Retclone critical situation throw

[mike wightman]

As I posted in the skills thread, my thinking is that skills are more than just 'skills' - they are a measure of training, experience, and yes, skill. They should be broad and applicable in many situations, not just the situation the skill name suggests.

Nor do I think you should be using skills as 'tasks' - players should role play and the referee and players only turn to the dice to resolve a critical situation.
In a critical situation the player or referee could find an unexpected reason why a particular skill could affect the outcome.

To that end there is no task system, rather there should be a referee's guide to resolving a critical situation involving a throw of the dice.

The referee should decide on the target number - but should be armed with the % chance of success table, i.e. the referee should be aware of the odds.

The DMs should be a result of negotiation and the player's roleplaying.

This sums it up:

2D6 +/- DM ≥ Throw Value equals success

which is a quote from creativehum/CK

Saving throw system.
In uncertain critical situations the referee may call for the player to make a saving throw in order to overcome the adversity.
The throw is made on 2d, with DMs based on skill, characteristics, prior experience, environmental circumstances, and any specialist tools needed for the throw.
It is for the referee to decide on the target number for the throw to be equalled or exceeded, and the exact value of any DM (whether it is beneficial or a hindrance) from the above factors. The referee may alternatively decide that a successful outcome occurs if the throw is less than or equal to the target.
In the following skill descriptions examples of saving throws and DMs are provided to guide a referee, but an experienced referee should be free to determine the saving throw target number and DM values to suit the particular circumstance.
<Insert skill descriptions and sample throws.>
Remember what followed the skills in CT?

Skills and the Referee: It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.

 

[Clone95]

To that end there is no task system, rather there should be a referee's guide to resolving a critical situation involving a throw of the dice.

The referee should decide on the target number - but should be armed with the % chance of success table, i.e. the referee should be aware of the odds.

The DMs should be a result of negotiation and the player's roleplaying.

Is this not what a task system is, or literally what any roleplaying game is?

 

[kilemall]

Ok, that's your view.

The original CT had all sorts of odd resolution rolls built in.

So if you go critical/roleplay and forego the odd rolls, that's fine, but IMO it shouldn't be labelled retclone, it would be it's own thing.

 

[aramis]

Ok, that's your view.

The original CT had all sorts of odd resolution rolls built in.

So if you go critical/roleplay and forego the odd rolls, that's fine, but IMO it shouldn't be labelled retclone, it would be it's own thing.

There's actually a better term for such things - Pseudoclone. Retroclone mindset, but making some significant changes.

 

[kilemall]

There's actually a better term for such things - Pseudoclone. Retroclone mindset, but making some significant changes.

Sounds fine to me, just not appropriate to make interpreted changes and then claim authenticity.

 

[aramis]

Sounds fine to me, just not appropriate to make interpreted changes and then claim authenticity.

I Fully agree. Tho judging from some of his posts, he's essentially attempting recreate what may have been his misinterpretations from his youth...

My read of it is "Trim the number of skills to the point where they function more like classes than skills"...

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

It's the old game system topic of skill rolls vs save rolls for tabletop adventure games.

 

[creativehum]

Ok, that's your view.

The original CT had all sorts of odd resolution rolls built in.

So if you go critical/roleplay and forego the odd rolls, that's fine, but IMO it shouldn't be labelled retclone, it would be it's own thing.

I'm confused. Are you saying the original rules weren't about using Throws for critical situations, with skills applied to Throws on a situational basis based off roleplayd detailed, using the Throws listed in the skill descriptions as examples?

 

[kilemall]

I'm confused. Are you saying the original rules weren't about using Throws for critical situations, with skills applied to Throws on a situational basis based off roleplayd detailed, using the Throws listed in the skill descriptions as examples?

I am not gainsaying the process of 'negotiated DMs' or the expressed avoidance of a task system such as what later versions or homebrews bolted on, especially later versions that tend to force Roll Playing. Both are opinions and perfectly valid approaches to reffing.

What I am saying is that if one is to qualify a version as truly retclone, then it should have all those quirky rolls, some of which certainly are skill/task sort of rolls and NOT just saving throws.

Else one is doing a CE version of a personal vision of what CT was/is- which is fine, I just don't think it deserves the title retclone.

 

[creativehum]

I am not gainsaying the process of 'negotiated DMs' or the expressed avoidance of a task system such as what later versions or homebrews bolted on, especially later versions that tend to force Roll Playing. Both are opinions and perfectly valid approaches to reffing.

What I am saying is that if one is to qualify a version as truly retclone, then it should have all those quirky rolls, some of which certainly are skill/task sort of rolls and NOT just saving throws.

Else one is doing a CE version of a personal vision of what CT was/is- which is fine, I just don't think it deserves the title retclone.

