| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | I guess if I want to advance the plot without taking the time to roll things out or risking failure or complications, letting the PCs take a 3 on every dice is a pretty good way to do that. |
I think there are restrictions in the WOTC, like that it can't be used in combat and the action takes twice as long as normal. And that doesn't mean the GM can't throw in complications at dramatically important moments |
Oh. Well if it is non combat only and if it takes twice normal to time complete, that has put in a few restrictions. So I don't see a huge objection to the rule. I also don't really see the advantage; given the bell curve probability approximation that multiple D6 provides as contrasted with the linear probabilities of D20, I'm not sure I am understanding what the advantages to using a "take 3" rule would be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like I said, i was just throwing out a random suggestion. If anything, this is more of a rule explanation for why the GM will say "You get in the speeder and drive from the space port to the meeting point", rather than making you roll for each and every action while driving.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Fair enough. Garhkal suggested using the 3, and that seems as good a number as any. |
In general that seems too easy to me in general since it turns what may be only a 50% chance into an automatic success.
I guess if I want to advance the plot without taking the time to roll things out or risking failure or complications, letting the PCs take a 3 on every dice is a pretty good way to do that. |
IF i did use it, it would be in instances like how D20 handles the "taking 10" route.. Where time is not really a concern. EG players are using investigations/computers etc to scan data while in hyperspace..
PLUS by doing it, they limit themselves to the 'ave' roll results..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | IF i did use it, it would be in instances like how D20 handles the "taking 10" route.. Where time is not really a concern. EG players are using investigations/computers etc to scan data while in hyperspace..
PLUS by doing it, they limit themselves to the 'ave' roll results.. |
That seems like another aspect of what seems to be an overfocus on combat rules in D20 systems. I will say that is pretty generous of you as a GM. This means that astute players will only "take 3" when they are pretty certain they can make the roll with about an average total and they will roll when they think they need a roll that is better than average. You might as well just let them succeed without a roll. I'm not certain I am ready to give the players a "take 3" freebie . But I will admit that it would move play along when a skill roll is not critical - so I can see a value or temptation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The funny thing is, I have never used this rule, probably never would, and just threw it out as a random suggestion in response to something mentioned in this discussion that made me think of it.
And yet, we are still arguing over it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | The funny thing is, I have never used this rule, probably never would, and just threw it out as a random suggestion in response to something mentioned in this discussion that made me think of it.
And yet, we are still arguing over it. |
That is because we are on the internet. 
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | IF i did use it, it would be in instances like how D20 handles the "taking 10" route.. Where time is not really a concern. EG players are using investigations/computers etc to scan data while in hyperspace..
PLUS by doing it, they limit themselves to the 'ave' roll results.. |
That seems like another aspect of what seems to be an overfocus on combat rules in D20 systems. I will say that is pretty generous of you as a GM. This means that astute players will only "take 3" when they are pretty certain they can make the roll with about an average total and they will roll when they think they need a roll that is better than average. You might as well just let them succeed without a roll. I'm not certain I am ready to give the players a "take 3" freebie . But I will admit that it would move play along when a skill roll is not critical - so I can see a value or temptation. |
When i make info gathering/researching rolls, i usually have grades of info learned.
EG Planetary system roll to know about the planet Thog.
3-7 = planet is rimword and primative
8-13 = plant is known to produce lots of fruit, some used by core worlds as a mix for alcoholic drinks
14-18 = eating the plant the fruit comes from is a natural aphrodisiac (+1d seduction rolls for 1d hrs)
19-23 = the plant is highly addictive and it is cause of this, the hutt in residence allows offworlders to take as much as they want..
So the better the roll, the more info/wider range/more specific you get. SO while taking "3" may be helpful (less rolling) you may miss out on important stuff.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | When i make info gathering/researching rolls, i usually have grades of info learned.
EG Planetary system roll to know about the planet Thog.
3-7 = planet is rimword and primative
8-13 = plant is known to produce lots of fruit, some used by core worlds as a mix for alcoholic drinks
14-18 = eating the plant the fruit comes from is a natural aphrodisiac (+1d seduction rolls for 1d hrs)
19-23 = the plant is highly addictive and it is cause of this, the hutt in residence allows offworlders to take as much as they want..
So the better the roll, the more info/wider range/more specific you get. SO while taking "3" may be helpful (less rolling) you may miss out on important stuff. |
Fair enough and a good example of scaled information. But if the character has, for example, a 7D planetary systems skill they could safely take 3 and get all the information with no risk of a low roll or a complication. Which is why I described letting the PC do that as "pretty generous."
