You're rolling too much.
Age old problem, many answers.
This article contains affiliate links, meaning I get a commission if you make purchases using these links, at no cost to you.When should we make a check in TTRPGs?
Assuming the proposed action is possible, here’s three approaches.
We’ll use an example action: a player wants to search for lore in a wizard’s library.
1. Drama. Is failure interesting?
The GM assesses whether failure would be interesting for the story.
Can the player find the lore in the library? If no is an interesting answer for the story, call for a check. If not, it just happens, no check required.
2. Risk. Does failure present genuine risk?
Taken from the OSR/NSR movement (Old/New-School Renaissance); games like Into the Odd and Salvage Union champion this. Call for a check if failure leads to geniune negative consequences.
Can the player find the lore in the library? A monster is on the heels of the party and they need to be quick? Call for a check. If there is no threat presented by not being able to find the lore, no check required.
Speaking of risk, if you want to learn more about communicating risks in your games check out this article.
3. Leverage. What means do you have?
I love this approach. This short article by Dice Goblin is a great read. Leverage comes up in Chris McDowall’s work (see his blog and Into the Odd), and in Iron Core.
You break checks into three parts. I have begun to use the ‘three T’s’.
Time: Do you have adequate time?
Tools: Do you have tools required?
Talent: Do you have relevant skill?
Yes to all three? No check needed, the action will succeed. Yes to two? You should call for a check. It’s possible, but success is not guaranteed. Yes to one or none? It’s impossible, the player doesn’t have the necessary leverage, so no check is needed. This is great for imitating ‘real’ restrictions in the fictional world.
Can the player find the lore in the library? They have the tools, they are in the library.
If they have time (days) but not talent (not a scholar), they can just search, but they’ll need to make a check. If they are a bookworm and have time, they just succeed.
If they are short on time but have talent at searching libraries, they make a check. If they lack time and talent, no check is needed because it’s impossible for them to find the lore.
In Combination
I combine these approaches. If failure isn’t interesting or doesn’t present risk, I won’t call for a check. If failure is interesting or does present risk, I then use the three T’s to determine (i) whether to call for a check, (ii) if the action automatically succeeds, or (iii) if it would be impossible.
Recommendations
Video: Matthew Colville released a video on the length of pre-written adventures. I appreciated Matt’s candor about how long and bookish campaigns are impractical, and how a return to modular formats would be a positive change for the hobby.
Blog: Luke Gearing has an article on split initiative. I use this kind of ‘initiative test’ framework in my Symbaroum campaign, but Gearing suggests using it every round. I’m chewing on that idea.
Book: I looked over Habitation by Tabletop Rocks. It’s a free game, 20 pages long, thematic sci-fi visuals, and an interesting design with procedural challenges. Worth a read if you are interested in a compact sci-fi exploration game (it also plays solo).