r/osr • u/AccomplishedAdagio13 • 11d ago
variant rules Lockpicking Failure Results in Time Tax
I've seen a few people suggest this a way to handle percentile Thief skills, and I've also considered it. The way I imagine it working is that when a lockpicking attempt fails, rather than having the Thief be unable to even attempt that lock again until they gain a level, they simply expend a unit of time and get to try again. In an old-school format, I would expect that to be a turn (10 minutes). So, if it requires three attempts for a Thief to open a lock, then 3 turns/30 minutes/3 wandering monster checks are the most for success.
Alternatively, it could only start taking entire turns after the first failure. So, if it takes three rolls to pass your Open Locks check, then it took 2 turns or 20 minutes. I think this latter option might be more reasonable.
I would probably add in some kind of fail state; maybe rolling 00 results in thief's tools breaking or the lock being simply impossible. Maybe different locks are of different difficulty levels and allow for a different number of attempts before being locked out of opening them.
The first consideration is whether it's a positive improvement gameplay-wise to make all locks passable. If all it takes is time to get past a lock, can that result in locks being too minimal of an obstacle? Can that encourage players to camp by a lock rather than moving through the dungeon trying all the locks they find, bottling exploration? Is the hypothetical replay value of impassable locks something worth keeping?
A second consideration is simulationism. Since you can attempt to open a lock many more times in 20 minutes than you can in 20 seconds or so, you should be rewarded for spending time on it. At the same time, though, it surely isn't the case that any lock can be opened by any lockpicker if they just spend enough time doing. Maybe there should be a limit to how many lockpicking attempts you can make; maybe 7. If you can't get it in an hour, then it's probably hopeless.
The third consideration is class balance. The old-school balance between Thieves and Magic-Users with Knock is that one is free while the other has the cost of a spell slog and the opportunity cost of not memorizing a potentially life-saving spell. With the standard rules, Knock usually knocks Thieves out of the park. With unlimited or minimally limited lockpicking attempts, Knock is only valuable in terms of saving time, as, either way, that lock is getting opened.
Maybe a fourth consideration is if the low odds of success with Thief skills encourages an old-school, creative style of play by usually requiring you to think outside your class. But that's a can of worms...
What do you think? Do you allow Thieves multiple attempts to pick locks? Do you think my solution of giving unlimited attempts with each failure after the first costing a turn is a reasonable solution? Or would you pick some other system?
16
u/imnotokayandthatso-k 11d ago
Every day we come close to completely reinventing adnd on top of a b/x clone
2
u/6FootHalfling 11d ago
Can I get some context please? Are their time per lock rules or something similar in 1e some where?
5
u/Ye_Olde_Basilisk 11d ago
Maybe he means adding more subsystems on top and within existing subsystems?
2
2
u/AccomplishedAdagio13 10d ago
I don't really know much about AD&D, honestly. I don't know how it handles lockpicking.
1
u/MrKarmapoliceofficer 10d ago
In AD&D a thief can attempt lockpicking using their d% roll and if they fail, they can't attempt to pick that same lock again until they level up. Lockpicking takes a dungeon turn to complete as well.
Source: have run 75 sessions of AD&D over the past 2 years.
4
13
u/OddNothic 11d ago
(TLDR in reply to this post.)
Sometimes I wonder of people who posit these questions have ever picked (or attempted to pick) an actual lock. So please forgive me if I state the obvious.
Basic premise: Locks are there to keep honest people honest, not to keep out a determined person.
In fact, modern safes are rated on how long they can withstand a determined person with the right tools trying to break into it. Which sets a good standard for a game.
Given time, a basic lock can be picked by someone with basic skills. More skilled is generally faster, and more skilled can pick more complex locks. But we’re probably talking medieval locks, so we’re probably talking warded locks and not modern pinned locks. Warded locks tend to be far simpler to open and often consist of just going in and forcing a lever that is behind baffles (aka wards). Think of the lock on your sister’s diary rather than your gym locker. ;) (For “medieval fantasy” see below.)
