what skill/task system do you use, and why?
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
My own. Only roll dice for important stuff.
8+ for difficult stuff
12+ for really difficult
I found that tasks with a base difficulty less than 8 were not worth the bother rolling for.
I've also stolen the MgT boon/bane die mechanic because my players like it (I'm not too keen on it but hey ho)
8+ for difficult stuff
12+ for really difficult
I found that tasks with a base difficulty less than 8 were not worth the bother rolling for.
I've also stolen the MgT boon/bane die mechanic because my players like it (I'm not too keen on it but hey ho)
Since it was my quote in the OP, I use Rule 68A.
It is fast.
It is easy.
It let's me focus on play rater than those stupid modifier tables.
I can use it for all sorts of things that come up on the spur of the moment.
Here is one: I had people searching for a cure to a disease. A google search identified the process as
1. identify virus.
2. isolate antivirus
3. test.
4. mass produce vaccine.
So I decided that each step was easier 10, 8, 6, auto, but there was variability in how long it would take to achieve success. So the rolls were made, even for easy tasks, to see if some unforeseen event meant that it took longer than expected. When success far exceeded the required roll, I had the option to decide that something had gone unexpectedly well. The simple mechanic easily translated into narrative that drove and impacted the role-playing adventure.
The fact that every event is unique does not bother me, I see reality as too complex to model in detail anyway, so every event really is unique. It is a feature of Rule 68A and not a bug.
It is fast.
It is easy.
It let's me focus on play rater than those stupid modifier tables.
I can use it for all sorts of things that come up on the spur of the moment.
Here is one: I had people searching for a cure to a disease. A google search identified the process as
1. identify virus.
2. isolate antivirus
3. test.
4. mass produce vaccine.
So I decided that each step was easier 10, 8, 6, auto, but there was variability in how long it would take to achieve success. So the rolls were made, even for easy tasks, to see if some unforeseen event meant that it took longer than expected. When success far exceeded the required roll, I had the option to decide that something had gone unexpectedly well. The simple mechanic easily translated into narrative that drove and impacted the role-playing adventure.
The fact that every event is unique does not bother me, I see reality as too complex to model in detail anyway, so every event really is unique. It is a feature of Rule 68A and not a bug.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Characters get a few level 0 skills appropriate to their career, most have a few level 1 skills and a couple of level 2, levels 3+ are rare.
If I think a high characteristic will grant a +1 on a task they get it, similarly having specialist tools and/or taking a lot of time may be worth a +1. I never penalise a low characteristic.
Boon die is earned by good role playing of a situation, bane is earned if the universe is really out to get them.
I too only have broad weapon skills - brawling, small blade, long blade, polearm, bow, handgun, rifle, heavy weapon.
If I think a high characteristic will grant a +1 on a task they get it, similarly having specialist tools and/or taking a lot of time may be worth a +1. I never penalise a low characteristic.
Boon die is earned by good role playing of a situation, bane is earned if the universe is really out to get them.
I too only have broad weapon skills - brawling, small blade, long blade, polearm, bow, handgun, rifle, heavy weapon.
Currently running Mongoose 2ndEd so I use that system, which is very similar to 68A for resolution, but with a bunch of skill breakdowns and other mechanics not featured in the CT system. This works fine for my purposes - I'm more a story guy and less a mechanics guy.
It all comes down to which side of CT LBB4 you fall on. I play on the LBB 1-3 side where characters are intended to average somewhere close to 1 skill per 2 years. A 3 term character with 6 skill levels does not need to be distinguishing between whether he learned to use a semi-auto pistol or a revolver in those two years ... he had plenty of time to learn both. A Character on the other side of LBB4 who earns 8 skills in a lucky year and averages closer to two skills per year can afford a lot more skill granularity. Then my 3 term character with 24 skill levels can worry about whether he spent 6 months practicing with a revolver or a pistol.
I was never a big Lensmen fan (or wherever all the space pole-arms come from). In my opinion, if you spend 2 years (4000 to 8000 hours) working with and training with the SCA to use all different Medieval weapons, you should be able to learn minimum basic proficiency in bows, swords and pole-arms. Anything I loose in accuracy, is less than was already lost when the character decided to defend a starship with a halberd in the first place.
Remember that after LBB4, most people's 'gun skill' is 'Combat Rifleman', so the game was already moving away from one skill for each weapon.
I am generally not inclined towards attribute bonuses. If I wanted the fuss, I would probably set -1 for attributes <6 and +1 for attributes of 10+ (or +2 for 13+). I like 'swingy dice' so I hate things that bust the 2d6 curve ... like lots of stacked modifiers. A minor net advantage is worth +1 and a huge net advantage is worth +2. Same with disadvantages. Usually you can just look at a situation and know if it is an advantage or disadvantage.
I do not allow skills to be a limit. I tell players that the character can attempt and do just about anything. Skills are more like having a mini-prestige class in D&D. They represent an area of EXTRA expertise. Don't let not having a skill deter you attempting an action that you think is reasonable. "I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, so I will attempt heart surgery" is a bad idea. "I want to try to bribe the doorman" does not require bribery-0 skill.
So Driver-1 is not "I can drive a car", it is "I spent 2 years as a professional cab driver or driving trucks in a convoy" (based on where you learned the skill). This means that you can reasonably use Driver-1 to get a car running after someone shot your engine "I put some duct tape over the radiator hose and filled it with tap water. It should hold for a couple hours until a mechanic can do some real repair work on it". That is something you might have learned in 2 years of driving a truck in a convoy.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
That's been my problem with the skills, particularly after CT. Many are far too specialized. For example, if you know how to use a rifle-like weapon it really doesn't matter if it's black powder to a laser rifle. They all work the same. You aim them in the same manner and pull a trigger to fire them. The only difference would be in dealing with the particulars when they misfire, or need some specialized maintenance. Then a general skill might be -1 level. I doubt that taking apart a TL 9 ACR is much different than dealing with a TL 7 assault rifle, or even a TL 5 bolt action rifle.
