Roll-under does not have task difficulty, so neither does a mathematically identical roll-over version. Just change the target number. You do lose the easy margin of success though.

I thought the task difficulty in roll-under were the penalties you add to the roll. In Runequest 6, for example, the difficulty table is something like this:

- very easy: double your skill rating
- Easy: 1.5x your skill rating
- moderate: your skill rating
- hard: 0.5x skill rating
- insane: 0.25 skill rating

..or something like that.

[Username17]

The issue with % roll-under games, whether they are Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies or Eclipse Phase is that the real basic mechanic is not rolling percentile dice but determining when you have to roll. Which unfortunately, is 100% mother may I.

It's not only mother may I, it's really blatant and shitty mother may I. If you have to roll, your chances of failure are incredibly high. But the determination of whether you have to roll or not is primarily based on whether the MC thinks your skill is high enough. So it's some sort of reverse-blackjack shit where if the MC thinks that having a 30% skill is good enough to make you "not have to roll" for the task at hand you succeed automatically, but if he thinks that is even 1% too low to skip the roll you have a failure rate higher than the three fucking stooges.

If you wanted any % roll under system to not be basically bullshit, you'd want to standardize what you could and could not do without rolling at any particular skill level. Which would still be weird as shit, because of the whole thing where people get wildly better at tasks they have to roll at simultaneously with the tasks they have to roll being an exclusively harder set. So the guy with 20% not only has to roll on relatively low level tasks but he also fails eighty percent of the fucking time when he has to do so - while the guy with an 80% only has to roll on quite high level tasks and also succeeds four times out of five against even those.

% Roll-Under is basically a bad system that doesn't make a lot of sense, is what I'm saying.

-Username17

[Lokathor]

So would d%+mods vs DC 100 work even if you're rolling all the time? Or would it still be too cumbersome because a d% roll and then adding two two-digit numbers is always slow?

Would it be viable in a computer RPG like Baldur's Gate or whatever just because the computer is doing the math for you?

[Sakuya Izayoi]

O.o

I apologize, I think I misread something wrong here or there and didn't realize the discussion was just concerning the simplicity of the arithmetic.

Would it be viable in a computer RPG like Baldur's Gate or whatever just because the computer is doing the math for you?

When I've played % systems in Roll20, it saves a lot of time being able to go /roll skill-d100+mods (divide by 10 for DoS in Warhammer RPGs)

[Lokathor]

I mean would roll-high be viable, though I guess I should have thought about it and answered my own question, because there are ADnD and 3e games, both of which are on a flat RNG which is basically the same as d%, just never with modifiers of less than 5% at a time.

I guess my final question should have been, would rolling all the time only be viable in a computer game?

[Laertes]

The issue with % roll-under games, whether they are Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies or Eclipse Phase is that the real basic mechanic is not rolling percentile dice but determining when you have to roll. Which unfortunately, is 100% mother may I.

It's not only mother may I, it's really blatant and shitty mother may I. If you have to roll, your chances of failure are incredibly high. But the determination of whether you have to roll or not is primarily based on whether the MC thinks your skill is high enough. So it's some sort of reverse-blackjack shit where if the MC thinks that having a 30% skill is good enough to make you "not have to roll" for the task at hand you succeed automatically, but if he thinks that is even 1% too low to skip the roll you have a failure rate higher than the three fucking stooges.

If you wanted any % roll under system to not be basically bullshit, you'd want to standardize what you could and could not do without rolling at any particular skill level. Which would still be weird as shit, because of the whole thing where people get wildly better at tasks they have to roll at simultaneously with the tasks they have to roll being an exclusively harder set. So the guy with 20% not only has to roll on relatively low level tasks but he also fails eighty percent of the fucking time when he has to do so - while the guy with an 80% only has to roll on quite high level tasks and also succeeds four times out of five against even those.

% Roll-Under is basically a bad system that doesn't make a lot of sense, is what I'm saying.

-Username17

Unknown Armies actually has system for this. I know you don't like UA but it's outright untrue that it doesn't have system for determining when you roll and when you autopass.

It's true that the system is subjective; but then in an RPG all things are subjective unless you're playing something so abstract that it isn't attempting to represent either story or action. However, while being subjective it's quite clear:

- If you have both the time to do the task properly and there are no real consequences to failed attempts, then if your skill is at least 15% you autosucceed.

- If you are missing one of those two things (that is, you either do not have the time to do it carefully, or failure precludes simply trying again immediately) then you roll under your stat, which is in the 40-70 range.

- If you are missing both of those things (that is, if there is not time to be careful and you can only make a single attempt) then you roll under your skill, which is in the 15-55 range.

Is it subjective? Yes. Is it Mother May I? No. No more than any other system which modifies your roll depending upon circumstances. Furthermore, it also provides a nice way to resolve the eternal bugbear of "I roll until I succeed" in a single test.

