CT Only: Low Passage and You!

[Supplement Four]

Basically if you are in a situation where a characteristic roll is required - roll 2d and get less than or equal to your stat. If you want to make it more difficult add a DM.

Easy tasks may sum two characteristics.

I mention this in Rule 68A, just FYI, Byte.

 

[BytePro]

Thanks guys!

Never used roll under mechanics, though did experiment with target values = 15 minus stat. However, mostly use target value and an ad-hoc DM based on stat(s). Seems more natural for me.

Rule 68A is cool, S4, but I know the odds, so no need to restrict target ranges or think 68A +/-1.

 

[Supplement Four]

Rule 68A is cool, S4, but I know the odds, so no need to restrict target ranges or think 68A +/-1.

I was saying that the 2D or 3D roll under stat mechanic is mentioned in the Rule 68A OP.

And, I never meant 68A to be used all the time. I didn't mean for it to be a task system--just another method of making throws in CT. That's why I included the "Anything Goes" section of the Rule 68A OP.

Besides that, I thought you said earlier that you loved 68A and used it a lot in your games???

 

[Vladika]

I like Rule 68A. If you can't remember exactly what to do you can wing it and keep the game tempo going.

 

[aramis]

Mind expanding on what 'characteristic rolls' are? (Never had The Traveller Adventure, that I recall.)

Roll the specified attribute or less on Xd6. Common in a number of CT adventures.

Which also shows that the Xd6 roll low task system was not an innovation for T4... still, it's not the "default" but is used in a number of actions in CT.

 

[BytePro]

... thought you said earlier that you loved 68A and used it a lot in your games???

Sorry - never used it myself!

I consider it a good looking system/rule - but I'm very comfortable with all the odds, so target values come very easily and I don't need a system.

Generally, I just give Players the full adjusted target. Ex: '7 plus for Roland to move the boulder with his crowbar and strength' - DMs built in and I have a simplified odds chart propped in plain site for them. Saves 'Roll 12 plus with a plus 1 for strength and a plus 4 for the crowbar', which would require the Players to do more work to figure their odds and gauge their success. At least one player per group always has a hard time adding, and this approach also de-emphasizes the mechanics. We all know the odds for success (21 in 36 or 58 1/3% - simplified as 60% on my simple chart for the Players).

[My players know the typical DMs I use - and can always ask, not to mention correct me. Doesn't mean DMs are always the same. Like if the crowbar above was on a slick improvised fulcrum.]

 

[BytePro]

Roll the specified attribute or less on Xd6. Common in a number of CT adventures.

Which also shows that the Xd6 roll low task system was not an innovation for T4... still, it's not the "default" but is used in a number of actions in CT.

Can see the appeal of roll under and the ease of simply changing the X, but, especially mixing with roll over, I can see at least one player in my groups always having difficulty getting it.

 

[McPerth]

Which also shows that the Xd6 roll low task system was not an innovation for T4... still, it's not the "default" but is used in a number of actions in CT.

Sure, but used mostly when no skill was used, not as the regular use of skills.

 

[Supplement Four]

Sorry - never used it myself!

Ah, I could have sworn that you thanked me for writing it. Oh well. I must be confusing you with someone else.

I have a simplified odds chart propped in plain site for them.

I consider this a BIG no-no. Why? I never want my players thinking about dice and odds. I want them in the game, thinking and feeling what their characters are experiencing. I want them living the game through the eyes of their alter egos.

If a player can figure his own odds in his head, fine. But, D6 dice make it hard to figure some odds, and I sure don't want my players looking at a chart to consider his chances.

I did suggest a chart/odds section for Book 9, but that's meant for the GM, not the player.

Saves 'Roll 12 plus with a plus 1 for strength and a plus 4 for the crowbar', which would require the Players to do more work to figure their odds and gauge their success.

You seem to have a House System where you roll the same type of roll for same types of things. Very consistent.

Not me. When I run CT, I just go with my gut. I come up with a throw on the spot, and we keep on truckin'. A similar situation may come up in the game later, and I may go with a similar type or roll. Or, I may be inspired to call for a different type of roll all together.

I go where the situation and my gut leads me.

Can see the appeal of roll under and the ease of simply changing the X, but, especially mixing with roll over, I can see at least one player in my groups always having difficulty getting it.

Anything goes in my game. Roll 2D for over. Roll 3D for under. Roll 1D and add entire stat.

I'll come up with stuff like this:

Jim is out of ammo, and Fred is tossing him his extra autopistol.

Fred rolls DEX or less on 2D to make the toss. Jim rolls 2D or better, using Fred's total as a target number. Jim gets +1 DM if DEX 9+, +2 DM if DEX 11+.

