|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 12, 2014 6:41:45 GMT -5
We have Assisted and Required checks. Maybe there should be a third type of check. For lack of a better name, let's call it a 'Target Check'. Instead of 3/IQ or some other attribute, 3 dice are rolled against a target number, TN. Assisting skills can be added to the TN. Let's say the search test determines whether or not we find a secret door and the secret door isn't too difficult to find. The adventure could notate this test as: 3/10 + Mason. A general search of a room with a cleverly concealed stash of loot might be "3/8 + Thief" I think I'm liking this. It resembles the Tunnels and Trolls Savings Rolls (which I really like but haven't been able to figure out how to port to LAW) and the lower success numbers would negate the IQ advantage the folks with the 20 pound brains would have. Would the Skill/Talent be a prerequisite to performing the activity or a die roll modifier? My first suggestion would be die roll modifier. I think I'm liking this a lot.  |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 12, 2014 9:10:45 GMT -5
Glad to hear it, nukesnipe! I think we currently have 3/IQ searches as an oversimplification. I think it was really intended to be looked on as a group effort but instead of averaging everyone's IQ and rolling against that (or some other complicated method), The Great Ancestor GMs decided to cut us some slack and just use the highest IQ in the group. Maybe, over time, our brains have fallen into the rut of thinking only one character was making the test. I came up with that 3/TN to break our brains out of that rut. It's not tied to any particular character's attribute. It was intended only for 'group checks' but after reading your post, this could potentially replace the current Required Check method but, yeah, it could just be used as another type of individual character check too. ...and it doesn't require tweaking a bunch of other ancillary rules! I think I'm liking this a lot, too!  Edited to add: I forgot to answer your question about the skill effect. Yes, the skill is a modifier. 3/10 means you must roll 10 or less on 3 dice to succeed. 3/10 + Thief means you must roll (10 + Thief skill level) on 3 dice to succeed. It works just like the Assisted Skill check but attributes aren't involved. That's why I think it could be nice alternative to the current Required Skill check in certain situations. Skill is the only buff. If enough of these type of checks exist in adventures, it provides a fair amount of motivation to invest XP in skills instead of attributes. Of course, if a wizard wanted to use Assist to help, I would let the Assist buff the skill, but I think that should be left to 'house ruling'. Additional Thought: The 'Target Check' can be Required or Assisted: Assisted: 3/10 + Thief (any character can try; Thief skill modifies) Required: 3/8 against Traps (any character with Traps skill can try; Traps skill modifies) |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 14, 2014 11:25:03 GMT -5
I want to clarify my thoughts on searches as group efforts. If the hidden loot is just obscured by the contents of the room, the test of finding it should just be luck. A few coins in a desk drawer, a sword behind a bookcase, a gem buried under debris - is there really an attribute or skill that would have significant influence on the discovery of these items? I would make these pure 'Luck Tests'. If the party passes 3/12, proceed to (...) and discover those items. Does it really matter who found it? If the players would answer yes to that question, I would randomly decide who found it with a die roll behind a screen.
If the loot is hidden by constructed means - false panel in a chest, desk, etc. or a small niche in the floor or wall concealed with masonry - I would make the test something like 3/8 + Traps to find the item. The skills used to detect traps seem more relevant to this task than the skills used to steal objects (Thief). Then, if the character finds the items and wishes to prevent the rest of the party from knowing he found something of value, make him pass 3/IQ + Thief to succeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 14, 2014 16:56:23 GMT -5
What if you did a pass/fail test for every searchable room. The paragraph would have an option to search the room. If they pass the search test, perhaps they uncover the secret door. If they fail the test, maybe they only find the low hanging fruit you describe. Of course, you can always make a successful search a trap or surprise attack instead: "While searching for hidden loot (or whatever), three Orcs enter the room, surprising you." If you did something like this for every searchable room, the players might not have a clue what to expect. If you really wanted to cook their noodles, on a successful search, have them roll three dice on a search table that had random goodies and baddies. If you wanted to get really sadistic, you could have nested tables with a bunch of different goodies and baddies: "While searching the room you are surprised by an enemy. Roll 2d6 and consult Table X." Or, "You discover a magical item. Roll 1d6 and consult Table Y." Or, the search roll could be a red herring and just take you back to low hanging fruit. The point I'm trying to make is if you have a standard method to handle searches, then you don't need to get fancy with the roll, only the results. Nested tables could make the game unpredictable increase its replayability. Just thinkin' |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 14, 2014 19:28:27 GMT -5
I like your thinkin'! I mess around with a concept like that quite often. I just don't see how to squeeze it into the current GM-less, numbered paragraph, programmed adventure format. At best, you would have the game booklet, the battle-map, the counters, and a chart full of tables. Incorporating the tables into the back of the book or something would get annoying to me - all that page flipping back and forth. I'm speaking from the solo-gamer point of view here. With multiple players (with or without a GM), this would not matter.