[Username17]

Unknown Armies actually has system for this. I know you don't like UA but it's outright untrue that it doesn't have system for determining when you roll and when you autopass.

You are a liar. You're not just wrong, you are fucking lying to people. Stop it.

- If you have both the time to do the task properly and there are no real consequences to failed attempts, then if your skill is at least 15% you autosucceed.

- If you are missing one of those two things (that is, you either do not have the time to do it carefully, or failure precludes simply trying again immediately) then you roll under your stat, which is in the 40-70 range.

- If you are missing both of those things (that is, if there is not time to be careful and you can only make a single attempt) then you roll under your skill, which is in the 15-55 range.

Is it subjective? Yes. Is it Mother May I? No. No more than any other system which modifies your roll depending upon circumstances. Furthermore, it also provides a nice way to resolve the eternal bugbear of "I roll until I succeed" in a single test.

First off, those are not the criteria in the book. The criteria in the book are:

In the context of UA gaming, it means every skill check has some qualities that justify it being minor, significant, and major all at once. Your job is determining to which level it most belongs. To some extent, this approach mitigates the occasional need for "fudging" die rolls for the sake of the players or the story, because you can tailor the type of check to better suit the demands of the moment.

Each level of check has five qualities: threat, time, penalty, specialization, and drama. These are the qualities that guide you in your decision of which check to call for.

There is no hard rule for how you use this information. If you have a check with three minor qualities and one major quality, you may decide that it's a major check even though the minor option has seemingly greater weight.

So: fuck you. Shut the fuck up about the simple "two qualities" that unambiguously set the skill check level, because that is a fucking lie. The actual rule is that there are five qualities that the MC is supposed to juggle and none of them are in any way unambiguous at any point.

Not only are there five things to juggle, but specifically you can have one of those things outweigh the other four "just because" and skip two check levels up or down. It's not just "subjective," it's not a fucking system at all. It's less of a system than the other games. At least in Call of Cthulhu I know what completely subjective mother may I criteria I am being confronted with: the keeper is deciding whether the task at hand seems like it would be a routine task for a person who is as nebulously skilled as my character appears to be. In Unknown Armies, I don't even have that.

-Username17

[erik]

However, while being subjective it's quite clear:

- If you have both the time to do the task properly and there are no real consequences to failed attempts, then if your skill is at least 15% you autosucceed.

Bzzzzt! Frank's critique that these aren't official rules aside. Your system still is mother may I because MCs will still differ on what these constitute. Almost everything has real consequences for failure, if not then why do you even care about its outcome?

And some things you always have time to do as they are not time-dependent, so you'd never need the skill above 15%.

[TheFlatline]

O.o

I apologize, I think I misread something wrong here or there and didn't realize the discussion was just concerning the simplicity of the arithmetic.

Would it be viable in a computer RPG like Baldur's Gate or whatever just because the computer is doing the math for you?

When I've played % systems in Roll20, it saves a lot of time being able to go /roll skill-d100+mods (divide by 10 for DoS in Warhammer RPGs)

No worries. And to be honest if I had the time to undertake a serious hack of DH I'd ditch percentile entirely. I just have 2 hours a day on average between the time I get home from work and when I have to go to bed to get up for work during the week. That's not enough time to perform reconstructive surgery on a dice system.

[Lev Lafayette]

If you wanted any % roll under system to not be basically bullshit, you'd want to standardize what you could and could not do without rolling at any particular skill level.

Which you will find does exist in BRP games, who pretty much invented roll-under percentile systems. For example Drive in Call of Cthulhu, or Speak Language in RuneQuest.

One only is meant to roll skill checks when, well, there's a stress or contest, and even then there's situational modifiers.

% Roll-Under is basically a bad system that doesn't make a lot of sense, is what I'm saying.

Roll under percentage is simply (a) character describes what they want to do, (b) GM assigns their percentage chance of doing it based on skill, stat, circumstances, (c) character rolls dice. A degree of success can be determined by how well the character succeeded by.

For its advocates, it has the advantage of being quick and transparent.

Now as for the original topic of the thread, roll high percentile rolls are pretty much the same mechanic.

From OD&D onwards it did the same thing with combat rolls except with a d20 rather than d% and of course now that's a norm. For percentage-based systems, if I remember correctly, Rolemaster was the first to use it as a universal system.

But really, they're just the same..

[Username17]

If you wanted any % roll under system to not be basically bullshit, you'd want to standardize what you could and could not do without rolling at any particular skill level.

Which you will find does exist in BRP games, who pretty much invented roll-under percentile systems. For example Drive in Call of Cthulhu, or Speak Language in RuneQuest.