So, if you were say level 2 in using long firearms, and had knowledge or prior instruction in the use of the particular one you are using you get the level 2. If you just picked up some weapon in this category without having prior experience in it, its -1 to your skills until you use it for a bit (like a couple of weeks at most). I could also see this needing adjustment if you are say, Human, and you just picked up a Hiver weapon. It is likely not going to work in a manner that is similar or familiar to your experience.
Many skills are that way. You have generalized experience in something and should have some corresponding skills in other areas related to that general experience. But, that gets complicated if you let it.
Giving out generalized skills would be easiest. If you as a ref wanted to add complexity, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a mandatory part of the game.
The same with resolution of tasks and activities. The baseline should be something that covers what's critical and important and the ref and players can add details to the extent they want to complicate play.
A great way to do this would be set up the rules on that basis.
You have a basic rule set and a basic rule for each thing / whatever. You then add and "Advanced" set of rules to that, but these are really optional to play. Then you add a "Complex" set to those if you really want to deal with minutia.
on the other hand many ct skills are far too generalized, such as electronics meaning "having skill in all kinds of electrical devices". fixing a toaster is not the same as calibrating a radar system.
'pends on what you're doing. "did you get all the information?" computer 1 guy, "maybe". computer 2 guy, "probably." computer 3 guy, "yes, definitely."
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
This is where I'd go with resolution. First, is the task important enough to warrant special attention and need a rolled resolution? If yes, then...
L0 = 37%
L1 = 63%
L2 = 77%
L3 = 85%
L4 = 91%
L5 = 95%
So, you are driving your whatever and a vehicle crosses in front of you and you're about to potentially crash into it. Your skills is...
Roll...
Add or subtract modifiers for things like the vehicle having automatic crash avoidance, or such...
The outcome is....
That is, you have basic driving skills (level 0) you're going to crash unless you happen to have a winning lottery ticket too. You're the hottest driver since Mario Andretti (level 5)? You'll probably avoid the wreck.
Stuff critical to the scenario or game outcome should be what's getting resolved. The stuff in between is assumed gravy and it happens without incident.
hm ... disagree. the "gravy" is part of the game, especially if players dedicate character effort towards certain kinds of skills for certain kinds of games. for example, it's one thing if computer-1-level investigation of a potential npc shows that as an instructor the npc had an unusually high student success rate - it's another matter altogether if a computer-3-level investigation also uncovers secret data showing that the npc also has been investigated for psionic activity. if players learn that this kind of info is referee "gravy" then they'll deprecate their skills and just wait for the referee to give them what he wants them to have.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
If its germane to the scenario its important enough to roll on as in your example. On the other hand, executing a routine jump with everything in good working order doesn't require multiple rolls, if one at all. Nor does doing routine maintenance, or any number of other mundane tasks.
Checking out an NPC that might be a patron or part of the scenario is different. That's a critical task.
At a convention, I saw someone (maybe John Watts?) do something with the dice to account for the character not knowing how difficult the task is.
Normally, it's 2d6+mods vs. target (say, 8).
In this case, he added 1d6 on each side, so it was:
3d6+mods vs. 1d6+8.
If there was a lot of uncertainty, it could have been:
4d6+mods vs. 2d6+8.
Anyone seen this before? Where's it from? Am I describing it correctly?
Normally, it's 2d6+mods vs. target (say, 8).
In this case, he added 1d6 on each side, so it was:
3d6+mods vs. 1d6+8.
If there was a lot of uncertainty, it could have been:
4d6+mods vs. 2d6+8.
Anyone seen this before? Where's it from? Am I describing it correctly?
I've not seen that as described as the official method in any edition; sounds like John's house rule.
T4, T5, the GM can choose to roll some of the dice for the task to create uncertainty, but the number of dice rolled is by difficulty, so...
MT's uncertain uses a second die roll by the GM with the same modifiers.
CT lacks a coherent task system
MGT 2e doesn't have uncertain in the task labels - in fact, the word seems absent from the art-free version of the core sent to those who worked on it.
seems overly complicated. I'd just fold multiple tasks into the same roll. e.g. character with engineering 1 is performing perfunctory check of the plant prior to light off - routine task. someone has sabotaged the plant - very difficult task to detect. the referee rolls for the engineer ("On the other hand, executing a routine jump with everything in good working order doesn't require multiple rolls, if one at all." - for the player, sure), gets a 7, character meets routine task but fails the very difficult task, hey everything's ok. e.g. player with engineering 3 does the same perfunctory check, referee rolls 7 again, character meets routine task AND meets very difficult task, oh hey look there's a problem ....
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I have my own mutant task system, boiled down it's
Relevant stat -7 + skill = character modifier.
Base 268ACG, difficulty is main modifier.
No skill increases difficulty two steps.
Education roll can check against player already 'knowing' how to do something unusual and lowers difficulty one step. Main use of JOAT skill.
Striker resolution with hopped up damage location/modifier (such that FGMPs can autokill you or just lop your arm off, and a dagger can just cut or kill).
Relevant stat -7 + skill = character modifier.
Base 268ACG, difficulty is main modifier.
No skill increases difficulty two steps.
Education roll can check against player already 'knowing' how to do something unusual and lowers difficulty one step. Main use of JOAT skill.
Striker resolution with hopped up damage location/modifier (such that FGMPs can autokill you or just lop your arm off, and a dagger can just cut or kill).
Similar threads