I was trying to address Bret's question about searches. 3/IQ seems to be the standard method that already exists but apparently this method draws the ire of some people because the wizard is the king of search. As a solo player, I really don't care. Whatever the wizard finds is good for the whole party. In fact, I don't even think of it as the wizard doing the finding. I think of it as a 'whole party' check that uses the best IQ in the group as the target number. In solo play you are the party, not one particular character. In group play, I definitely can see where this would be unsatisfying. One character makes the search check for the whole room - and it's always the wizard - and this makes it seem like the wizard is the only one that can find stuff. With the 'Target Number' or 'Luck Check' (ex. 3/11) I was trying to provide something that would work for the solo, programmed adventure AND group play. In group play, it's just a roll. It's not associated with any particular character. The players can take turns making the roll. It's like rolling for the weather or something.
But now you've got me thinking in another direction. The current solo/programmed method of general search could remain the same (3/IQ). In group play, every character makes a 3/IQ check (with possible skill modifiers). He who passes the test with the highest score found the items. If no one passes the test, nobody found nuttin'. However, if the room contains several 'items' (like furniture, statues, etc.) each player/character can pick what they are going to search and perform the 3/IQ test. If they pass the test and the 'goodies' were located in/around/under/etc. what they were searching, they win the prize. Either of these two methods do increase the likelihood of successful searches compared to the solo method, but who should care? Just have fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 15, 2014 13:04:22 GMT -5
Way back in the day -- before Gygaxian rules creep had completely converted DM discretion into dice rolls -- you described what you were searching and how you were doing it to the DM, who then (based on what was actually there) told you what you found. The idea was that if you were clever enough to think to look someplace, you were likely to find anything that was there. Dice rolls were originally only used to see if you found (or avoided) the cleverly hidden trap or secret compartment/door; and even then a lot of them could be ignored if you did a good job of describing how you were checking for traps or secret doors. When playing with a group, I never use rolls if I can have the players describe what they are doing instead.
Obviously that doesn't work in a solitaire game, but even there, I feel it is best to err on the side of the party -- so if the Wizard is the best guy to search under the current rules, then so be it -- or if everyone should get a bite of the apple (four characters, so four search rolls), that's fine too.
But the purist in me DOES rebel at the idea of the Wizard, who has spent years in-doors, hunched over books, learning his highly specific skills, eating Doritos and watching way too many late night movies, suddenly has a search ability that exceeds someone who has spent years in the outdoors, hunting, tracking and finding things, or a thief who has years of experience finding hidden doors and concealed safes. Somehow that just doesn't seem right. (Indeed, if that's the case, why would anyone ever elect to be anything other than a Wizard? A world full of Wizards?) So it seems to me that the high IQ person who LACKS those skills or experiences ought to be more challenged in that task than the lower IQ folks who DO have those experiences and skills at their command. Just sayin'....
