I prefer ability checks.

Namely because it gives me leeway to not front-load quantify the universe into DC spectra, thus allowing for more situational adjudication without precedent-quoting sturm und drang. Then I can reserve class things that make sense, like Wizards or Fighters not needing to roll v. a DC to determine if they are familiar with some aspect that is integral to their class (e.g. arcane rumors or defense security). I can give situational modifiers contextually and not be beleaguered by rules lawyering or loose explicit system direction (and the machinations thereof).

It's just a cleaner solution for my needs, and i am glad to see 5e really return to it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;956191Oh no, I specifically meant in D&D, which is what I think of when I hear 'ability check' as opposed to 'roll under' or the like. As Omega said, Fighting Fantasy definitely had a roll under mechanic, among others. However, crucially for this discussion the game was not a class-and-level system, so it did not face the sort of task tailoring and escalation issues D&D can. In fact, the first version of their tabletop game (the one I provided a picture of) had no character advancement at all.

Now that you mention it though, my primary formative experiences between Fighting Fantasy and 3e were "Difficulty Check" games, most notably World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings, and a whole lot of home-brews.

Well, then I wasn't far off the mark, at least:).
T&T has an interesting variation of attribute rolls which combines them with target numbers. Of course, attributes in T&T also vary a whole lot with levels;).

Quote from: Voros;955880Since we have a couple of threads discussing mechanic preferences I'm wondering is there any appreciable difference between difficulty checks, which I believe were introduced in 3e D&D and carried over into 5e versus ability checks (roll under the ability score) in 2e and earlier versions of D&D.

Not sure when I discovered ability checks, I think they always existed as an alternate rule from the very early days of the game, but once I did I thought they were very elegant and they largely replaced saving throws at our table.

So what say you? Is there any mathematical difference between the methods or is it a tomato/tomatoe thing? Is the advantage of DCs simply that they eliminate the need for bonuses and penalties to the roll or that they are a unified mechanic with attack rolls, etc?

D&D begins to make less and less sense as it tries harder to be a real RPG with each edition released. Just stick with AD&D 1e.

Never used ability checks in OD&D.

I check by level, not an ability score.  A 4th level fighter is a "Hero" for a reason.

Gronan, you have some 'splaining to do!!

Give us examples.

How do ability scores manifest in your game? AKA, two PCs of equal level, but vastly different Strength try to break a locked door. Or pick the lock with different Dexterity scores?

I resolve everything on a 2d6, in a system very much like "Dungeon World's" "Defy Danger."  a 2-5 is a total failure, 6-8 is a complication or partial success, and 9+ is a solid success.  The exact numbers and difficulty are subjective... I actually do ask myself, "How easy is this for a Hero?" and work from there.

CON of 15 or better gives you a +1 on each hit die, and a CON of 6 or less gives -1.

I just apply that to all stats.  So, a 15 or better DEX gives a +1 and a 6 or less gives a -1.  Et cetera.  Stats are supposed to be suggestive, not restrictive.

And note that description is far more important than die roll in any case.  If you tell me how you are checking over the chest for possible traps, a good or logical description will give a much larger plus than any attribute.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;956355Just stick with AD&D 1e.

I played a fair bit of 1e but much preferred the cleaned up 2e when it was released. If I was going to 'stick' with an edition it would be BECMI.

I strongly prefer DCs. Mainly because for anything other than a percentile roll, I prefer a situation where a higher roll is a better roll.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;956355D&D begins to make less and less sense as it tries harder to be a real RPG with each edition released. Just stick with AD&D 1e.

Wasn't D&D the first RPG? How is it not "a real RPG"? What would a real RPG be? Or are you just fishing for an argument with D&D players and GMs?

(I prefer not to play D&D myself, but not because it's not a real RPG.)

Quote from: Dumarest;958246Wasn't D&D the first RPG? How is it not "a real RPG"? What would a real RPG be? Or are you just fishing for an argument with D&D players and GMs?

(I prefer not to play D&D myself, but not because it's not a real RPG.)

You are new here. Don't engage Shawn. It won't be worth your trouble.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;958247You are new here. Don't engage Shawn. It won't be worth your trouble.

I surmise what you are saying. I thought that might be what that comment was all about.

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.