|
Post by mcraun on Jul 28, 2012 23:37:44 GMT -5
Just playing Blood in the Dust, and had a skill check to find a hidden trail. Not a required check, just an IQ+Tracking.
So, I have a member with 10 IQ and 1 in tracking. I also have my "smart" party member w/ an IQ of 13.
Since it is not a "tracking required" check, why would I not have my IQ 13 roll on it? Do you get multiple checks, or just 1?
Doesn't this make skills a bit useless, as a higher IQ will always be better and control multiple skill checks. My IQ 10 could spend 100 exp on 10 new skills @ level 1 and my IQ 13 will still have better results against all of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 0:51:02 GMT -5
hi mcraun, if it were me, i'd have the dude with IQ13 + 0 Tracking make the check instead of the dude with IQ10 + 1 Tracking. i think you should always assume that you get only 1 check per character. for instance, if the dude with IQ13 fails, let the dude with IQ10+1 Tracking try it. give each member of your party a try. that's how i play.
skills are not useless. sometimes, a skill is required to be able to make the check (IQ against Tracking). if it's worded like that, then only a character with the Tracking skill can even attempt it. however, you have recognized what i think is a key strategy to playing DCG games. in general, (especially for newer characters) invest no more than 1 skill level in any skill (except maybe combat skills) so that you can attempt those 'STAT against SKILL' checks. you get more bang for your XP by investing in STATs...and on average, raising a stat 1 point only costs 4XP more than raising a skill by 1 point.
also, not all skills are created equal. sometimes a tracking check is +Tracking, sometimes it's 'against Tracking'. it just depends on how it's written. however, some skills are almost always required. for instance, Medic. this is a skill that is not usually written into the adventure but it is a very useful skill and you MUST have it to perform the Medic action. it is also one those skills that actually pays off to have more than one skill level in. combat skills, leadership, alchemist, bard/storyteller, herbalist, and medic are the only skills worth investing in beyond the first skill rank.
really, the more i think about it, you really just picked a bad example. Tracking is so integral to adventures that it is often handled 'softly'. as a result, it really doesn't pay to invest a lot in Tracking...or any other skill whose results are not dependent on the skill level. again, combat skills, leadership, alchemist, bard/storyteller, herbalist, and medic are the only skills whose results depend on the skill level.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jul 29, 2012 9:57:32 GMT -5
Hey, Mcraun! Welcome!
ewookie has some good points.
To answer one of your questions directly: there is only one attempt at a check allowed, unless the instructions for that specific encounter indicate otherwise.
Keep in mind there are two kinds of checks: required and assisted. On assisted checks, where the skill is an add to the chance of success, it makes sense to make the character with the highest chance for success attempt it. This would be the case with your specific example bove. On required checks (usually indicated as "Make a 3/IQ against Tracking") you cannot attempt the check unless you have the skill. In addition, there are a few instances where merely having the skill is enough, and you do not need to roll, though this is usually for +2 or more skill levels. Checks in our adventures vary, but most are Required.
So skills are very valuable. The section of the rules that begins with "Skills" will tell you how to differentiate beteen the two kinds of checks.
Hope this clears things up - and welcome again!
Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 11:56:06 GMT -5
To answer one of your questions directly: there is only one attempt at a check allowed, unless the instructions for that specific encounter indicate otherwise. is that answer based on the following? if so, i have to let my argumentative side out here i only consider it an 'encounter' if there is something that poses an immediate threat like monsters or traps. of course, in those situations, you don't have time to let everyone make the check. my view here is supported by the paragraph the always proceeds the above quoted text... situation: You are looking for the bad guys. If you pass IQ+Tracking, you find their trail and follow it. there is no immediate threat, so there is no reason why every member of the party could not try to find there trail (because it is an assisted check). even if it were a required check (IQ against Tracking), every member of the party with Tracking should get a chance to find the trail. two heads are better than one. the situation is akin to trying to open a jar with a tight lid. if you can't do it, you pass the jar to someone else to try it. if there is another rule somewhere that supports the 'always one check' answer, someone please point me to it and quote it.
|
|
|
Post by dare2go on Jul 29, 2012 13:01:06 GMT -5
The problem here is our fault. We haven't adequately defined "encounter." Perhaps a better definition would be "location." However, even that does not always specifically capture what an encounter is. Going forward, maybe we'll revise the blurb to say "location" instead of "encounter."
Bret is absolutely correct about only one character being able to make one check.
The "one-check" rule was designed to streamline play. If the characters in the party can all check, then it can be argued that in the next increment of time, they can all check again, and again, until someone passes the check. And statistically, sooner or later, somebody will. And that begs the question, "why have anyone check at all, if they're eventually going to pass."
Allowing only one character one check forces the party to move on with the adventure, instead of getting bogged down on how to use the rules to best pass a check.
