Simple Task System

[mike wightman]

The only trouble we got into with the DGP/MT task system was that it was too easy to achieve at least one level of exceptional success.

 

[mike wightman]

The only trouble we got into with the DGP/MT task system was that it was too easy to achieve at least one level of exceptional success.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Let us assume that we went with MT's theme of keeping stat impact to a max of 3 points positive (that's about right in weighting raw talent to skills IMO), but instead used (stat - 7)/3 as the actual formula.

"And lo, it was good."

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Let us assume that we went with MT's theme of keeping stat impact to a max of 3 points positive (that's about right in weighting raw talent to skills IMO), but instead used (stat - 7)/3 as the actual formula.

"And lo, it was good."

 

[Pickles]

Kaladorn: Adopted wholesale into house rules. However, The chance for success at 'average' tasks might be a bit low - I propose

Very Easy automatic*
Easy 3+
Average 6+
Difficult 9+
Very Difficult 12+
Formidable 15+
Herculean 18+
Impossible no way hose even with 6,6

*with a roll of 1,1 always failing and 6,6 always succeeding (can you tell I play D20?)

FC Solitude: "To compose an epic poem about ducks, while naked on the surface of the sun: Impossible." Agreed, as well as undesirable. Runequest is fading out of consciousness fast enough without further references to ducks.

Takei: I also like DCs - in most 'handle' systems I've played, the handles soon get dropped when people get used to the numbers.

It's a wrap! What's next on the CT+ to do list?

 

[Pickles]

Kaladorn: Adopted wholesale into house rules. However, The chance for success at 'average' tasks might be a bit low - I propose

Very Easy automatic*
Easy 3+
Average 6+
Difficult 9+
Very Difficult 12+
Formidable 15+
Herculean 18+
Impossible no way hose even with 6,6

*with a roll of 1,1 always failing and 6,6 always succeeding (can you tell I play D20?)

FC Solitude: "To compose an epic poem about ducks, while naked on the surface of the sun: Impossible." Agreed, as well as undesirable. Runequest is fading out of consciousness fast enough without further references to ducks.

Takei: I also like DCs - in most 'handle' systems I've played, the handles soon get dropped when people get used to the numbers.

It's a wrap! What's next on the CT+ to do list?

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Kaladorn: Adopted wholesale into house rules. However, The chance for success at 'average' tasks might be a bit low - I propose

Very Easy automatic*
Easy 3+
Average 6+
Difficult 9+
Very Difficult 12+
Formidable 15+
Herculean 18+
Impossible no way hose even with 6,6

*with a roll of 1,1 always failing and 6,6 always succeeding (can you tell I play D20?)

<snip>

It's a wrap! What's next on the CT+ to do list?

Almost a wrap

The reason I prefer the 4, 6, 8, 10, 12+ approach is that it follows Striker's steps of 2, but also allows you to drop to 4, 8, 12+ for less granularity.

Also liking the d20 system mechanics I'd propose we introduce Take 7 and Take 12. Partly because I like the idea behind it, and partly to bait the d20 haters

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Kaladorn: Adopted wholesale into house rules. However, The chance for success at 'average' tasks might be a bit low - I propose

Very Easy automatic*
Easy 3+
Average 6+
Difficult 9+
Very Difficult 12+
Formidable 15+
Herculean 18+
Impossible no way hose even with 6,6

*with a roll of 1,1 always failing and 6,6 always succeeding (can you tell I play D20?)

<snip>

It's a wrap! What's next on the CT+ to do list?

Almost a wrap

The reason I prefer the 4, 6, 8, 10, 12+ approach is that it follows Striker's steps of 2, but also allows you to drop to 4, 8, 12+ for less granularity.

Also liking the d20 system mechanics I'd propose we introduce Take 7 and Take 12. Partly because I like the idea behind it, and partly to bait the d20 haters

 

[kaladorn]

My reason for picking 3 vs. 2 was this:
1. I need more than 3/7/11/15 as granularity. But do I need 2/4/6/8/10/12/14/16?
2. Exceptional success could (similar to what I suggest on failure) by tagged to how much you beat your roll by.

0-+1 Just made it
+2-+3 Slight Ex Success
+5-+6 Minor Ex Success
+6-+7 Moderate Ex Success
+8-+9 Major Ex Success
+10 or more Tremendous Ex Success

If you don't link *huge* advantages to each level of success and realise that a slight exceptional success is mostly cosmetically better, as you hit minor you get a moderate gain, moderate is a notable gain, and major is a serious gain and tremendous is an amazing gain, then you can sort of see that until you get at least your target number +4, you won't start seeing noteworthy effects.

I'd restrict combat benefits from occuring at the most minor level of exceptional success or similarly the most minor level of failure.

3. I avoided splitting stats by 2 (in case anyone was wondering) because then (stat - 7)/2 tends to not break down evenly around 7 (with 3, it gives a zero mod at 6, 7 and 8, but if you only had brackets by 2, you'd have to decide if 8 or 6 was getting a change...).

