So a character with a STR of 4, who makes his roll, is really just opening a hatch that wasn't really stuck.
If a player makes a 4- roll on 3D, I'd say that the character got lucky.
Also, remember, in Classic Traveller, a STR 2 isn't an invalid. There are soldiers in CT with STR 2, straight out of the Veterans supplement.
STR 2 is Jeremy Davies in his role in Saving Private Ryan.
I'm curious what alien means in this situation to the characters? And how did they decide about the biomechanical stuff?
Doesn't matter. It's part of the question, giving the GM facts and setting up the situation.
If the "table" is vital to the characters, the player would attempt an 8+ roll using 2D6 + INT modifier + social science or mechanic skill (whichever is higher) + a difficulty of 0 because I'm a nice ref. -3 for attempting a skill he doesn't have, of course (like engineering maybe). And no use of EDU in this case since you said it was alien technology which was probably not taught in any school. Then I describe the object to him depending on the effect (his total roll - 8). So maybe it is unknown from looking at it? Maybe it is a sink (a hole is discovered)? Maybe it is a lab bowl for cutting things in?
If the player knows about the INT modifier and whatever skill you decide to use, then you've given the player meta-game info about the object.
On the surface, that's not bad. But, if the players are having a lot of fun with the mystery and the discovery, you've just shot yourself in the foot.
I always have at least two ways out of any situation before players even get near one.
Interesting. I rarely figure "outs" of a situation. I just set up challenges and play against whatever the players happen to come up with.
If what they come up with is reasonable, I let it work.
OK...but that's what we're talking about in this thread. That, and T5, once it can be talked about.
But if a player doesn't understand what all of his skills/stats mean on his character sheet, I'll remind him.
Why wouldn't you? I'd do the same thing. I don't see the point of this.
If a player makes a roll, and does not even know what he was rolling for, then I guess the character is role-played as a lucky guy all the time who has no idea why things just seem to work around him simply by banging on them.
Never made a roll to see if a character notices something?
For example, a PC walks into a cave where a spider-analog is camped out in the darkness above the opening. As GM, you want to spring this beastie on the PCs at the appropriate dramatic time, having it drop from the roof of the cave onto them.
But, you're a fair GM, so you want to give the PC a diced chance to notice the creature. At the same time, you don't want to make the player suspicious if the character doesn't happen to look up.
Unless the player specifically describes looking up a the dark ceiling and pointing the lamp, the only chance the PC has of discovering the spider before it attacks is by the throw.
Secret throws, or players throws where they know not what they're rolling for, are another tool the GM keeps in his toolbox.
Using it sparingly can be highly suspenseful.
I'm not advocating that mystery is used on each and every throw. I'm just saying it's one tool removed from the GM's tool box with the T4 system.
A good GM, I believe, will have ebb and flow in his game. Sometimes, the visit to the merchant is roleplayed. But, at other times, if the bargaining is getting old and not very fun, the GM should just result to a Bargain throw and be done with it, then move on.
A good GM needs to keep his finger on the pulse of the game. Roleplaying trumps dicing, but dicing certainly has its place. Like a good movie, the scenes cut from one focus to another, sometimes showing detail, and sometimes skipping a lot of detail assumed to be done in between scenes.
The same goes for combat. I'll mix it up with description (usually, a lot of that) and just dice throws, depending on interest and the flow of the game.
I don't like it when a tool is taken away from me, though, as it is with the T4 task system. That hampers where the movie in our collective heads can cut to.
Overused, it destroys trust and raises feelings of railroading and puppetmastering by the GM.
"Railroading" gets a bad wrap. It, too, can be a good GM tool, very effective, and very fun, when used appropriately.*
Especially when the GM knows the game will be no fun if the action flows in an unexpected direction.
I say that as a GM who actually enjoys the tangents that players come up with. Part of the fun of the game for me is being intrigued and following the right turns that Players can influence in the plot.
*An example of "good" railroading? Usually, a player has a hand in it's creation. Let's say, as the game develops, that a NPC family member is created for whatever reason. The GM sees that the player really likes this NPC, and he roleplays his character accordigly.
As a "pull" into the next adventure the GM is setting up, he has the bad guys kidnap the NPC. Now, the player and the PC have a vested interest in going after the NPC to save him. There's really no other choice. If somebody kidnaps your wife or your brother or your daughter, then you go after them--try to save them.
This is a railroad. But, it's a good railroad. The players are interested, and there's true emotion invested into the plot of the next adventure.