Once again, this confusion is our fault. We'll change "encounter" to read "location."
-----------------------------------
With respect to skills, there are times when stacking skill points make a lot of sense. For example, say you have a really dumb guy IQ8 (about 25% passing), but you allocate two points to Medic. Now to pass Medic, he's IQ8 + 2 = 10. That's now 50% to pass a medic check and heal TWO points of damage.
So don't underestimate skills. Also, once a character's attributes get over 10, it's more and more expensive to raise the attributes. So it costs 14XP to raise a DX13 to a DX14, but only 10XP to increase a skill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 13:32:07 GMT -5
my suggestion is that you leave the rules concerning encounters as they are. for other checks (outside of encounters), you let each member of the party get ONE attempt to pass the check if they have the required skill.
then, the max number of times you can attempt the check equals the number of characters in your party with the required skill. if the check is assisted (not required), then every member of the party gets a crack at it. this doesn't go on forever until success. the number of attempts equals the number of characters in the party.
as an adventure author, this should make one think carefully about making checks assisted. the author is also free to state within the adventure text how many characters/attempts may be made. another freedom enjoyed by the author is the ability to assign a penalty to failed checks...such as 'you incur a 1 Fatigue point penalty if you fail' or 'you trigger the trap if you fail to disarm it'
probabilities IQ 8 is better than 25% when rolling 3d6. There are: 1 way to roll a 3; 1 way to roll a 4; 2 ways to roll a 5; 3 ways to roll a 6; 4 ways to roll a 7; 5 ways to roll a 8.... When you take that 'bell-curve stuff' into account: 16 ways to roll 8 or less; 38 ways to roll higher than 8 16/38 = 42%
EDIT: bad math on my part above. it should be 16/54 = 30% (16 + 38 = 54)
skills i am not underestimating skills. your example used Medic. Medic is one of the skills i listed as being worthwhile to invest in beyond the first skill level. stacking skill points does make sense at times. as i said, those times are: combat skills, leadership, alchemist, bard/storyteller, herbalist, and medic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 13:36:11 GMT -5
btw, i am not bashing the system with my arguments. my arguments are very key reasons why i love the system.
to me, there is no problem with the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 13:45:35 GMT -5
also...
that agrees with what i said. it only cost 4XP more to raise DX than to raise a skill by 10XP. a smart player will wait for the additional 4XP and raise DX instead of spending 10XP to get to skill level 2 of Traps or mechanically similar skill.
|
|
|
Post by mcraun on Jul 29, 2012 14:27:20 GMT -5
I was only making one check, that just seemed correct to me. Or else you would practically never fail.
I guess my concern is with assisted checks, really. Say you have 15 IQ skills that might use assisted checks. You could spend 150 exp to get a 1 better chance on all of them...or 14 exp on IQ for the same end. It really is a huge difference, and does not seemed balanced in favor of the skill paths.
That poor chap who spent years of his life learning to track in the wild, eh, sorry. I read a book, got smarter, and got better in 13 different skills!
I have not played enough of your adventures to know the weight of assisted vs. required checks. (Although I plan too!). If there are not to many assisted, it should be okay. Otherwise, that system of skill / checks might, to my mind, need some adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by dare2go on Jul 29, 2012 14:28:15 GMT -5
my suggestion is that you leave the rules concerning encounters as they are. for other checks (outside of encounters), you let each member of the party get ONE attempt to pass the check if they have the required skill. Yes, this make sense. Letting each character get ONE attempt addresses the "two heads are better than one" concept, for checks outside of an encounter. But once again, like you said, it's up to the author to think through it carefully, and see what's the most appropriate. It's nice when an author tries to write in as many skills as possible, but sometimes that's still not enough. We've *tried* to make some of the skills story-independent, that is, making the skills useful without the story calling for the skill, but this is difficult is some ways. Then there are some skills that cut across all three genres, and then some skills that are genre-dependent. That kind of creates its own challenges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 15:13:44 GMT -5
my suggestion is that you leave the rules concerning encounters as they are. for other checks (outside of encounters), you let each member of the party get ONE attempt to pass the check if they have the required skill. Yes, this make sense. Letting each character get ONE attempt addresses the "two heads are better than one" concept, for checks outside of an encounter. But once again, like you said, it's up to the author to think through it carefully, and see what's the most appropriate. It's nice when an author tries to write in as many skills as possible, but sometimes that's still not enough. We've *tried* to make some of the skills story-independent, that is, making the skills useful without the story calling for the skill, but this is difficult is some ways. Then there are some skills that cut across all three genres, and then some skills that are genre-dependent. That kind of creates its own challenges. i know it's difficult. i've been trying to write an adventure myself. I think you and Bret do an excellent job!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 15:31:19 GMT -5