The logic here: The lower Fred's roll, the better his toss. If he rolls over his DEX, then Jim has no chance of catching the wild throw.

Then, we use Fred's number as the difficulty for Jim's roll to catch. This is a standard CT check, where Jim is rolling 2D for a target number or better, getting DMs based on his DEX.

Roll low and roll high used in the same combination task.

 

[atpollard]

I'll come up with stuff like this:

Jim is out of ammo, and Fred is tossing him his extra autopistol.

Fred rolls DEX or less on 2D to make the toss. Jim rolls 2D or better, using Fred's total as a target number. Jim gets +1 DM if DEX 9+, +2 DM if DEX 11+.

The logic here: The lower Fred's roll, the better his toss. If he rolls over his DEX, then Jim has no chance of catching the wild throw.

Then, we use Fred's number as the difficulty for Jim's roll to catch. This is a standard CT check, where Jim is rolling 2D for a target number or better, getting DMs based on his DEX.

Roll low and roll high used in the same combination task.

Now I feel inadequate, I'd just have them flip a coin - heads he catches the throw and tales he misses.

 

[PFVA63]

...
I'll come up with stuff like this:

Jim is out of ammo, and Fred is tossing him his extra autopistol.

Fred rolls DEX or less on 2D to make the toss. Jim rolls 2D or better, using Fred's total as a target number. Jim gets +1 DM if DEX 9+, +2 DM if DEX 11+.

The logic here: The lower Fred's roll, the better his toss. If he rolls over his DEX, then Jim has no chance of catching the wild throw.

Then, we use Fred's number as the difficulty for Jim's roll to catch. This is a standard CT check, where Jim is rolling 2D for a target number or better, getting DMs based on his DEX.

Roll low and roll high used in the same combination task.

Hi,

I guess one problem I've always had with some stuff like this is deciding what's important and what's not. For example, at the risk of sounding a bit dumb, in the example above, why only consider DEX? Couldn't STR also play a role (especially considering distance and/or weight of the object tossed)?

In addition to this though I'm also left a bit wondering if other skills might not also come to play, especially if they might be skills where a player might have honed his/her "reaction" abilities (like maybe fencing or brawling etc).

 

[Supplement Four]

Why not consider STR? I think this is the purview of Dexterity. I don't think a person's strength would influence the roll too much. And, I don't think the system is granular enough to consider it.

That's just me. The GM is god in CT. In your game, maybe STR is more important than DEX when tossing an autopistol to a friend.

I'd definitely only use one, though. You don't want to place too many modifiers on this system.

I'd entertain a good argument for a skill to help out, if a player made a case. I prolly wouldn't give a +1 DM per skill level, though. If the skill would influence the throw, then I might say a +1 DM if Skill-2.

 

[SanDragon]

Overhand throw = Str + Dex

Underhand = Dex



My humble opinion? Dexterity is more relevant here as a magazine is, generally, lightweight and the finer points of manipulation are the variables in question in tossing a magazine to an ally.

 

[BlackBat242]

Unless Jim and Fred are on opposite sides of the courtyard.

 

[Shonner]

Over the decades, I have used Classic Traveller's low berth idea. I've only used 1D6 for the survival roll. A roll of 1 or 2 is death. +1 DM if a medic is there. +1 DM if an engineer is there. +1 DM if a mechanic is there. -1 DM if no one is onboard.

 

[BytePro]

...
If a player can figure his own odds in his head, fine. But, D6 dice make it hard to figure some odds, and I sure don't want my players looking at a chart to consider his chances.

My games are highly roleplay centric - I hardly see how looking at the chart to know their chances after they are committed to the roll has any kind of negative impact on that!

It also helps inform why the dice and lady luck were 'so cruel to them'. When people can actually see that a DM may only mean every X dice they are more likely to succeed, they get a better feel for what things mean ingame - such as why their efforts failed (ala - the odds where long once they started pushing on that rock). This type of metagame information is useful to the roleplay - my Players know how to gauge things better ingame from their PC's perspective - just as actors are informed by more than just their lines in order to better set the tone and emotions of their characters.

In that vein, I will also proactively when prudent, and when asked, give my impression of what their PC might 'think' are their odds of a task. Whether that answer just amounts to 'no idea' or how close to the roll chances will be depends on a lot of factors related to what their PC would 'know'.

Players also don't get false preconceptions of a small modifier making 'huge' changes in what they should expect for their rolls.

You seem to have a House System where you roll the same type of roll for same types of things. Very consistent.

Not really a house system at all - largely just LBB1-3 style from the rules as written. Which, with very few exceptions, is 'roll over target value with DMs'.

