Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 10, 2008 22:46:44 GMT -5
Here's an idea that's been bouncing around in my brain a few days; I thought I'd post it here and see if it has legs.
Some SR levels are just impossible to reach unless your character has amazing (50) levels of an attribute. And some actions absolutely require success or failure in one turn (e.g. firing a bow).
But I got to thinking about it, and I realized that some actions could possibly be extended actions, as long as the character doesn't actually fail.
The obvious example is disarming a trap or picking a lock, although all of us here could doubtless think of others. The GM sets a difficulty, and he no longer needs to be concerned about the skill ratings of the characters attempting the action. Here's why:
If the PC attempting the action rolls a success of any level, he may try again on the following round, adding subsequent rolls to the already garnered total. Regardless of attributes, failure on these subsequent rolls should only occur on a failure to make the minimum 5. "Fumbles," if you use them should not occur on subsequent rolls, either, as the action has been "partially successful."
Thus, if a PC with a DEX of 17 attempts to disarm a 4th level trap, he needs only make his minimum 5 to not set it off. If he does, he has not yet succeeded nor failed... he's still working on it. (That was probably 10 minutes, but you could also call it 2 minutes if you wanted).
Assuming the PC in question rolled a 7, he now has a total of 24. He still needs 11 more points to disarm the trap. He can try again in the next turn. As long as he doesn't fail by not making his minimum 5, he can try again each turn until he eventually breaks 35 or until he fails completely.
Failure doesn't have to mean the trap is sprung, although it probably does. But it could just mean that it's not disarmed. Critical failure (i.e. fumbles) could occur only on the first roll. If failure doesn't mean the trap is sprung, the GM could let the character try again, having to start accruing points all over again (or you might go the D&D route and declare any PC only gets one try only, and may only try again after going up a level).
In time-crucial situations (e.g. combat going on while you're disarming the trap), this could be a great deal of fun!
Opinions? Brickbats? Baseball bats? Vampire bats? B-b-b-b-bat's all, folks!
|
|
order99
7th Level Troll
Coffee-fueled Carrion That Walks Like a Man
Posts: 1,039
|
Post by order99 on Feb 10, 2008 23:07:43 GMT -5
I could see this working very well in low-powered settings, or MS&PE. I could also see it being abused-perhaps a "three strikes and your out" rule (three rolls-if the total isn't enough you haven't Fumbled, but you can't do it with this lock/these tools/no workshop etc) Or perhaps you could try the Extended Period for the Extended SR(first try=1 Turn, 2nd=10 Turns, 3rd=100 Turns, 4th=10 days and a better set of picks/special tools etc). If I were using Skills in T&T (and I do, my Players love them) I might consider letting only PCs with the right Skills to use an Extended SR for Skill-related tasks, emphasising training over natural Ability. Of course, extended Non-Skill SRs would work great for arm-wrestling(or full wrestling for that matter-1D6+Adds, first to reach Lvl1 SR has an unbreakable Pin/Lock/Throw) or games of Strategy like Chess or Go. If two opposing generals were planning a battle, the first to reach Lvl2 or so before sunrise might give his Troops a 1D6 Combat Die bonus for the attack... Yeah, it's got possibilities.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 10, 2008 23:59:26 GMT -5
I could see this working very well in low-powered settings, or MS&PE. I could also see it being abused-perhaps a "three strikes and your out" rule (three rolls-if the total isn't enough you haven't Fumbled, but you can't do it with this lock/these tools/no workshop etc) Yeah, it's got possibilities. Thank you for the positive review. Abuse is less of a concern for me because, as has been noted repeatedly, I really want my players to succeed in what they do. In most of the fiction that I try to emulate, you rarely see Heroes fail... in fact, failure isn't really even something they are concerned with. They just do. Even if a scene is tense, it isn't tense because of perceived failure, but just because the scene is tense. There was a Marvel Superheroes RPG not too long ago that didn't use dice, instead you just had so many points of ability, and if you could expend enough points, you succeeded in your task. This worked quite well in combat, but blew royally in everything else. But I always was rather fond of the idea that you simply would succeed if you just tried hard enough. It seems like, in many RPGs, failure is much more commonplace than in the fiction that inspired it. For example, Heroes in the fiction tend to wear armor even if they don't in the movies/books/comics that inspired it. Why? Because in the stories, the writer simply writes that the Hero succeeds. In the game, failure could occur, and the players have to minimize the negative consequences on their characters. In a very real sense, armor in these situations is based on player concerns, less than character concerns, and gaming as a whole considers basing decisions on player knowledge over character knowledge to be a bad thing. That's the "why" that I came up with this. The idea is that characters can succeed more often, and dice-roll based failure becomes less of an issue. The idea is less "role-playing" inspired and more "roll-playing" inspired. And yes, I do enjoy diceless play. But it does tend to have a very different feel than dice games; for example, success is generally much more common, but when failure does occur, it generally needs to be explained in story terms, rather than just "Lady Luck didn't smile upon you this time." (If you're interested in trying out diceless play and are lucky enough to find a copy of Theatrix somewhere, get it.)
|
|
order99
7th Level Troll
Coffee-fueled Carrion That Walks Like a Man
Posts: 1,039
|
Post by order99 on Feb 11, 2008 2:59:06 GMT -5
That's right, I forgot...you mentioned elsewhere that your Players couldn't roll doubles if thier OWN lives depended on it. Given that, you wouldn't need limiters on the mechanic.