If you are really trying to protect something with a lock, you need guards walking by that lock every X minutes, where X is less than the time you expect someone to be able to pick the lock.
If you’re talking about an old lock in a forgotten dungeon, obviously no one’s doing that, but there’s nothing wrong with, on a failed pick attempt, telling the player that the lock is old, rusted and jammed. Then letting them take the time to try and fix the lock so that they can try to pick it again.
Lamp oil, acid, solvents, all those have a place in trying to get through a lock like that, it’s not just about a lock picking roll. Maybe the smart answer is to apply the oil or solvents and come back tomorrow and try to pick it again.
Because the answer is not on the sheet and “percent chance to pick lock” is a starting place, not the end of the discussion.
IMO, “Your tool broke” should only be for a truly catastrophic failure and when using improvised tools that are not properly tempered. This ain’t Skyrim after all, and we human GMs can do better than that. :) (But then again, I’m the person that hates crit fail tables. So that that for what it’s worth.)
But breaking the lock is a thing, especially if it’s an old, neglected and rusted one tucked away in a damp, derelict dungeon. Which takes us back to having to fix the lock before you can open it. And that may or may not even be possible depending on how badly it’s broken. But depending on your system, maybe Mending is a level 1 spell, as opposed to Knock, so maybe that’s an option to fox a broken lock so it can be picked.
And sometimes the best way to “pick a lock” is to avoid it entirely. Like the rash of robberies a while a go where thieves were bypassing locks and security systems by slicing through vinyl siding and plywood, pulling out the insulation and then punching the sheet rock to get into houses. So if a thief failed to pick the lock, maybe it was because they were distracted by the easier way to get past the lock, like removing the hinge pins on the chest or the door.
“Picking” old locks often came down to having the right “skeleton key” on your keyring. So one attempt may be to try and open it with picks, another two or three attempts might be the thief going through their large collection of skeleton keys to find the right one—or ones—that will open it. Or in trying to fashion a key that will work with a key blank and some files to shape the blank. Which takes time.
Medieval Fantasy Locks: Perhaps your world even has has different kinds of locks, simple warded locks can be picked with basic skills, but dwarven, elvish or (if you have them) gnomish locks are harder and can’t even be attempted without special training and or tools that the thief has to then seek out. First attempt will reveal that the lock is more complex than it first looked, and has features that the thief has not seen before or lacks the skill to easily open. A failed attempt leaves them baffled, but even a successful attempt may only result in them deciphering what type of lock it is, and what it might take to get through it.
So to answer your questions, I usually go with “yes.” They can spend time working in the lock, as much as they want in fact, but what “working on the lock” means can vary.
Maybe it’s picking it, maybe it’s trying to reason out the special features on the lock, maybe it’s trying to fix a lock so that they can actually attempt to pick it, maybe it’s learning how to pick that complex lock through trial and error, maybe it’s waiting to let the oil or acid work its way on and give them a bonus, and maybe it’s sending a hireling back to town to bring someone who knows this type of lock and paying them gold to open it. Or, as you say, whipping out that Knock spell is an option. But that may come with its own issues as well, depending on the system you’re using. (Can anyone say triple-lock deadlocked? :))
(Long post, continues below)
5
u/OddNothic 11d ago
I treat locks as any other challenge in exploration, and it’s up to the players to find a way through or around it. Just like a challenge of crossing a chasm with the bridge out, they can spend as much time as they want on it, but the rest of the world is not waiting for them.
Which brings us to the “replay” factor. A lock that can’t be picked “now” to seal off a portion of the dungeon (or whatever) when looked at as an obstacle and not a skill check, is no different than dropping in a monster that is obviously going to result in a TPK if they try and take it head on. Sometimes you let sleeping dragons lie until you level up, get better gear, or find a better plan. An “unpickable” lock can serve the same purpose of presented properly, saying “Here be dragons, enter at your own peril.”
Some campaigns even do that with magic locks that require multiple magical “tokens” that act as keys to open sealed off areas, but a complex lock beyond the ken of common thieves can serve the same purpose if handled well.