Cool.

I was asking because when I read the skill list in the 1977* edition of Book 1 I see that 13 of the 22 Throws** listed are defined by avoiding-things-going-wrong in one way or another. (I'm including things like Forgery and Gambling here, where failure to avoid detection by definition means something will go wrong, as well skills like Leadership in which failure can lead to things going wrong.) As for the other 9 without doubt the examples fall outside the need of crisis... but as a Referee I'm not sure why I would introduce rolls outside of a crisis.

I say this because as Book 1 states: "A newly generated character is singularly unequipped to deal with the adventuring world, having neither the expertise nor the experience necessary for the active life."

So I assume PCs are relatively accomplished and competent at one they do. If a PC has Admin-1 I'm probably not going to make the Player make a Throw simply because he's doing something that can tap Admin. Admin-1 means, in my view, he can handle most Admin situations that don't involve special circumstances. And generally, in my games at least, special circumstances involve some sort of crisis. (He is being observed; failure will lead to heavy-duty trouble from the authorities; and so on.) In other words, I am applying the logic of the 13 skill descriptions I mentioned above to most situations. Because for the most part I assume that if there is no pressure, given enough time and no stress, a PC can pretty much do what he was trained to do.

Finally, on p. 20 of Book 1 (1977) there is this passage:

Skills and the Referee: It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.

[ -- emphasis added]

The passage above was cut from every other edition from Basic Traveller. Which I think is a shame since it nails down (in my view at least) the philosophy and practice of play the original Classic Traveller rules depend on. With th text above one isn't looking for a unified task system because the game isn't lacking one. It's a loosey-goosey system for the Referee to make up significant rolls as reacquired. And, specifically, it says the skill descriptions are guides to be "followed, altered or ignored" per actual situations at the table -- not set in stone applications of the rules.

All of this is to say: None of this concretely supports or refutes how either you are I approach the text. But I think a good faith argument can be made, given the text above, that Mike is precisely approaching the game in its original intent and not at all redefining everything to some personal vision.

________
* I'm using the 1977 rules because we're tossing around the term "retro-clone" -- and as far as I'm concerned this is the edition one would want to clone if one is going retro.

** I am using the term Throw, which is the term used from Book 1.

 

[aramis]

The problem with the whole retroclone approach is that, thanks to the lack of precision, no two retrocloners are likely to see the same system from the same text.

See, I don't see those tasks as "avoid problems" as much as "enable solutions"...

In many of those rolls in CT, it's "If you Do X, either you solve problem Y or you make problem Z."

Gambling: X is cheat. Y is lack of cash, Z is another set of issues, either bouncers or cops or angry mob...

Putting on a vacc suit in a hurry solces the decompression issue; it doesn't make anything worse if you fail.

Dogfighting in small craft isn't avoiding problems, it's enabling a solution... literally a firing solution.

A success enables some condition change. A failure adds a different condition change.

Gambling: It's not "save vs detection" it's a measure of how well you hide your cheating.

 

[creativehum]

...no two retrocloners are likely to see the same system from the same text.

I don't see this as a problem. It is why D&D has many retro-clones. Each is built to answer different tastes and different needs.

I don't see those tasks as "avoid problems" as much as "enable solutions"...

Sure. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but obviously most Throws will be enabling solutions. You see it as one over the other. I'll see it as both.

But you and I simply go down different roads. Not an issue at all. We play at different tables.

Gambling: X is cheat. Y is lack of cash, Z is another set of issues, either bouncers or cops or angry mob...

If there is no risk for the gambler I won't make him roll if I'm the Referee. If he teaches poker to a grope of aborigines who have never played poker, and he's teaching them the game, and he can make it seem like it's a good idea for them to keep losing stuff to him he'll clean them out without a die roll.

If, however, there is a chance for failure with consequence, then he'll roll. I understand you would play differently.

Putting on a vacc suit in a hurry solves the decompression issue; it doesn't make anything worse if you fail.

I must be misunderstanding you here. Because I would assume suffocating is worse than not being safe in a vaccine suit. And I'd rule it that way if I were the Referee. But, again, I suspect I am not understanding you.

Dogfighting in small craft isn't avoiding problems, it's enabling a solution... literally a firing solution.

The roll is made in a critical situation. You might die if you don't do well fast enough. Hence rolls.

Gambling: It's not "save vs detection" it's a measure of how well you hide your cheating.

I see "save vs. detection" as being exactly the same thing as "hide your cheating" -- but with different words.

Mike reads the Book 1 rules with a focus on roleplaying till a role is required (a critical moment), with DMs based on the details of the situation at hand.