One only is meant to roll skill checks when, well, there's a stress or contest, and even then there's situational modifiers.

% Roll-Under is basically a bad system that doesn't make a lot of sense, is what I'm saying.

Roll under percentage is simply (a) character describes what they want to do, (b) GM assigns their percentage chance of doing it based on skill, stat, circumstances, (c) character rolls dice. A degree of success can be determined by how well the character succeeded by.

For its advocates, it has the advantage of being quick and transparent.

Wow. What the fuck is it about roll-under percentile systems that turns all of its advocates into fucking liars? Those game systems are incredibly and deliberately vague, can't you just come out ranting about how the vagueness is good instead of lying to people by claiming it doesn't exist? What the fuck is wrong with these games that they attract such disingenuous scum as their supporters?

Look, there's a Call of Cthulhu OSSR on the front page right now. We know for a fact that the parameters of when you do and do not have to roll dice in Call of Cthulhu are undefined. I mean, AncientHistory and I are literally in the process of completing a series of essays which discusses that book on a section by section basis - we've been through that book with a fine tooth comb, we know you are full of shit about the book's contents.

RuneQuest is of course not better about this, with much of character advancement being dependent upon players attempting to bargain with their MCs to be allowed to roll dice outside the structure of the adventure. A portion of the game which there are no clear guidelines at all, and for which the fans traditionally get all prickly about how players who have their characters climb trees (with handicaps if necessary) in order to check skills are "the devil" rather than actually face up to the reality that RuneQuest skill advancement is horseshit that encourages stupid time wasting bullshit. But for fuck's sake, there's an ongoing discussion of how exactly this fucking problem pans out in the Call of Cthulhu rulebook right now on the first page.

-Username17

[Lev Lafayette]

Wow. What the fuck is it about roll-under percentile systems that turns all of its advocates into fucking liars? Those game systems are incredibly and deliberately vague, can't you just come out ranting about how the vagueness is good instead of lying to people by claiming it doesn't exist? What the fuck is wrong with these games that they attract such disingenuous scum as their supporters?

You don't serve your argument well by making such ad hominen remarks about your interlocutor. Please try to discuss a gaming issue (for goodness sake) like a civil person. I assure you, nothing will be lost by it and you may even gain some respect from others for engaging in mature and well-reasoned discourse, even when you're demonstrably incorrect.

A "liar" is a person who is deliberately and knowingly deceiving others about a position. This is certainly not the case here. The statement I made is:

"Roll under percentage is simply (a) character describes what they want to do, (b) GM assigns their percentage chance of doing it based on skill, stat, circumstances, (c) character rolls dice. A degree of success can be determined by how well the character succeeded by."

Now this is true. Of course not all roll-under percentage game systems apply this is in equal or complete degrees (for example Call of Cthulhu, rules as written, doesn't even offer modifications to circumstances in most cases (ranged combat being a notable exclusion), although these do appear in even the oldest scenario pack such as Masks of Nyarlathotep and some skills). But as an overall description, the statement I made is generally true. You will find it in RuneQuest, Harnmaster, Warhammer FRPG, Eclipse Phase etc

Now I'm not even an advocate of roll-under percentile systems, except in the legal sense of being prepared to make a case for the idea. I actually have a stronger preference for roll-high, combined test-and-effect (e.g., Earthdawn, Over The Edge, FUDGE/FATE etc). But I don't have an aneurysm when I play any BRP-derived game, DragonQuest, Warhammer, Harnmaster, Eclipse Phase & etc, simply because it has a simple and transparent resolution mechanic.

We know for a fact that the parameters of when you do and do not have to roll dice in Call of Cthulhu are undefined. I mean, AncientHistory and I are literally in the process of completing a series of essays which discusses that book on a section by section basis - we've been through that book with a fine tooth comb, we know you are full of shit about the book's contents.

As a person who has copies of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5.5, 5.6, 20th anniversary, and 6th edition on hand, I also know they are not undefined. Indeed, you mention yourself in that very thread that there are automatic actions. The rules defines these as "routine actions" in "routine circumstances" which is distinguished from "extraordinary circumstances" (i.e., "skills under dangerous conditions" etc) which do require skill checks. Now I readily agree that they are not stated as elaborately or completely as they could be, but to deny that they exist at all is simply not true. They are right there, on page 49 in the edition that you're reviewing.

If you're looking for other examples, check out first edition (1981) rules p17 for the Astronomy skill; "... especially well-known stars (such as Betelguese, Antares, etc) will be known automatically by any Astronomer with a skill of 25%". If you look in the second edition for the previously mentioned Drive skill (p22) you will read "Anyone will a skill of 25% in driving can successfully drive a car down the road". Likewise Operate Heavy Machinery (p23) "If he has a skill of 25% or more, he may successfully use the machine, except for difficult tasks or in bad conditions, when the roll must be made" & etc., etc., etc.