6+ does make for a better target number if your mod is going to be 1 for skill and 0 for stat. I'll agree with that criticism. And I could handle 2/4/6/8/etc. but naming them for a task description by name (vs by a DC/TD/TN whatever) gets tough. Certainly it is workable. I'm not too worried about being striker compatible

but it couldn't hurt for CT+.

 

[kaladorn]

My reason for picking 3 vs. 2 was this:
1. I need more than 3/7/11/15 as granularity. But do I need 2/4/6/8/10/12/14/16?
2. Exceptional success could (similar to what I suggest on failure) by tagged to how much you beat your roll by.

0-+1 Just made it
+2-+3 Slight Ex Success
+5-+6 Minor Ex Success
+6-+7 Moderate Ex Success
+8-+9 Major Ex Success
+10 or more Tremendous Ex Success

If you don't link *huge* advantages to each level of success and realise that a slight exceptional success is mostly cosmetically better, as you hit minor you get a moderate gain, moderate is a notable gain, and major is a serious gain and tremendous is an amazing gain, then you can sort of see that until you get at least your target number +4, you won't start seeing noteworthy effects.

I'd restrict combat benefits from occuring at the most minor level of exceptional success or similarly the most minor level of failure.

3. I avoided splitting stats by 2 (in case anyone was wondering) because then (stat - 7)/2 tends to not break down evenly around 7 (with 3, it gives a zero mod at 6, 7 and 8, but if you only had brackets by 2, you'd have to decide if 8 or 6 was getting a change...).

6+ does make for a better target number if your mod is going to be 1 for skill and 0 for stat. I'll agree with that criticism. And I could handle 2/4/6/8/etc. but naming them for a task description by name (vs by a DC/TD/TN whatever) gets tough. Certainly it is workable. I'm not too worried about being striker compatible

but it couldn't hurt for CT+.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Takei:
Also liking the d20 system mechanics I'd propose we introduce Take 7 and Take 12. Partly because I like the idea behind it, and partly to bait the d20 haters

Seconded. On both counts. But maybe a Take 6 and Take 12?

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Takei:
Also liking the d20 system mechanics I'd propose we introduce Take 7 and Take 12. Partly because I like the idea behind it, and partly to bait the d20 haters

Seconded. On both counts. But maybe a Take 6 and Take 12?

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
And I could handle 2/4/6/8/etc. but naming them for a task description by name (vs by a DC/TD/TN whatever) gets tough. Certainly it is workable. I'm not too worried about being striker compatible

but it couldn't hurt for CT+.

I don't tend to to work with task difficulty names so 4/6/8/10/12 works fine for me. Likewise with levels of success - I just tend to not use it as it adds another step in task resolution. I tend to run it as follows;
"Roll a DC 10 Pilot check."
"Woo hoo! 14!"
"You made it."
"But I rolled a double 6!?"
"You made and it looked REALLY good!"

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
And I could handle 2/4/6/8/etc. but naming them for a task description by name (vs by a DC/TD/TN whatever) gets tough. Certainly it is workable. I'm not too worried about being striker compatible

but it couldn't hurt for CT+.

I don't tend to to work with task difficulty names so 4/6/8/10/12 works fine for me. Likewise with levels of success - I just tend to not use it as it adds another step in task resolution. I tend to run it as follows;
"Roll a DC 10 Pilot check."
"Woo hoo! 14!"
"You made it."
"But I rolled a double 6!?"
"You made and it looked REALLY good!"

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Seconded. On both counts. But maybe a Take 6 and Take 12?

I was thinking of Take 7 as it's the average roll, but Take 6 works as it's half of 12. Hmmm. Take 7 does allow someone with a skill of 1 to make an 8+ check...... More pondering needed on that point I think.

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Seconded. On both counts. But maybe a Take 6 and Take 12?

I was thinking of Take 7 as it's the average roll, but Take 6 works as it's half of 12. Hmmm. Take 7 does allow someone with a skill of 1 to make an 8+ check...... More pondering needed on that point I think.

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Takei:

Also liking the d20 system mechanics I'd propose we introduce Take 7 and Take 12. Partly because I like the idea behind it, and partly to bait the d20 haters

The designers introduced the take 10/20 mechanic in d20 to fix the problem with the d20 flat distribution. I see little advantage in using it in a 2d6 game.

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Takei:

Also liking the d20 system mechanics I'd propose we introduce Take 7 and Take 12. Partly because I like the idea behind it, and partly to bait the d20 haters

The designers introduced the take 10/20 mechanic in d20 to fix the problem with the d20 flat distribution. I see little advantage in using it in a 2d6 game.

 

[kaladorn]

Hmmm, I thought take 10 was there to just give you an average result *without a roll*. In that respect, you can still use it in a 2d6 game. Besides, the bell isn't that steep on 2d6.

 

[kaladorn]

Hmmm, I thought take 10 was there to just give you an average result *without a roll*. In that respect, you can still use it in a 2d6 game. Besides, the bell isn't that steep on 2d6.