There's nothing in the Book 1 (1977) edition to contradict this. That it is open to other play styles does not contradict this either. But he's advocating for what he wants. People can either say "Yeah, I don't care. Not my thing." Or they can say, "Huh. Interesting." But they can't say, given the actual text of the book, that's its somehow a betrayal of what's in the game or some weird personal interpretation.

 

[creativehum]

I want to add: Mike hasn't using the term "Saving Throw" or Save. (Neither have I, by the way.)

The was introduced by kilemall. Mike has said "Critical Situation." There may be a difference for folks on this thread, there may not be. But I think the distinction should be made because Mike might not be saying what some people are answering to him having said.

 

[aramis]

I

I must be misunderstanding you here. Because I would assume suffocating is worse than not being safe in a vaccine suit. And I'd rule it that way if I were the Referee. But, again, I suspect I am not understanding you.

Failing the vacc suit roll is no worse than doing nothing at all.

 

[mike wightman]

Do you mean you die either way?

If you fail the roll - that's the 10+, you are now at risk of being killed.

the danger of minor mishaps becoming fatal remains great. A basic throw of 10+ to avoid a dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted while wearing a vacc suit (including running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, or other such activity). Allow a DM of +4 per level of expertise.

You then get to roll vs 7+ to rectify the situation or die (or be critically injured/drifting off into the void etc.)

When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vac suit skill (including the character in danger) on a throw of 7+; DMs: per level of expertise, +2; if no expertise, -4.

Make the first roll and you don't have the risk of death or injury. Fail it and you do.
Make the second roll and you are fine, you have rectified the situation, fail it and you are at risk of 'minor mishaps becoming fatal'.

 

[mike wightman]

CT event resolution is hidden away in the skill descriptions in LBB:1, the guide to "DIE-ROLLING CONVENTIONS" in A:1 Kinunir page 2, and the extended "Use of dice rolls" section in The Traveller Adventure pages 28 and 29 which includes the use of situation throws...

my retclone version based on CE is a re-write of the CE task system to more closely resemble the free form approach of CT - that's what make it a retclone.

Note, it has to be different to CT or it is a straight copy, which I would assume is a no no. Which is also the reason for adjusting the skill list so as not to directly copy CT.

I am guided by the last words in LBB:3

Above all, the players and the referees must work together. Care must be taken that the referee does not simply lay fortunes in the path of the players, but the situation is not primarily an adversary relationship. The referee simply administers the rules in situations where the players themselves have an incomplete understanding of the universe. The results should reflect a consistent reality.

 

[creativehum]

...and the extended "Use of dice rolls" section in The Traveller Adventure pages 28 and 29 which includes the use of situation throws...

Mike, I haven't read The Traveller Adventure for years. (Too rail-roady for my taste... even back when I bought it.) But I just read the passage you referred to and lo' and behold, there it is... exactly the kind of stuff I talk to people about when I talk about Traveller all the time. It's a terrific example and reference. Thank you.

 

[aramis]

CT event resolution is hidden away in the skill descriptions in LBB:1, the guide to "DIE-ROLLING CONVENTIONS" in A:1 Kinunir page 2, and the extended "Use of dice rolls" section in The Traveller Adventure pages 28 and 29 which includes the use of situation throws...

Noting that KB comes away from the same text with different approaches.

my retclone version based on CE is a re-write of the CE task system to more closely resemble the free form approach of CT - that's what make it a retclone.

No, pseudoclone. True Retroclones attempt to be the original, reworded to avoid copyright, so as to make new copies of the mechanics in print.

Only a few of the 'clones are truly retroclones - OSRIC being the best example. Bluehome being another (it's mechanically Blue D&D basic), but then it gets expanded to cover the same ground as Cook Expert, but pseudocloned to make it blue basic compatible, making it no longer truly a retroclone.

The real creativity is in the pseudoclone sphere. It's where the value add lies most of the time.

OSRIC and the other true retroclones are of value only in that the original is unavailable. Pseudoclones differences are their value-add.

Viva la difference!

 

[BytePro]

Yeah, pseudoclone fits.

... To that end there is no task system, rather there should be a referee's guide to resolving a critical situation involving a throw of the dice...

Sounds like a simple enough hack.

 

[mike wightman]

It is...

the trick is to give the referee all the tools in CT reskinned via CE.

For example a skill level in CT can be worth anything from +1 to +4 per skill level - the referee and player should be able to decide how important the skill level is to the throw.

Similarly a low or high characteristic may be worth anything from -1 to +2 but the actual value of a low or high characteristic is again up to the referee and player to decide on rather than having fixed characteristic ratings granting +/- DMs.

Tools may be -1 to +1 depending on if they are improvised or specialist.

It all sounds much more complicated than it actually is.