RuneQuest is of course not better about this, with much of character advancement being dependent upon players attempting to bargain with their MCs to be allowed to roll dice outside the structure of the adventure.

There are very well-defined rules for training and research outside of adventure time in RuneQuest (e.g., p39-40 Players Book, RuneQuest 3rd edition, Deluxe) and for skill improvements based on professional activities (see page 30, op cit).

A portion of the game which there are no clear guidelines at all, and for which the fans traditionally get all prickly about how players who have their characters climb trees (with handicaps if necessary) in order to check skills are "the devil" rather than actually face up to the reality that RuneQuest skill advancement is horseshit that encourages stupid time wasting bullshit

RuneQuest skill advancement, at least in the first three editions, was based on either (a) experience from unusual and testing circumstances which received a skill check, (b) training and practise. I presume that you have a problem on the former based on the misconception that a GM can be bullied into allowing irrelevant skill tests during adventure. This is not the case; see page 20 of the rules op. cit., which specifies that normal activities (ride a horse, jump across a rivulet) are automatic and not tested. On page 38 (op cit) it says that experience check rolls only occur as a result of adventures (which are supposed to be memorable), and only when "the gamemaster agrees that the success is worth an experience roll".

Anyway, all of this is off-topic from the original post (the original author's question was correct about whether roll-above and roll-under are equal in probabilities). I hope that the above discussion brings you further encouragement to read the rules of particular games with additional care. Have a nice day.

[Koumei]

You don't serve your argument well by making such ad hominen remarks about your interlocutor. Please try to discuss a gaming issue (for goodness sake) like a civil person. I assure you, nothing will be lost by it and you may even gain some respect from others for engaging in mature and well-reasoned discourse, even when you're demonstrably incorrect.

[Username17]

You don't serve your argument well by making such ad hominen remarks about your interlocutor.

First: go fuck yourself. Second: you have two fucking posts on this board and both of them are you being a dipshit. Lurk moar. On this board, we use personal insults as a normal thing. Insults are not the same thing as ad hominem attacks, learn to differentiate them. I am not saying that the things you are saying are false because you are a liar, I am saying you are a liar because the things you say are demonstrably and demonstratedly false. It's different, learn to understand that or get the fuck off this board.

You're wrong. Everything you say is false. Because you are saying things that are obviously not true, it's clear to me and everyone else that you're a moron and a fraud.

As a person who has copies of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5.5, 5.6, 20th anniversary, and 6th edition on hand, I also know they are not undefined. Indeed, you mention yourself in that very thread that there are automatic actions. The rules defines these as "routine actions" in "routine circumstances" which is distinguished from "extraordinary circumstances" (i.e., "skills under dangerous conditions" etc) which do require skill checks. Now I readily agree that they are not stated as elaborately or completely as they could be, but to deny that they exist at all is simply not true. They are right there, on page 49 in the edition that you're reviewing.

What the fuck? Look, page 49 says:

The keeper determines when and what the needed roll is. It may be a skill roll, a characteristic roll (perhaps modified for special conditions), or a characteristic match-up on the Resistance Table.

That's what it says. That is not a rule, or even a guideline. That is a pointer to some set of keeper guidelines about what is and is not an appropriate time to call for skill checks. And those guidelines don't exist. The rule is "ask your keeper" and when the keeper asks the book what answers they should be giving the book just trails off.

There are very well-defined rules for training and research outside of adventure time in RuneQuest (e.g., p39-40 Players Book, RuneQuest 3rd edition, Deluxe) and for skill improvements based on professional activities (see page 30, op cit).

Got it. You're a mouth breathing idiot rather than a liar per se. I don't think that's very different, but whatever.

Skill advancement in RuneQuest is based on training and learning by doing. In order to be allowed to train, you have to get the learning by doing check as well. So whether you have moneys and free times to spend on skill training or not, the skill advancement is always dependent on getting the checks on your skills. In order to get the checks on your skills you have to make and succeed on tests. Thus, how fast you advance is, while also highly random and extremely bullshit, exceedingly dependent on how many times you roll your skill checks.

Therefore, if you want to advance your RuneQuest characters it behooves you to make lots of skill checks of different kinds. That includes switching weapons during combat, climbing things to get better vantage points, picking locks on side doors, and so on and so forth. While succeeding at adventures is mostly based on convincing the GM to not force you to roll skill checks when it's important that you succeed, succeeding at character advancement is nearly entirely based on convincing the GM to allow you to roll skill checks when it's not important that you fail.

RuneQuest fans traditionally get all whiny about powergamers whenever people bring that basic fact of the system up. I just assumed that you were adult enough that we could skip to that part of the conversation, but obviously I was wrong.

-Username17