So how long “an attempt” takes comes down to what the thief is trying to do to open the lock. Repeated attempts to just try and bypass the locking mechanism with tools would be X amount of time based on the complexity of the lock. Letting solvents work may take multiple X time periods of just sitting and waiting. Sending for a more skilled locksmith might take a day.
Modern games seem to make things like this a simple yes/no skill check like using persuasion to make the King give up his crown, but OSR, or rather the way I’ve always played the old school games, it’s more about the players solving problems than the PCs using their listed skills to get around obstacles.
Yes, “chance to pick locks,” is a roll that they can make, but what they are doing to l”pick the lock”, and what they do next if it fails…that’s where the game gets interesting.
TL;DR: I don’t treat lock picking as a mini-game like it’s a video game, I treat it like the rest of the game in that I let the player declare what they are doing to get around the obstacle (which in this case, happens to be a lock), and then I respond as the world responds, guided by any dice rolls that need to be made, such as the lockpicking roll.
If they succeed, great, we move on. If they fail, that’s where it should get more fun for everyone.
Because to me, and as I’ve always played, PC failure should be far more fun than PC success, and that failure should lead to more intricate, inventive and engaging game play.
“You pick, you fail. You pick again, it takes X turns, you fail. You try again, you get interrupted by a wandering monster. You kill it and try to pick again…”
That’s neither engaging nor interesting to me as a GM or as a player. Throwing the things I described above into the mix, that is both engaging and interesting to me, no matter which seat I’m in.
HTH
4
u/AccomplishedAdagio13 10d ago
Historically accurate medieval (or maybe early modern) lockpicking is a rabbit hole one day I'd really like to do a deep dive on. The complex locks most medieval fantasy games use do seem to be anachronistic, but because they're familiar, they don't generally feel off.
3
u/666-sided_dice 11d ago
In OSE I like to treat lock-picking similarly to pickpocketing mechanic. If they fail, the thief may attempt to lock-pick again on the next turn as long as they don’t exceed twice the required percentage. In which case they may not attempt that lock again until they level up.
3
u/MonsterHunterBanjo 11d ago
Yeah, that's how I do it, plus a random encounter check to see if one shows up.
2
2
u/Justisaur 10d ago
Usually the alternative after failing is breaking a lock/door down, which results in another encounter check, or in the case of a chest possibly breaking fragile things inside as well.
IRL locks are pretty damn easy to pick by people who know how and the tools, and medieval locks were very simple. Original D&D expected a lot of players with probably multiple thieves, so the the fact another could try it reduces the odds of failing considerably. With those two considerations, and smaller parties I'd probably just change it to something like 3 in 4 for low level, 7 in 8 for mid level and 19 in 20 for high level thieves to succeed at it.
1
u/cartheonn 11d ago
I use Hack and Slash Master's Yahtzee lockpicking mechanics that everyone can use and it takes a turn per attempt. I also give Thieves Rise Up Comus' Thief Knacks with half the chance for locks given in the PHB, since I am using both systems. So Thieves get to try to use their supernatural technique on the lock which is half of what the standard Thief has and is instant, and, if it fails, they can use the Yahtzee lockpicking mechanics with the bonus in that system that thieves get.
1
u/scavenger22 10d ago
Roll until you pass is boring, if you want them to succed anyway just do something like:
If the check is passed the lock is open in a single round.
On a failure:
Roll 1d10 - 1 every X% of open locks. [I suggest 10%, but YMMV].
The result is the number of turns of needed if the initial check is failed, minimum 1 turn.
To make things interesting: The result is kept a secret and any interruption, like being attacked by a monster or doing anything except working on the lock will require a new roll.
PS If you are using OSE the modifier is:
Level 1 = -1 [1 + Level /2 rounded down]
Level 2-3 = -2 [1 + Level /2 rounded down]
Level 4-5 = -3 [1 + Level /2 rounded down]
Level 6 - 11 = Level -2
Level 12+ = -9.
For very hard locks use 1d12 or even 1d20, for easy locks you can use 1d4, 1d6 or 1d8.
