Alt: Take Seven, Autofail Two

[SpaceBadger]

Here are a couple of alternate rule ideas I am considering importing from Pathfinder to our sorta-CT game:

Take Seven: In both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, if a character is making a skill roll and is not threatened and not rushed, he can declare that he is "taking ten" or in other words an average roll, then not actually roll the dice. If a roll of 10 modified by skill and circumstances would be a success, then the skill attempt is a success. I think this is handy for routine tasks when not in combat or rushed in any way. If importing this rule to CT, I suppose it would be "take seven" - if a roll of 7 with applicable DMs would be a success, then there is no actual roll and the task is successful.

Autofail Two: Similarly, under many circumstances when a skill is being used under pressure and in a hurry, such as in combat, I think that even a very skilled character has some chance to fail. In CT, this would be on a roll of natural two, snake-eyes. The degree of failure would depend on the amount of skill the character had and the circumstances of the roll, and would be pretty much a GM call - maybe just a delay and re-roll required, but in any case it would not be a success on the task.

I know that many of y'all have more experience than me at actually playing Traveller, so I'd like some feedback on these ideas.

 

[Leitz]

Autofail two is not a bad idea unless you implement "Critical Failure" charts. Anyone doing a little math would see that historically, there are a lot of snake eyes rolled in real life but few of them wind up 'break weapon" or "shoot teammate for maximum damage".

As for "Take 7", I don't mind. Personally I try to avoid rolling unless there's time or some other pressure. If you want to succeed you take as much time as it takes.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Autofail two is not a bad idea unless you implement "Critical Failure" charts. Anyone doing a little math would see that historically, there are a lot of snake eyes rolled in real life but few of them wind up 'break weapon" or "shoot teammate for maximum damage".

Oh, yeah, agree 100%. That is why I prefer to call it autofail rather than fumble or critical fail or something that suggests a really bad result rather than just not succeeding. A lot of the fumble or failure charts I've seen for fantasy games (including a few I made myself in younger days ) are just plain silly. Trained warriors losing their weapons or hitting an ally on 5% of their attacks? Really?

Current autofail chart in our Pathfinder game most of the time results in just that, you failed your skill check or missed your attack. Sometimes it will mean you goofed something up that makes your failure worse, such as getting out of position so that you lose your next action or enemy gets plus on attacking you. Very rarely is it something really bad like losing your weapon or hitting an ally! Fumbles are probably still more common that real life would suggest, but it's a game.

I'm suggesting that for Traveller I wouldn't even use a chart, just consider it a failure and look at the character's skill and the difficulty and hazard of what was being attempted to see how bad the result was. For example, characters attempting a no-safety-line EVA jump from one ship to another under some stressful condition, maybe being shot at. The guy with VaccSuit-0 who fails might spin off into space and need to be rescued (or die). The guy with VaccSuit-1 might miss the target ship, but get himself under control w suit-jets and get back to it without real danger. The guy with VaccSuit-2 probably wouldn't err so badly, just miss his jump and grab some other part of the target ship and need to crawl to where he wanted to be. And so on.

 

[aramis]

I object to take X on the grounds that, if it's important enough to call for dice, it's too important to dismiss in the first place.

Autofail two less a problem, as is autosuccess on 12, but both are better solved by the use of open ending rather than direct auto-___. Reroll at ±4 is cumbersome due to the reroll but works well.

 

[Whipsnade]

I know that many of y'all have more experience than me at actually playing Traveller, so I'd like some feedback on these ideas.

I agree with Wil regarding the Take Seven idea. If whatever is occurring is important enough to call for a roll of the dice, then dice should be rolled. That routine task you describe as not rushed, not opposed, not uncertain, not involved in combat, etc. shouldn't be one that requires dice.

Players and GMs roll the dice far too often these days reducing roleplaying to rollplaying. It's sadly telling that D&D3.5/Pathfinder introduced Take Ten rather than informing people they're rolling the dice in situations that don't really require it.

Your Autofail idea is a good one as long as there is a chance of the failure having consequences beyond that of merely failing at the attempt. As you note, "fumble" charts themselves usually fail because one size does not fit all. Guidelines and a little thinking on the part of the GM are preferable to charts anyway. IIRC, BITS task system includes such guidelines.

 

[McPerth]

Autofail two less a problem, as is autosuccess on 12, but both are better solved by the use of open ending rather than direct auto-___. Reroll at ±4 is cumbersome due to the reroll but works well.

I like the idea of open-ended rolls. Taking the idea from rolemaster (or MERP), I's use them by allowing, when a natural 12 is rolled, to add 1d6 more to the result, and keeping rolling and adding as long as result of this die is 6.

On an eyes result, this same 1d6 (and keeping rolling as long as you roll 6) will be subtracted from the result.

This will allow a chance to have success (or failure) out of sheer (or rotten) luck regardless the modifiers.

Just some thoughts...

 

[aramis]

I like the idea of open-ended rolls. Taking the idea from rolemaster (or MERP),

Same source I got the idea from...

I'll note that the problem with ±1d6 on 2d6 is that the flat spots are too wide for my tastes.