I was only making one check, that just seemed correct to me. Or else you would practically never fail. I guess my concern is with assisted checks, really. Say you have 15 IQ skills that might use assisted checks. You could spend 150 exp to get a 1 better chance on all of them...or 14 exp on IQ for the same end. It really is a huge difference, and does not seemed balanced in favor of the skill paths. That poor chap who spent years of his life learning to track in the wild, eh, sorry. I read a book, got smarter, and got better in 13 different skills! I have not played enough of your adventures to know the weight of assisted vs. required checks. (Although I plan too!). If there are not to many assisted, it should be okay. Otherwise, that system of skill / checks might, to my mind, need some adjustment. Tracking is a fairly mundane task. If it takes a poor chap his entire life to learn to track, poor chap is not too bright. It's really not a very specialized skill. Once you get past the basics, your intelligence or awareness or perception or 'observantness' plays a greater role. It really doesn't take much skill to see some foot-prints in the mud or dry dust and follow them. When you throw grass and brush into the mix, you have to look for other things...like excrement and broken twigs, etc. Again, look at the skill descriptions. If the description doesn't say anything about the skill level, it would be unwise to invest in it past the first level. some examples that are similar to tracking: climbing, riding, swimming, charisma, diplomacy, (languages), stalker, stealth, survival, tactician, tracker, locks, streetwise, thief, traps, animal handler, crafts, driver, sailor, scholar. ^ most of those skills are fairly mundane and not terribly specialized skills when you live in a western or fantasy world, so, to me, this is as it should be. once you learn the basics, the rest is largely up to your innate ability (stats).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2012 15:39:00 GMT -5
on the other hand, take skills like Herbalist for example. that's a life long learning pursuit. you can't just learn some basics and be a wiz at it. translated into our world, drug companies spend many years and butt-loads of money learning what makes a 'good potion'. people go to universities to study biology, chemistry, etc.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jul 30, 2012 9:30:13 GMT -5
I was only making one check, that just seemed correct to me. Or else you would practically never fail. I guess my concern is with assisted checks, really. Say you have 15 IQ skills that might use assisted checks. You could spend 150 exp to get a 1 better chance on all of them...or 14 exp on IQ for the same end. It really is a huge difference, and does not seemed balanced in favor of the skill paths. That poor chap who spent years of his life learning to track in the wild, eh, sorry. I read a book, got smarter, and got better in 13 different skills! I have not played enough of your adventures to know the weight of assisted vs. required checks. (Although I plan too!). If there are not to many assisted, it should be okay. Otherwise, that system of skill / checks might, to my mind, need some adjustment. You can maybe think of it like this - anyone can try to climb a tree, though those with skill in climbing will probably fare better (assisted check, 3/ST+Climbing), but not everyone can climb a near-vertical rockface (required, 3/ST against Climbing). As far as the distribution, we generally put more required checks in our adventures, but there are quite a few assisted, as no party will have all the skills covered. I know what you are saying, and the example is generally vaild, but I think that specifically you will find this not to be the case. There are some things you simply cannot do if you do not have the required skill. Now we do not like to have the entire adventure depend on having one particular skill, or passing one particular check - that would be extremely prohibitive. But if you do have certain skills, the adventure will be easier to solve. As an example, you don't need Spanish in Blood in the Dust, but it can provide some clues you not otherwise have. When you play through and you still feel that skills are over-rated, because of a preponderance of assisted checks or otherwise, by all means let us know! But I am certain you will not find that to be the case. At any rate, thanks for bringing this discussion up, Mcraun! Bret
|
|
|
Post by mcraun on Aug 4, 2012 19:41:54 GMT -5
You can maybe think of it like this - anyone can try to climb a tree, though those with skill in climbing will probably fare better (assisted check, 3/ST+Climbing), but not everyone can climb a near-vertical rockface (required, 3/ST against Climbing).
Read more: darkcitygames.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=150#ixzz22cwBuUHa If you have no skill climbing, no practice, it would be far more dangerous. It is not all about sheer strength; it's selecting a route, climbing safely, knowing your limits, etc. Perhaps a negative modifier on assisted checks if you do not have the skill? Someone with a strength of 11 should not be able to climb as well as someone with a strength of 10 + climbing skill 1. On passing 3/ST+climbing (-1 if climbing = 0) On passing 3/IQ+tracking (-2 if tracking = 0) This also allows for a variable difficulty with any specific check. It could also negate assisted / required all together, allowing for those accidental, heroic feats. On passing 3/DX+sneak (-8 if sneak = 0) Having Sneak is all but required, but maybe someone rises to the occasion....or fails horribly. Allowing for more consequences, and player decisions on if they even want to attempt something as risky as sending the mage to pilfer that key.
|
|