On a somewhat unrelated topic: I don't see pointing out the logical consequences of a proposed rules modification as "arguing." But I guess some folks are just more sensitive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | But I guess some folks are just more sensitive. |
 I distinctly recall pointing out that I thought it was funny, but if you want to think I'm getting sensitive because of a word choice, that's on you
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | Fair enough and a good example of scaled information. But if the character has, for example, a 7D planetary systems skill they could safely take 3 and get all the information with no risk of a low roll or a complication. Which is why I described letting the PC do that as "pretty generous."
|
1st.. thanks for liking how i tier info..
but 7d ave would be 21. And though in the example it would get all listed. MOST modules i have stuff wrote for (like planetary systems etc), the list goes all the way till you are mid to late 30s.. And remember i did say this could be done if not time sensitive.. but many a time i have seen players WAIT till it IS critical they know X till they bother rolling for it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | 1st.. thanks for liking how i tier info.. |
You are welcome.
| Quote: | | MOST modules i have stuff wrote for (like planetary systems etc), the list goes all the way till you are mid to late 30s. |
Interesting and very planful.  That makes sense for a scenario (like one for Sparks) where you don't know who the PCs will be nor what skills and skill levels they will have. The vast majority (> 95%) of the scenarios I write are for a particular group of characters so in general I know their skill levels and, in general, I am likely to want them to get most of the information, hence I would be highly unlikely to have heroic level information tiers. Nor do the characters have many KNO or TEC skills in the 7D+ range so a heroic level tier would nearly always be wasted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I distinctly recall pointing out that I thought it was funny, but if you want to think I'm getting sensitive because of a word choice, that's on you |
It seemed from context that you meant funny = strange, not funny = ha, ha. And "still arguing" seemed a particularly confrontational choice of words for a rather mild discussion. Apparently I missed the humor you intended by your comment. Perhaps a strategically placed smiley might clarify your intent in future.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently. I thought the word funny was all that was needed.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | 1st.. thanks for liking how i tier info.. |
You are welcome.
| Quote: | | MOST modules i have stuff wrote for (like planetary systems etc), the list goes all the way till you are mid to late 30s. |
Interesting and very planful. That makes sense for a scenario (like one for Sparks) where you don't know who the PCs will be nor what skills and skill levels they will have. The vast majority (> 95%) of the scenarios I write are for a particular group of characters so in general I know their skill levels and, in general, I am likely to want them to get most of the information, hence I would be highly unlikely to have heroic level information tiers. Nor do the characters have many KNO or TEC skills in the 7D+ range so a heroic level tier would nearly always be wasted. |
I know in some of the published modules, their "info scales" did go up to the 28 region, and iirc one (game chambers) had 32+ as the high end. So there is precedent/.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: |
| atgxtg wrote: |
As far as the rest goes, the big problem is that the command bonuses don't stack. When you do a combined action, the guy who gets the bonus must be one of the guys being commanded. So the Captain can't give a bonus to the gunnery soldier who ends up taking the shot.
|
I have yet to see anything saying they can't. |
Take another look at the RAW. The combined bonus applies to the people you are commanding. Since the end gunner doesn't count as one of the people being commanded, he is not eligible for the bonus. And yes it works that way, sine you get to use the highest skill code among those being commanded for the task.
| crmcneill wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | Well, for starter's there is no law of averages, but... |
Maybe not officially, but if you roll a 2D, the roll you are most likely to come up with is a 7 |
Yes, but that isn't the "law of averages". The 7 is the standard deviation, or "average" result. The term "law of averages" refers to the idea that good and bad results will "average out" over time. It isn't true, and has an entirely differernt meaning that what you are trying to use it for.
If you mean that on average most of the commanders would make thier skill roll, then yes, that is correct, but that isn't the "law of averages".
Additionally, you really do need to factor in for the effect of "multiple stages" Even if the commanders each have a 90% probability of success, the cumulative effect of going down the chain means that after 5 commanders, then is only a 59% of every commander making his roll.
| Quote: | | Garhkal, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure what he meant by Law of Averages is that, when rolling multiple dice, the odds are in favor of rolling an "average" number. |
That might be what Garhal meant, but it wasn't what the phase means. It is like using the term astrology instead of astronomy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