I keep it simple so I can go with my gut on the odds. It also doesn't give my Players cause to have to think more about the dice and the mechanics that get thrown at them. Cutesy dice mechanics aren't for me - I think they put too much focus on the metagame and often 'simulation' rather than play.

Seriously, you just went from 'I consider this a BIG no-no. Why? I never want my players thinking about dice and odds.' to throwing out adhoc number of dice, roll under and roll over, roll based targets and two rolls for one action roll mechanics?

I'd definitely only use one, though. You don't want to place too many modifiers on this system.

I'd entertain a good argument for a skill to help out, if a player made a case.

I factor in numerous aspects - circumstances, skill, stats, career and pre/in play background. Just not as separately compounded DMs.

This is the difference between structured and unstructured roll mechanics. I'm looking at what I expect to be the odds - not letting some simple predefined numbers stackup and determine the odds, often absurdly.

Not only do I not blindly add DMs together, DMs can vary based on the situation. Example: Again using a crowbar - but this time to pry apart something stuck together (with glue, bolts, what have you)... in lower gravity the DM might be lower to reflect that the reduced counter force of the lowered weight of the prying person.

Sure, I could do this with a situational modifier added to the check, but then the situational modifier is actually specific to the method of using the crowbar, not the base situation - so it would change when another PC tries without a crowbar. And, a generic situation modifier, like in MgT, is often in increments of 2 (due to things explained earlier in this thread ), but I may only want to lower the crowbar DM by one because the gravity isn't that low. And by simply situationally setting the crowbar DM, I am avoiding thinking about the extra math and tracking mentally two DMs where I really only need one.

I also avoid the Player specifically thinking about odds and mechanics - like, 'hey I get a +4 for Crowbar and +1 for Strength'. Instead they think more like their PC - the crowbar should give me some good advantage, and I'm stronger than Joe... without explicitly quantifying it.

 

[Shonner]

Why not consider STR? I think this is the purview of Dexterity.

Power or precision? Throwing a gun at someone is a different act than tossing a gun to them.

 

[atpollard]

Over the decades, I have used Classic Traveller's low berth idea. I've only used 1D6 for the survival roll. A roll of 1 or 2 is death. +1 DM if a medic is there. +1 DM if an engineer is there. +1 DM if a mechanic is there. -1 DM if no one is onboard.

So 50% mortality for unattended revival ... ouch ... but perfectly safe with proper staffing.

The only part that I would question is the ability of an engineer and mechanic to revive a corpse with no medic oversight and no chance of something going wrong.
It would seem like +1 for a medic and +1 for an engineer or mechanic would be 'better' (a very subjective term).

 

[Shonner]

Not really "unattended revival". More like there's no crew onboard. You're the only passenger on a derelict ship.

The engineer and mechanic can keep an eye on bad environ/configs/hardware/electrical while your sleeping. Medics can look at vitals. But if you die still, that's it for you.

These are old berth units. And the ship is probably trafficking people. It's a last resort if your character is travelling this way. He could be escaping a terrible world. Maybe doesn't want to be found where he's going.

 

[Supplement Four]

My games are highly roleplay centric - I hardly see how looking at the chart to know their chances after they are committed to the roll has any kind of negative impact on that!

I wasn't dissing your game--only explaining why I would never use one. To each his own.

I'm not sure how your players only consider the chart after they've committed to a roll, though, when you said it was out for everyone to see.

Heck, I roll as many checks behind the screen as I can. I really don't like a focus on dice. Roleplaying is where it's at.

I roll behind the screen because I want my players thinking about results and living events as their characters experience them. This doesn't always quite happen when a player sees the result of a throw.

For example, if the character is danger of falling over a cliff and dying in a lava pit, I probably won't tell the player the target. He'll roll his own dice (because players love that), but he won't know he's successful or not until I describe the situation.

The drama is gone as soon as he knows his character isn't falling. I try to make the most out of these situations through my description of what the character can see/feel/hear/touch.

Seriously, you just went from 'I consider this a BIG no-no. Why? I never want my players thinking about dice and odds.' to throwing out adhoc number of dice, roll under and roll over, roll based targets and two rolls for one action roll mechanics?

I'd argue it's a two roll mechanic. Ever tried to catch a baseball by someone who can't throw? That's a task.

And, catching the thrown item is a task.

Two tasks.

I was just showing how I'd call for a check if two players tossed each other an autopistol.

If one were an NPC, I'd do the roll behind the screen and not tell the player what his target was. I'd describe the throw. "It's a little wide, but you should be able to catch it."

Figuring exact odds in my game really isn't that easy, from the Player's point of view.