I did have Theatrix for several years (made a great Holiday gift for a new Gamer friend)-I wasn't into the Diceless mechanic as much as I was into the wealth of Staging tips and Fiddly bits. I prefer my randomizers myself...if I did want a decent Diceless system i'd probably either use an Amber adaptation or a free RPG called Bid-It. If you're curious, Google John Kim's Free RPGs-he's got several Diceless free RPGs listed in his database (in Link form).
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 11, 2008 8:39:04 GMT -5
I did have Theatrix for several years (made a great Holiday gift for a new Gamer friend)-I wasn't into the Diceless mechanic as much as I was into the wealth of Staging tips and Fiddly bits. I prefer my randomizers myself...if I did want a decent Diceless system i'd probably either use an Amber adaptation or a free RPG called Bid-It. If you're curious, Google John Kim's Free RPGs-he's got several Diceless free RPGs listed in his database (in Link form). I'll check out Bid-It sometime if I can get away from the other link you sent me. The name implies a system not unlike the Marvel game I mentioned in the last post, but of course I have no idea. I am totally unfamiliar with Amber, so I'd have to just gut the system to use it, and I'm told that the system is pretty well integrated into the story bits (although I don't know), so that might require some doing. I love Theatrix. Even after I went back to dice-y games, I stole the action resolution cards, because they can improve any RPG. Theatrix actually has a "randomizer" in it (using d100), so all you need to do is toss out their randomizer and use whatever system the game you're playing uses... then follow the charts just as they are. Theatrix should have been created during the 80's Golden Age of Gaming; I believe it would have acquired quite a following of devoted (if aging) gamers. Instead, it's barely a footnote in gaming history. A sad end to an excellent idea with excellent execution....
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 11, 2008 9:45:17 GMT -5
That's right, I forgot...you mentioned elsewhere that your Players couldn't roll doubles if thier OWN lives depended on it. Given that, you wouldn't need limiters on the mechanic. I have just, personally, rolled 2d6 DARO twenty times. Below are the results of my rolls. I have placed an asterisk next to all rolls that came up doubles and were re-rolled. I'm curious to see how this compares to everyone else. Dice Roll 2d6 DARO 01. 6 02. 7 03. 9 04. 4 05. 16* 06. 15* 07. 9 08. 11 09. 7 10. 10 11. 7 12. 5 13. 9 14. 8 15. 8 16. 9 17. 9 18. 7 19. 6 20. 7Yes, that's correct, out of 20 rolls, two came up doubles, and only four rolls totalled 10 or higher. If the rest of you guys do better than that, I'd really like to know where you buy your dice! Note: The average of all 20 rolls came up to 8.45, which, according to other websites I've found, jibes with the statistical average of 2d6 DARO, so I've stayed right in the range of "normal." The result of this chart is, if I were creating a game for a group, I would look at the average attribute rating of attributes I intended to be tested in SRs (on the PCs), add about 8 to it, and expect them to total that about 80% of the time. Thus, if they all are first level characters with DEX and LK around 10, I would expect them to fail all SRs they make 16 out of 20 times (as they need a 20 for even a L1SR, and they will score about a 18 most often). Note in my test rolls only four rolls managed to make a L1SR for an attribute of average (10), and a whopping two managed to make a L2SR! The two that made the L2SR both rolled doubles, which suggests there is only a 10% chance of an average character making a L2SR. Some pretty short games I run, huh? If anybody else would like to try this for comparison's sake, I'd love to see it. It might help me streamline this Extended SR Mechanic idea.
|
|
order99
7th Level Troll
Coffee-fueled Carrion That Walks Like a Man
Posts: 1,039
|
Post by order99 on Feb 11, 2008 12:59:03 GMT -5
Well, this isn't strictly T&T but...
A friend of mine is developing a Homebrew system-so far it looks to be an Ungodly mix of Palladium, AD&D 2nd ed. and MS&PE-it looks like she's trying to grab all the Fiddly Bits that she likes from the first two and tie them together with a unified mechanic. So far we're looking at:
Simplified T&T statblock(Fitness, Speed, Wits, Charm) Combat Adds as in T&T from FT and SP Mental Adds from WT and CH for Spells and Psi Hits and Move as a Base score modded by 1/2 FT and SP respectively Proficiency Slots as in the AD&D 2nd.
