Stats and chance

I realize that many manuals would be published over the years unpacking just how to handle those non-combat situations that a PC can encounter.  How far can you jump?  How well do you tie that rope?  How well can you buckle that belt?  And on and on.

When I first came back to the game in the early 00s, the prospect of a fully developed non-combat skill system was appealing.  All too often, when I had played D&D in the past, everything eventually became a 10% chance.  Jumping across a 10' wide pit? 10% chance.  Jumping across a flaming gorge between flying arrows in order to grasp a dangling vine?  10% chance.  Trying to tie your shoelaces?  10% chance.  It became ridiculous, and it was just as easy to forgo a roll of the dice and just say 'you do it.' 

Problem is, the game then becomes nothing more than a mutual story telling time of assured success until the only random moments - combat - occur.  So there needed to be something.  Like so many things with the 3rd Editions, what appeared to be a solution became its own problem.  Endless possible combinations of skills and modifiers made a single leap across a chasm into an evening of calculations.  And if you cut corners?  Well, back to the 10%.  Or just Take 10, and you're back at guaranteed success.  So what to do?

Over at Monsters and Manuals, a discussion about how to play out those non-combat moments of play. The preference seems to be reducing things to a d6.  That might work.  I prefer a 10 sided die. But only sometimes.  Occasionally percentage dice.  But as often as not, I try to work in player stats.  After all, those stats should be more than just one use numbers.  They are what makes the character. 

Sure, they can be used for role playing.  My son had a fighter who had a 4 intelligence, and we had quite a bit of fun watching him unpack why he had that.  He didn't have to be stupid, it was determined.  He was just unlearned.  A simple man with common sense (he had a higher wisdom score).  That's one use beyond the standard game benefits.

But why not have those stats mean something when it comes to jumping that chasm?  Or leaping to grab those vines?  If time permits, I might even turn to a survival guide or an article I just read.  But I might have the player roll against the pertinent stat.  There might be two rolls.  Or I might combine two stats and divide, adn make that the score to beat.  In any event, that helps the players be conscientious of their own strengths and weaknesses.

After all, if I were chasing someone across the roofs of a cityscape, and suddenly they jumped over a wide alley, I'd stop.  I know I'm not that strong or fit anymore.  Nor am I that nimble.  Likewise my players - my family - have learned what strengths they have and they use them, or don't use them as the case may be.

Again, I don't adhere religiously to any form, and can mix things up at a moment's notice.  But to not use the stats for determining success?  That leaves a huge hunk of what those numbers mean out of the equation.  And beyond just imagining what the PC looked like to begin with, it also becomes a chance to role play on the spot based on tangible figures, and that's one of the best parts of the game.