Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2012 22:36:28 GMT -5
the point of making a check assisted (instead of required) is to make it easier to pass. once you realize that, adding negative modifiers should seem counterproductive.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Aug 9, 2012 10:07:38 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. This is my point exactly. Yes, we use ST as the basis for the check, but that does not mean we are saying climbing is all about Strength. If you have the skill, then you are aware of the rest. Even if you are strong, but lack the Climbing skill, you don't know how to negotiate the steep rock face. 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. I guess you do not like the assisted/required skill checks! I repect that, it is just that it has never really been an issue before in any of the adventures. Adding negative modifiers is something we occasionally do in specific encounters, but a standard negative has never been necessary - the assisted/required distinction obviates it, and for more difficult tasks, we use 4 dice or even 5 dice checks. I get what you are saying about a ST11 dude without climing should not in real life be able to climb as well as a ST10 dude with Climbing+1, but as far as task resolution in a role playing game, I don't see it as being very significant, especially since that ST10, Climbing+1 dude can attempt to negotiate the rock face that the ST11 guy cannot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 23:00:52 GMT -5
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. regarding this, i would like to clarify that i was specifically speaking of searching (and tracking is just another form of searching). however, when the adventure specifically says that only one person can make a search attempt, i abide by it. Sorcerer's Manor states this. Orcs of High Mountains does not. too lazy to check other adventures at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2012 8:11:38 GMT -5
i have come to see the beauty of considering each location an encounter. it prevents prolonged spell effects and allows fatigue to be recovered simply by passing from location to location, which is an easy way to keep track of time. the downside is that i can't let each party member perform a search. this is a big downside for me. you pack so many interesting little things to discover into adventures, it just seems like a waste to let some of it go undiscovered. i have the same problem with food i hate to let those juicy morsels go to a waste other than my waist
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Sept 5, 2012 9:08:14 GMT -5
This is actually a good point, one we have discussed internally before. We do not like to make the successful outcome of an adventure based on a single search check. That is why we put multiple opportunities and paths to the endgame. And some checks that maybe should be very hard, we make a little easier for this reason as well.
I hate for people to miss our easter eggs as well - but that is why you can go through several times, and discover something you missed before.
Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2012 9:52:38 GMT -5
that is a good point too, one that i have tried to convey in this thread and other threads. a party has a greater chance of passing an assisted check than a required check. usually, if a check is stipulated as being assisted, it is because you _really_ want us to pass it or the task isn't that difficult.
in the interests of replay for complete exploration and to help new people with character creation (matching skills with stats, etc.), i would like to 2nd a request made in another thread to include some sample characters or sample parties in each adventure. this could also help seasoned veterans gauge how difficult an adventure will be for their party.
|
|