Here's where the mechanics get...odd. Roll 2D for all stunts and Skills.If you roll a 6, it Explodes-roll another D6 and add. If you roll Snake Eyes, that's a Fumble. If you have a Skill, roll a Bonus Die-roll 3D and discard the lowest, bumping up the curve and making Fumbles unlikely (triple 1's) Additional grades of Skill lead to +1 to the total, so Survival +3 is 3D, drop the lowest and add 3.
Combat is similar-2D +adds. If you have a Weapon and the opponent doesn't, you get a Bonus Die, if You have a Skill in Combat and he doesn't, you get a Bonus Die ( If he is Unskilled but has a Sword and you have Empty hands but know Kung-Fu, it balances). You never roll more than two Bonus Dice, so no more than 4D are ever in play. Damage is taken fro the difference as in T&T, then you cut the damage by 1/2 for Unarmed, total normally for clubsand knives, add +1D3 for Swords and Maces, +1D6 for Axes and Two-Handers. Spite Damage is in play, so the Loser in combat can still leave a mark...
I have no idea what the probability curves will do to the SR success rate(the Bonus Dice and Exploding 6's make my brain hurt) but if the system makes it to Playtest i'll let you know how it goes. If the system shows ANY weakness it will be torn apart by our Group like a Hobb in a pack of Dragons!!
In the meantime-if you want to cut PCs a break early on, why not slot a Lvl 1/2 SR (15+) between the LVL 0 (5+) and the LVL 1(20+) ? tThat should give 'em a fighting chance, especially if you use 5.5 Skills oe 7.0 Talents...
|
|
|
Post by zanshin on Feb 13, 2008 9:03:50 GMT -5
How about a certain number of Save levels to be achieved, with each attempt taking a round/period of time.
So, a lock with a series of straightforward tumblers - must accumulate a total of 10 levels of saves to open it. Roll an open ended Daro on dex/lockpicking talent. Each roll = equivalent save level succeeded in progress, fumble = all progress lost.
So Dex 18 , rolls 9 = 27 , equivalent of a L2 SR - 2 points accumulated towards the total.
By the way, chance of rolling a double on any Daro is 1 in 6. There are 36 possible permutations from rolling 2d6, 6 of those are doubles.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 13, 2008 9:45:07 GMT -5
By the way, chance of rolling a double on any Daro is 1 in 6. There are 36 possible permutations from rolling 2d6, 6 of those are doubles. I rolled doubles 1 in 10 when I rolled 20 times.** Perhaps rolling 100 times might yield 1 in 6. Statistically, 1 in 6 would have only added one more double to my 20 rolls anyway, which wouldn't have made that big a difference, especially if the "theortical double" had been low (perhaps it would have added an additional success, perhaps not). Also, I should note that the reason I wrote that post was because Order99 had noted that I've said in the past (whew! that was a sentence!) that I am unable to roll doubles for some odd reason. So, the fact that I would roll fewer doubles than the "statistical average" illustrates my inability. According to my "test run," I roll doubles 1 out of every 10 rolls. The rest of you guys should get doubles nearly twice that often. Don't ask me why that is. And yes, the little chart I made up is real. I used to play with a GM who would not let you roll dice, but would roll dice a large number of times before a game and then go down the list and choose each number in turn! (That took the mechanics out of our hands and let us focus on character, he said). Good thing I don't GM that way! If I did, I'd kill my whole group within the first hour! As far as the mechanic for extended resolution goes, the main idea was to try to find a way to allow failed rolls to succeed, but allowing a failed roll a re-roll as long as the "critical failure" threshold was passed. T&T doesn't really need an extended SR mechanic, in general, because the turns are so long. **EDIT: I'd like to see what "actually happens" when other people try this. Averages are all well in good, but what actually happens when "the die is cast"? It would be interesting to see how often totals go over, say, 10, on average. As I noted previously, a T&T website I used to go to stated that the average roll of 2d6 DARO is 8.4. That's exactly what happened when I tried a 20 roll sample... I have no idea how the creator of the website came up with his total. Besides seeing how often doubles come up, I'd be curious to see the total average of all the rolls... after all, doubles are also "all well and good," but if the double you rolled is double 1, you have still only increased your total roll by two points! EDIT#2: Hey Zanshin, here's a joke you might like: Three Staticians go duck hunting. The first Statician shoots at a passing duck, but the shot goes about three yards too high. The second Statician shoots at the same duck, but the shot goes about three yards too low. The third Statician watches both shots, writes some information on a notepad, and exclaims, "Direct hit!" ;D
|
|
gwindel
4th Level Troll
-Spirituality is a crime against Humanity-
Posts: 252
|
Post by gwindel on Feb 13, 2008 13:00:54 GMT -5
... that I am unable to roll doubles for some odd reason. So, the fact that I would roll fewer doubles than the "statistical average" illustrates my inability. ... Maybe you should consider some form of exorcism...