|
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 15, 2014 13:40:46 GMT -5
I completely agree with all of that, jlv! everything except Doritos...I prefer Cheetos! |
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 15, 2014 19:12:41 GMT -5
Platimus' target/luck roll removes the IQ issue from consideration and makes having Thief/Search/Reveal skills/spells beneficial as a negative die roll modifier. Quite brilliant, actually. I've only ever played TFT/TnT solitaire. The one time I did play with a GM, it was with the guy who introduced me to role playing games in the first place. We'd pretty much exhausted Death Test, so one day he re-populated the dungeon and GM'd a group of my characters through it. He'd replaced the spiders in the first room with a pair of small dragons. That turned out to be the easy room. I won't even go into the unbalanced game play his home brewed weapons brought to the table. Turned me off on the whole GM thing. Anyway, the point I want to make is in reference to look-up tables in solitaire modules. I like them. Lots. In the Tunnels & Trolls modules (and TFT, for that matter), it's about the only way you can do magic that doesn't have a obvious, direct result - spreadsheet GM, so to speak. TnT's Buffalo Castle module (which is billed a the first solitaire module ever made) has as an exit room which is effectively a bank vault with safety deposit boxes. Opening a box teleports you out of the castle with or without some loot. I seem to remember one box that takes you to a Monty Python ending where you get arrested for breaking and entering. Done well, I believe look up tables could greatly enhance the replayability and unpredictability of a module as no two games will every really be the same. Oh, and everyone knows that respectable wizards only eat brownies.  |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 15, 2014 20:04:50 GMT -5
Platimus' target/luck roll removes the IQ issue from consideration and makes having Thief/Search/Reveal skills/spells beneficial as a negative die roll modifier. Quite brilliant, actually. Thanks. I really do appreciate that. If I'm allowed to say it, I really like it as well. I think it's OK for general searches but absolutely perfect in place of Required Skill checks. Not just because it removes the ST/DX/IQ component. The author or GM can pick a TN that reflects the difficulty of the particular task. Sounds like maybe you guys were very young or inexperienced at the time. It's easy to get carried away when you're young, inexperienced, and have all that GM power in your hands. Absurd can be fun sometimes though. I agree with all that, if done right. I think maybe I've been trying to over do it in my attempts. Magically, you've given me a new idea about how to do it!  PM is forthcoming! What kind of brownies are we talking about here? |
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 16, 2014 0:34:34 GMT -5
I like the idea of the Target Number as well. I'd want to play around with it for a while before it becoming "official" or anything, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to solve some of the issues we've all been having for a while with certain anomalies in the original TFT rules. As nukesnipe said, it's actually kind of brilliant. I'd be interested in hearing what George and Bret think of the idea as well.... I really like the idea of the look-up tables to randomize the solo adventures a bit more. That's another pretty sharp idea there, though I can see where it might well annoy some people because they'd be required to flip through the book (though I suppose the tables could be printed as separate inserts and laid out on the table for use during the game). It would go a long way to ensuring some "replayability" in the games, which is a pretty hard thing to do with a paragraph driven solitaire adventure. All in all this has been a pretty productive thread, I think -- and I'd be very interested in hearing what your idea on the magic is too, platimus, if you're willing to share. I think personal preference in wizardly snacks is okay; at least my "Mage Manual of Etiquette" doesn't seem to have any rules on it, one way or another....  |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 16, 2014 0:56:50 GMT -5
All in all this has been a pretty productive thread, I think -- and I'd be very interested in hearing what your idea on the magic is too, platimus, if you're willing to share. I'm not sure what this 'magic' refers to. If you're talking about the magically inspired idea about random treasure I mentioned, well, I thought I had one. Not so sure now. May have just been gas from all the snacks! |
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 16, 2014 7:42:08 GMT -5
What kind of brownies are we talking about here? Chocolate fudge with chocolate chips and pecans. I brought some into work today, as a matter of fact; sent one person into diabetic shock when she walked by.  |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 16, 2014 10:37:24 GMT -5
Sounds tasty!
Bad news: My target/luck check really isn't brilliant at all. Sure, you can use something like "3/11" without skill modifiers for a general, generic search. It's OK but not great as a replacement for Required Skill checks. Example: 3/IQ against Tracking becomes 3/10 + Tracking or 3/10 against Tracking. But there is no wizard IQ problem with Required Skill checks. The problem occurs with Assisted checks. Examples: 3/IQ + Tracking, 3/IQ + Traps - any Assisted Skill check for an IQ-based skill where the skill isn't normally associated with wizards. You could use the target/luck approach in those situations but that doesn't seem right to make special cases for the thief and ranger skill checks.
