|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 17, 2014 10:30:46 GMT -5
Hmmmm.... Memo to Self: Never write a post when on a sleep-deprived suger high.  Where I was trying to go, and totally botched, with my last "post" was how to resolve situations where one does not have the requisite skill for the task at hand. I inadvertantly crossed the "target number" and "stat" terminology, then dropped the whole stat thing from the conversation. Somewhere there was a left turn in Albuquerque. What a mess! Silly wabbit. Allow me to try again. Using Swimming as an example, per the rules if I pass 3/ST (where higher skill levels temporarily increase my ST for the test) I swim safely. But what if I don't know how to swim? Does that automatically mean I become fish food? Should I not have an opportunity to dog paddle my way to safety? Perhaps we should add a die for not having the required skill. That way, I at least have a chance to swim to safety. Searching has me a bit flummoxed. On one hand, it doesn't seem that a skill should be necessary. But, on the other, it seems like there are skills that would be beneficial to the effort. If the search is attribute based, how do we represent something that is really hard to find? That's what attracted me to the target number idea. Perhaps a solution is to apply a negative stat modifier to the roll that a skill can partially negate. For instance, when searching for a hidden compartment, make the test something like 3/IQ-2 against Search. That makes the search harder, but my skill negates some or all of the penalty. If I didn't have the Search skill, the roll becomes 4/IQ-2; the wizard with the 20 pound brain has a harder time of it, but there is a chance that somewhere in his studies he's picked up something that aids in his search. For that matter, even an IQ8 character would have a small chance of leaning against the hidden trigger for the door (hey, a 6 on four dice is possible!). Anyway, that's where I'd intended to go. I'm not sure what was going through my mind in that last post.... |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 17, 2014 15:13:05 GMT -5
Somewhere there was a left turn in Albuquerque. What a mess! Silly wabbit. Some of the rabbit's greatest adventures began with a failed IQ/Tracking check in New Mexico! |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 17, 2014 17:46:42 GMT -5
100
The trail of the infamous Elmer Fudd Gang stops at the river's edge and reappears on the far bank. Upstream, you notice a bulging backpack snared on a group of rocks in the middle of the river. Your party begins in hexes adjacent to the D side of the map. The hexes adjacent to the B side of the map form the far bank. The hexes between are slow-running river water. The river runs from C to A. The backpack is at C. Your MA is halved while swimming. Characters passing 3/ST against Swimming may retrieve the backpack and safely cross the river without incident. Other characters must pass 3/ST + Swimming at the start of their turn or forfeit movement for that turn and incur 1 point of Fatigue. If the backpack is not retrieved, proceed to (102) after all characters cross the river. If the backpack was retrieved, proceed to (101) after all characters cross the river.
101
The backpack is full of wet, sour-smelling pants and shirts of various sizes. If you pass 3/8, you find a gold coin in one pants-pocket. Proceed to (102).
102
You made it! Go get the Elmer Fudd Gang!
|
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 17, 2014 19:05:23 GMT -5
So, if you don't have the Swimming skill the roll is 3/ST. Everyone (with and without the Swimming skill) has to pass the test at the beginning of their turn or suffer 1 fatigue. If I successfully recover the pack the "group" takes a target number test to see if they find the gold coin, no skills involved.
I see this working. The target number roll could be used for those instance where there is not a specific skill or talent to roll against.
Good example. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 17, 2014 20:09:09 GMT -5
You're _wery_ welcome. Now comes the really funny part... I actually intended that to be an example of Assisted vs. Required skill checks. A character possessing the Swimming skill could attempt to pass 3/ST against Swimming at the beginning of the encounter. If the character passed, the character got the backpack (if another character had not already done so) and made it to the other side of the river - all in one handwavium swoop. If you failed the 3/ST against Swimming check, you don't get the backpack and you must now trudge your way across the river like everyone else that didn't have the Swimming skill. That is what I intended but I had a feeling it might be interpreted the way you interpreted. I was OK with that too. I threw the 3/8 check in just to create some 'action' in entry 101. So, maybe it wasn't that great of an example!  But thanks for the compliment just the same! |
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 19, 2014 21:07:14 GMT -5
Maybe we need to drop back and punt on this one for a while.
Maybe what we need to do is start with the original TFT, read Evil Stevie's comments/errata on things, see how George and Bret modified the specific cases, and then see if we can extrapolate some kind of logical rule from that. Basically, such a rule should state "here's generally how you resolve skill checks." But at the same time it should state "here's how having a specifically applicable skill can benefit you in solving skill checks," and "here's how being smart helps, but not as much as being specifically trained to do something does." Such a rule format would also be "applicable" (in the sense of better explaining) why, for instance, a really smart person with no magical training can't cast spells.