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 13, 2008 14:40:58 GMT -5
Maybe you should consider some form of exorcism... Nah, I like it here.
|
|
horsa
2nd Level Troll
Posts: 61
|
Post by horsa on Feb 13, 2008 18:21:34 GMT -5
I did generate an Elf the other day with a 63! beging charisma, gotta love TARO.
The one problem I see with an infinitely extended SR is that short of Fumbling (the dreaded 5-) there is little chance of failure. Eventually you will succeed. Thus Kull, king of Valusia could eventually build an Enterprise class CVN, all he has to do is keep rolling above 5, no knowledge or nuclear physics, shipbuilding, etc required.
BTW: Conan wore plate armour quite frequently in the stories. In fact most fantasy heroes in older (pre-1970) fantasy fiction wear the best armour they can get their hands on.
The idea of the warrior in the fur/chainmail bikini is an invention of the comic book era.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 13, 2008 18:40:23 GMT -5
I agree on all counts, horsa!
Yes, the idea of the system is to allow more successes. As GM, I don't allow nonsense SRs, for example, no one can build items that aren't part of the genre, regardless of the roll. More to the point, if a player indicated they wanted to try such a thing, I would likely roll my eyes at them and say, "C'mon, be serious. This isn't Toon we're playing. Stay within the bounds of the genre. If this is boring you so much you want to be silly, let's just stop for tonight and do something else."
On the other hand, if the players are attempting something that is within the boundaries of the game, then I want them to succeed. I really really really want them to succeed. I don't put those obstacles there so they can be disappointed by failure; I put them there so they can feel great when they succeed. These are Heroes. What Hero in fiction fails in his efforts? Would we be interested in the exploits of a hero that fails in his actions all the time? I can't speak for anyone else, but I love competent heroes who are great at what they do.
The idea behind this mechanic is that, assuming the first failure threshold is passed (which may be the minimum 5, but may be higher if the characters are lower level), the character will likely succeed, given enough time. Ultimately, the lock will be opened, the trap will be disarmed, the puzzle will be solved, the information will be gained, the code will be broken, whatever. It just may take longer for characters with lower abilities, but they eventually will succeed.
As they grow to become greater heroes, they will continue to succeed, but they will succeed quicker because their starting numbers are higher. It may take the first level Hero 4 turns to open the lock, but the fourth level hero, with the higher Dex, can do it in just one.
I also agree that the unarmored barbarian warrior is a creation of the comic books (and fantasy art a la Boris). Which is exactly what I'm trying to duplicate. I can't tell you the number of times I've tried to create a Sword & Sorcery genre game using Super Hero roleplaying games (Marvel, DC, Champions, even Silver Age Sentinels!), just for that very reason.
|
|
|
Post by gamepunk26 on Feb 13, 2008 19:39:27 GMT -5
You could adapt a similar mechanic to D&D3e called take 10 or take 20. I have used it on the suggestion from one of my players. It assumes that a given task takes a particular amount of time and the player sacrifices speed to do the job correctly. For doing so they get either a +10 or a +20 to the roll. They also only get to do it once instead of over and over. If you cant get it by trying everything you know, you just cant do it. Also, by taking this time they expose themselves to the risks of staying in one place for a protracted period. Given the things that roam dungeons and or other places a charater might be, this can be dangerous.
For example a person who can pick locks can probably pick just about any lock given the time to try all of the combinations. But some locks are exceptionally hard to pick and even after an hour they may not be able to.
I hope this was useful.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 13, 2008 20:38:26 GMT -5
You could adapt a similar mechanic to D&D3e called take 10 or take 20. I have used it on the suggestion from one of my players. I hope this was useful. Hell yeah, it was useful! It's a great idea, and it seems like a wonderfully stealable idea to me, although I think I would want to T&T-ize it a bit (see below). Guys, how does this sound: If the conditions exist that allow the Take 10 or Take 20 rule in D&D, you may reduce the SR required by 2 levels or 4 levels (10 or 20 points). Alternatively, you could just add +10 or +20 to the attribute in question for purposes of making the SR. (Or even +15, if the GM feels the conditions are between the two levels). This effectively does the same thing as allowing multiple re-rolls, but does so with a simplicity well-suited to T&T. Opinions? Brickbats? Additions and Modifications? Great thinking, Gamepunk! Thanks again!
|
|