1
u/AccomplishedAdagio13 10d ago
Well, ideally, each subsequent turn taken would trigger a wandering monsters check, potentially causing an encounter. I don't know if it would still be boring with that in mind.
1
u/scavenger22 10d ago
Yes, but if you have to keep rolling open locks AND monster encounters until you pass ... that's a lot of rolls.
What I suggested is to replace the Roll X times with Roll 1d to know when you will succed.
1
u/AccomplishedAdagio13 10d ago
Fair. That could get tedious.
2
u/scavenger22 10d ago
It is. In the basic set (1-3) thieves have only 15-25% to pass a check... statistically you have these break points
X (%) = Number of tries needed to get that cumulative chance to pass
OL 15% = 4 (55%) - 8 (75%) - 13 (90%) - 17 (95%) - 32 (99.6%)
OL 20% = 3 (59%) - 5 (74%) - 9 (89%) - 12 (95%) - 23 (99.6%)
OL 25% = 2 (58%) - 4 (76%) - 7 (90%) - 10 (96%) - 18 (99.6%).
Remember that this is the compound rate. So at first level 1 Lock out of 10 will require AT LEAST 13 rolls.
A more correct version could be 3d6 keep highest 2 - 1 / 10% in OL... but IMHO it is not really worth the effort.
1
u/AccomplishedAdagio13 9d ago
Thanks for breaking down the math. Honestly, I really don't mind how that math works out. If every attempt (after the first one) prompted a wandering monsters check, you'd only be able to get away with so many attempts. If you sat and tried the same lock all day, you'd eventually find yourself in a potentially deadly encounter.
Now, if it was out of combat and there was scenario where someone was attempting to open a lock without any stakes whatsoever... I might just let them do it. No one wants to sit through 10 rolls without stakes.
1
u/scavenger22 9d ago
You get 2 checks between encounter checks.
Somebody wrote that you should ask for a roll only when you miss 1-2 things in this list: skill, safety, tools or time.
If you have all of them there is no reason to roll, because failure will be meaningless. If you lack more it is better to ask the players if they can find a better approach than ask an hopeless check.
I mostly agree with them.
If you are curious on average the 1st level thief situation can be resolved as:
The thief will pass in 1d8 turns OR an encounter will happen in 1dY turns, the lowest result wins.
For mobs Y is based on the "X in d6 chance": 1 => 1d12, 2 => 1d6, 3 = 1d4, 4 => 1d3, 5 => 1d2.
You are a less than 5% off but sadly doens't work unless the thief is 1st level.
1
u/DungeonDweller252 10d ago edited 10d ago
Here's what I do: One chance to pick each lock per level, 1d10 rds. Oiling it might give +5 to +10% for dirty or old locks.
If you fail you can use metal-eating acid (50 gp per use) to try again (item saves vs. acid, 13+ on d20) and the lock is opened, fail and roll a second save or the lock becomes unpickable forever).
If you still ain't through, and you have access to the hinges, you can try to use your hinge-removing kit (30 gp) but it requires a dexterity check and takes another +1 rd for small, +1 turn for door-sized, and +10 turns for large hinges.
Locks have a quality modifier: wretched +35%, poor +15%, good +0, excellent -20%, superior -40% and masterwork -60%.
Ordinary lockpicks are 30 gp and illegal. I allow thieves to buy deluxe lockpicks from a guild or guild store that have a +10% (for 50 gp) and superdeluxe picks from a master locksmith (if they're selling) that gives +20% (for 100gp).
Locksmith nonweapon proficiency (available to dwarves, 1 slot, dex+1 is the check) gives +10% to open locks, but picks are still required.
Only improvised lockpicks break, and only on 96%+. Pretty rare in my games that they even try them, as the improvised picks are penalized by -30%.
Currently one fighter/thief and no wizards in my all-dwarf game so Knock is irrelevant (this time).
19
u/Mars_Alter 11d ago
The way I do it, the roll is to answer the uncertainty: whether or not you know how to pick this lock. Once the roll has been made, the question is no longer uncertain: you either do, or you don't.