It seems to me really that the same paradigm should apply. I'm a pretty smart person, I think, but I have no idea how maneuver in zero G. I might be able to work it out, given enough time, but someone who HAS been trained to do so will run rings around me -- and in a combat situation in such an environment would kill me easily -- even if I'm the smarter of us two. Likewise, if I were suddenly transported to Cidri or Tyrin, I'd have no idea how to cast a magical spell, or even hitch a wagon to a team of horses, brains and technological know-how notwithstanding. Similarly, the smartest mage in the Stormspeake wouldn't have a clue how to drive a car and would probably kill himself trying if he attempted it. So I think that's what we're trying to think our way towards -- some kind of system that would reflect the fact that sometimes even the simplest things require a bit of training in order to do well, even if you can half-ass your way through it without it, and the most complex things actually require quite a bit more than just "a bit" of training. Does that make sense guys?
In general, what I've seen with what George and Bret have done is that they tend towards the simplest answer wherever possible -- which is also usually the one that most easily permits solitaire play. In effect, they are rigorously applying Occam's Razor whenever and wherever they can to existing spell explanations, or skill usages or whatever, and distilling those ideas into a general rule with very few or no exceptions to how things are handled. What I think we need to search for is some sort of underlying principle that accomplishes the task without overly complicating the process with special exceptions and rules (which is not to say that's what anyone is doing here -- rather quite the reverse -- I see both of you guys as working towards a simple, but generally applicable rule that will both provide advantages to characters who are intrinsically smart, as well as providing advantages to characters that have specifically applicable skills). I guess what I'm trying to do is work out in my own mind how we could best approach the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 20, 2014 7:32:22 GMT -5
Wow. Have we sort of come full circle? Just finished re-reading the entire thread and I'm a bit dizzy. What I liked about TFT skills was the way you could customize your characters. One of my favorite characters was a tough as nails, lightning quick armsmaster who fought with a pair of short swords. What I didn't like about TFT skills was you had to be a super genius with a 20 pound brain to be able to customize. Having my wizard being the "dumbest" person in the party never made sense. I like LAW's method of "purchasing" skills; one no longer has to be a super genius to be customizable. Where I'm getting wrapped around the axle is how to differentiate between things you can do well if you have the appropriate skill, and things you cannot even attempt if you do not (I think this is the "Assisted Roll v. Required Roll thing). Anyone can put a worm on a hook and try to catch a fish. Anyone can swing a sword, or notch an arrow. Of course having some skill in any of those increases your probability of success. But not everyone can cast a spell, or paint a masterpiece, or hitch a wagon to a team of horses. Maybe that's where "Talents" come into play? Perhaps a talent in an area reduces the XP cost of purchasing skills in that area? Thinking out loud here.... When I generate a character, in my mind they are in their late teens or very early 20s. In TFT, the could purchase skills up to their IQ; in LAW, they get four points of skills. That's great, but it doesn't really tell the character's story of his upbringing. I mean, sure, Ranger Rik is 20 years old. The son of a woodsman, he grew up roaming the forests and avoids towns and cities whenever he can - he understands animals more than most of the people he knows, and is uncomfortable around crowds of strangers. Growing up, he developed some skill with a spear (Pole Arms +1) and bow (Bow +1) if for no other reason that to keep animals that considered him a tasty snack a little farther away. He can also track animals (Tracker +1) and live off the land (Survival +1), but that isn't all he can do, is it? Perhaps I'm overthinking this. If I want to pick a lock, I probably needed to have acquired that skill along the way. If I wanted to ensure I didn't get taken by the merchants in town, perhaps I should have paid more attention to Mom's bartering instead of catching frogs when she took me to the market. If, instead, it's something anyone should be able to do with the proper tools, does it just become an attribute roll with a possible modifier to account for difficulty? I think I'll take jlv's advice and drag out my copy of ITL when I get home tonight and noodle it out for a couple of days. Perhaps that will help me grasp the thought floating in the back of my mind. Perhaps I use "perhaps" too much?  |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 20, 2014 11:21:34 GMT -5
Q: When is a skill required to perform a task and when is it just a bonus? (Required v. Assisted)
The answer is very simple: GM discretion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 21, 2014 17:03:20 GMT -5
Maybe. But shouldn't there also be some consistency?
What if one GM says tying your shoelaces requires a learned skill, and another one says it's not a big deal, any four-year old can do it?
