horsa
2nd Level Troll
Posts: 61
|
Post by horsa on Feb 13, 2008 21:06:18 GMT -5
I like the idea of Take 10.
It allows for an assured (although moderate) success on routine tasks, saving the big die rolls for the dramatic moments where the outcome really does hang in the balance.
I have noticed two major strains of fantasy hero, the "everyman" typified by Bilbo Baggins or Fafhrd, and the "superman" as embodied by Aragorn or Conan.
The everyman succeeds when it is needed to drive the story forward. The superman fails when it is needed to drive the story forward.
It is well to keep in mind which type of hero you are dealing with when setting SR levels etc.
Also ask your players what sort of story they are expecting. I hav eseen gritty realism drag a heroic game to a screeching halt, and players attempting to realisticly problem solve heroic challenges.
Great heroes should be able to flick traps aside with ease, wade through hordes of faceless minions and accomplish six impossible things before breakfast. T&T is great for gaming this.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 13, 2008 21:50:32 GMT -5
I like the idea of Take 10. Me, too. I prefer the idea of the Take 10 modifying a roll, rather than replacing it, however. By replacing a roll, you enter into that nebulous realm of "diceless." By modifying the roll, you maintain the illusion that failure is possible, even if it really isn't (or is only by the minimum 5 rule). Note that Take 10 and Take 20 exist in D&D because it is based around a d20; thus the numbers represent the average result and the best result. If you wanted to use this in T&T directly, you would probably call it Take 7 and Take 11. I'd rather keep the numbers in the "multiples of 5 category" however, so that it fits in with the SR system. EDIT: A few test rolls have shown me one other thing I didn't notice when posting... if you use Take 10 and roll dice on top of that, you are actually adding more than just 10. Bearing that in mind, Take 10 (and not Take 20) might be the best option. I suppose that would depend mostly on the GM and the levels of SRs he normally uses in his games. Hmmm. [Strokes goatee thoughtfully] Interesting breakdown of two literary types and devices into two sentences. So who says great literature has to be complicated! Since you have succinctly boiled the classics down to two basic types (don'tcha just love our dichotomous world!), I'll use that as the basis for how I set up my games and thinking. I prefer the Heroic strain even in "realistic" fantasy. If there's one thing I hate, it's dithering, incompetent "heroes." Hopefully I won't get booed off the board for saying this, but I fought my way through The Lord of the Rings because it was a classic, so I kept hoping it would get better at some point. I still hate Hobbits, and I've only seen the first of the LotR movies, and only because my ladyfriend at the time dragged me to it with her. (Luckily we broke up before the last two movies came out, saving me from having to burn my eyes out with a red-hot poker). If those are Heroes, give me Conan and Kane and Thongor any day!
|
|
|
Post by zanshin on Feb 14, 2008 8:52:37 GMT -5
Test rolls will only really teach you whether or not you have a balanced set of dice.
For most dice, most of the time, the laws of probability are perfectly adequate.
And for 2 d6 you have a 1 in 6 chance of a double on any one roll (6 chances of 36 permutations). For 2d10 you have a 1 in 10 chance (10 chances of a 100) . Roll dice of 2 different colours and it becomes clear, honest.
Taking 7 seems a perfectly reasonable idea in the same context that taking 10 did in d20. However due to the bell curve 2d6 is less likely to produce extreme results than a d20, where 1 and 20 have equal probability of appearing.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 14, 2008 9:23:14 GMT -5
Test rolls will only really teach you whether or not you have a balanced set of dice. Trust me, I know. I've currently have hundreds of unbalanced dice. Maybe they take after their owner.... Lest we get too far away from my idea, note that my issue is not doubles, but rolls too low to succeed, and a way to "load the dice" (or the situation) in the PCs favor by allowing a mechanical benefit in exchange for a story-based penalty. My idea was to allow multiple rolls to accrue up to the required target number, so long as the first failure threshold was passed. Gamepunk simplified the idea tremendously by just suggesting borrowing the Take 10/20 concept. I like the idea, but in conjunction with a roll, not replacing it. "Doubles," as such, really have nothing to do with it. If must roll a 10 to succeed, a double 1, followed by double 2, followed by a 2 and 1, still fails. But it doesn't account for DARO, which would also make Taking 7/11 a bit more risky than taking 10/20 (there's always the potential for doubles). I believe that this risk would be offset by allowing the additional points in conjunction with the die roll. In D&D, you just take the points but don't roll the die. My thinking is that by taking the extra time, the points act as a modifier, reducing the difficulty of the action by one or two levels (or whatever the GM feels is fair and appropriate). I also prefer "Taking 10" in T&T by reducing difficulty levels because, besides simplicity, it also has a precedent in T&T5e. In the Marksmanship SR rules, the rulebook directly states that if "the SRs are too high" that you should "adjust them by a level or two." Addendum: Dungeons with Wandering Monsters would be an easy way to apply this concept, even in solos. If the GM feels that the action is one that has an improved chance of success if the character is willing to take more time, he may do so at -1 Levels to difficulty (or +5 points to the roll/attribute) for each additional turn spent; however, each turn you must roll a d6 to check for a Wandering Monster.
|
|
|
Post by gamepunk26 on Feb 14, 2008 12:07:21 GMT -5
I love the idea of adjusting SR difficulty downward instead of adding to the total. In T&T you can have much higher target numbers. A character with average Luck, who takes 20, may still not have a chance in hell of making a level 5 or 6 luck SR due to how high the number is. That same character dropping the L5SR to a L3SR could make it with a DARO. It feels much more T&T. I will be adding this to my houserule notebook.
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Feb 14, 2008 14:35:32 GMT -5
Fenris, if someone Takes 11 or does the 'continue until you get there' method, what will you do for experience awarded? I don't think that someone who is largley assured of eventually making that 10th level SR necessarily deserves the same AP as they would get for making it in a single roll.
|
|
Fenris
5th Level Troll
Weapon Hand Severed!
Posts: 614
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 14, 2008 18:13:31 GMT -5
Hold that thought, Mahrundl, I'm starting a new, but related, thread idea for my own campaign, and I need some input. Your question will need to be answered there... if you have any ideas, I hope you've got a moment to share them!
|
|