In my opinion or fantasy world notions, Traps and Tracking are the only IQ-based skills where a wizard has a dubious amount of advantage. I can rationalize basing Traps on DX instead of IQ but Tracking? No. Maybe Traps and Tracking should be unique skills that aren't based on any attribute but always use the 'target number' type check? I think that would work well but it seems so 'wrong'...
Edited to add:
Maybe Traps and Tracking should almost always use Required Skill checks?
|
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 16, 2014 16:27:49 GMT -5
The brownies are not for those with sugar issues. It's more like fudge and will light you up like a Christmas tree.
I'm functioning on about 3 hours' sleep, so I may have misunderstood your post. I saw the skills as a negative modifier to the target number rolls, with a Talent perhaps being a further "buff" (to use my son's terminology). For instance, catching a fish for dinner: 3/10 - Fishing Skill. Pick a lock 3/9 - Thief/Locksmith. Search a room 3/10 -Thief/Awareness/Reveal. The skills are negative modifiers that make it easier for those with the skill to accomplish the task.
Then again, there are some things you flat out need a skill to accomplish: patching up wounds, deciphering something written in a foreign language, using a weapon without hurting yourself or a friend (ever try using a sling?) are some that come to mind. I mean, anyone who can lift it can swing a sword. But a morningstar? In the right hands, a quarterstaff is a potent weapon; otherwise it's a broomstick.
I guess what I'm saying is that most people can try anything even without the appropriate skill, but a person having the appropriate skill has a much easier time of it. Using Tracking as an example, anyone can follow footprints in the sand, but a person with Tracking would more readily understand what the footprints are saying.
Perhaps attempting something without the appropriate skill adds a die to the roll, whereas having the appropriate skill provides you with a negative die roll modifier. For instance: Pick a lock 3/10-Thief/Locksmith becomes 4/10 for someone without the skill. You can still try, but it's a lot less likely you'll succeed.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 16, 2014 17:03:51 GMT -5
I may be misunderstanding you as well. Bear with me if I am: I'm functioning on about 3 hours' sleep, so I may have misunderstood your post. I saw the skills as a negative modifier to the target number rolls, with a Talent perhaps being a further "buff" (to use my son's terminology). For instance, catching a fish for dinner: 3/10 - Fishing Skill. Pick a lock 3/9 - Thief/Locksmith. Search a room 3/10 -Thief/Awareness/Reveal. The skills are negative modifiers that make it easier for those with the skill to accomplish the task. That is all true and correct but in these examples it sounds like you are suggesting we replace Assisted Skill checks with these target/luck do-dads I made up. I disagree with that. Attributes _should_ influence the outcome of an Assisted Skill check (where Skill is not required). Here, it sounds like you are talking about Required Skill checks. Are you suggesting we replace Required Skill checks (of the form 3/IQ against Medic) with target/luck (of the form 3/9 + Medic or 3/9 against Medic)? I'm not 'against' that but not in favor of it either. I'm happy with Required Skill checks the way they are currently. Again, this sounds like you are suggesting replace the current form of Assisted Checks with the target/luck checks. Again, I'm against this because Attributes (ST/DX/IQ) should influence Assisted Checks. If Attributes aren't allowed to influence Assisted Checks, why have them? Remember, swinging your sword is an Assisted Check (3/DX + Sword). You want to replace that with a target/luck check of the form, 3/<some number> + Sword? I'm sure you would answer 'No' to that question. I'm in favor of penalizing any type of skill check if the skill is unknown. However, that subject is really separate and independent of the target/luck vs. assisted vs. required skill check method debate. Edited to add: I still like the idea replacing general, generic searches (ex. 3/IQ with no skill modifiers) with something like 3/12 or some other number reflecting how difficult the clues/items would be to observe. I like it but not enough to debate it. |
|
PM is forthcoming!