Seems to me that we should be able to figure out a structure that accommodates both, removes a lot of uncertainty, and still allows the GM some latitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 21, 2014 21:02:59 GMT -5
Maybe. But shouldn't there also be some consistency? What if one GM says tying your shoelaces requires a learned skill, and another one says it's not a big deal, any four-year old can do it? Seems to me that we should be able to figure out a structure that accommodates both, removes a lot of uncertainty, and still allows the GM some latitude. Pick any RPG system you want -- they're all the same in this regard -- GM and adventure author decide what skill or attribute (if any) is applicable to the task at hand and if the skill is required to perform the task. This system is no different. Way back in the day -- before Gygaxian rules creep had completely converted DM discretion into dice rolls -- Given your earlier comment, I wouldn't think you would have a problem with this. |
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 22, 2014 12:51:50 GMT -5
Three responses:
First, consistency is a useful thing, don't you think?
Second, why can't we figure out something that makes sense and rises above "how everyone else does it?"
Third, I never said anything about taking away all of a GM's discretion; in fact quite the reverse. Seems to me that your last comment is more of a strawman than anything else.
Just sayin'
|
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 22, 2014 15:35:58 GMT -5
Three responses: First, consistency is a useful thing, don't you think? Second, why can't we figure out something that makes sense and rises above "how everyone else does it?" Third, I never said anything about taking away all of a GM's discretion; in fact quite the reverse. Seems to me that your last comment is more of a strawman than anything else. Just sayin' That's funny because the post you made before this one seemed like a strawman to me. I don't see or have a problem with GM discretion. I eagerly await your solution though. |
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 22, 2014 17:09:57 GMT -5
So, I broke out my ITL book the other night and came to a realization: it's darn near as old as I am! I think I shall scan it, Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard as pdfs to keep for posterity before my books fall apart. But I digress... Those of us who are actually older than The Fantasy Trip may remember how Talents (I'll use "skills" in this post for consistency with this thread) in that game worked. For those who don't, they were divided by IQ and purchased using your IQ. So, if you had an IQ of 8, you could purchase 8 points worth of skills. Most of the basic weapons skills required IQ7 (some of the "monsters", such as Hobgoblins, started with an IQ of 7) and "cost" about 2 points. Advanced skills, in addition to requiring a higher IQ also had lower level skills as prerequisites; Physicker II required Physicker I as a prerequisite, for example. Some weapons, such as boomerang, had their own required skill. The skills either allowed you do do something (such as using a special weapon), made something easier to do by providing you a positive attribute buff, or made your character better, such as the passive "armor" Warrior and Veteran provided. On my next day off (we're in a refueling outage right now, and I'm working 12/6s and have only had two days off since March 29th <insert MASSIVE whiiiiinnnneee  >) I'm going to attempt to map out TFTs skills and see how they could be adapted to LAW. In support of that effort, I have a couple of questions for you: 1. Do you see a need for prerequisites for skills? For instance, if I want to fight with two swords, do you consider that an extension of the basic Sword skill, or a separate skill ("Two Weapons" perhaps?) that requires knowledge of the specific weapons skill before you can purchase it? 2. Do you find additional dice or negative die roll modifiers a better method of increasing the difficulty level of a task. For instance, given the average roll of 1d6 is 3.5, the average of 3d6 is 10.5 - call it 11, while the average of 4d6 is 14. One could argue that adding 1d6 is about the same as imposing a -3 modifier to the stat. By the same logic, removing 1d6 is effectively a +3 modifier. Can't say when I'll finish my project, but if anything interesting comes of it, I'll let you know. |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 22, 2014 18:49:38 GMT -5
I'm glad we are returning to the actual topic of the thread. This is exciting!
Nukesnipe, I look forward to your thoughts!
Regarding "Two Weapon", here are my thoughts/logic: You must have some skill with the weapon in each hand in order to use both effectively in conjunction with each other. So, if you create a "Two Weapon" skill/talent, I think it should have prerequisites based on this logic, IMO. But then which skill/talent applies when using those weapons in a two-handed fashion: the individual weapons skills, the "Two Weapon" skill/talent, both, whichever is lower, or whichever is higher? I'm undecided. It seems simpler to me to create a Rule, instead, that says something like "fighting with two weapons incurs a -3 DX (or extra die) penalty on each attack." Therefore, as the weapon skill of the weapon in each hand increases, the 'two weapon' penalty diminishes.
I'm really up in the air when it comes to -3 penalty v. extra die. At the moment, I'm favoring -3 penalty because it seems easier to express and less likely to be misunderstood when you're trying to express these things. I guess it seems more straightforward. If I need to explain that further, let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 23, 2014 13:10:57 GMT -5
I'm glad we are returning to the actual topic of the thread. This is exciting! After this: That's funny because the post you made before this one seemed like a strawman to me. I don't see or have a problem with GM discretion. I eagerly await your solution though. Passive-aggressive much? Think I'll talk to nukesnipe from now on -- he seems to be able to discuss things without the testiness. |
|
But thanks for the compliment just the same!
>) I'm going to attempt to map out TFTs skills and see how they could be adapted to LAW. In support of that effort, I have a couple of questions for you: