Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I'm assuming such things as NCMBT PSL's (and an expanded skill difficulty bonus chart) will be covered in the upcoming Ultimate Skill.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

It wouldn't be "you can't take 20." It would be "you can't disarm a trap that isn't there." End of issue' date=' even if there is a trap that the character didn't find. It's like walking into a room and trying to disarm a bomb that you haven't found yet. I just can't happen.[/quote']

 

Assume he doesn't find a trap. Assume he doesn't even try. he takes 20 to unlock the door. A sufficiently failed roll will mean he triggers the trap. Therefore, he must be told he can't take 20.

 

Let's change the example to searching a room (he thinks he may find some cash). He wants to take 20. He doesn't know the room is trapped, and he would search to find the trip wire, but a sufficinetly failed search roll sets off the trap. "You can't take 20". He now knows something is up, even if he doesn't know exactly what.

 

Refining "take 20" to mean "If I say it when something could go wrong, start rolling - either I succeed or I set off the adverse effect". To me, Take 20 means "I will keep trying until I succeed or I'm sure I cannot succeed". If there's a possible adverse consequence you didn't know about, it's too late - you've committed to try until you succeed or are convinced there is nothing to succeed at.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Assume he doesn't find a trap. Assume he doesn't even try. he takes 20 to unlock the door. A sufficiently failed roll will mean he triggers the trap. Therefore, he must be told he can't take 20.

 

Let's change the example to searching a room (he thinks he may find some cash). He wants to take 20. He doesn't know the room is trapped, and he would search to find the trip wire, but a sufficinetly failed search roll sets off the trap. "You can't take 20". He now knows something is up, even if he doesn't know exactly what.

 

Refining "take 20" to mean "If I say it when something could go wrong, start rolling - either I succeed or I set off the adverse effect". To me, Take 20 means "I will keep trying until I succeed or I'm sure I cannot succeed". If there's a possible adverse consequence you didn't know about, it's too late - you've committed to try until you succeed or are convinced there is nothing to succeed at.

 

I suppose it depends on your style of play. If I used a take 20 rule (which I don't, but like the idea enough that I just forgo a roll once in a while when a character is most likely to succeed, or obviously going to fail), I would allow the use of it in the above circumstances, but the trap would automaticaly go off. It's what tends to happen when you don't know there's a trap there and do exactly what's needed to trigger it. If there's any chance it won't go off, I'd make my own roll behind the screen.

[Markdoc]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

A little off topic' date=' but I have [b']never[/b] seen a GM apply the +1 to +3 for an 'easy' or 'routine' task. If you are rolling, you are at base skill level at best. This may just be my bad experience but a pet peeve of mine when you consider a 11- is suppose to represent a trained professional.

 

That's just sloppy GM'ing. I almost always give bonuses for simple tasks, plus bonuses for appropriate tools, extra time, etc. It's not unusual for me to say (for example) when a player fils a KS or PS skill roll something like "You can't quite figure it out now - maybe if you went back to the lab/office" that gives players an incentive to actually HAVE a lab or an office - and to spend money/time on getting cool stuff to stick in it.

 

Of course I also levy penalties for doing stuff like defusing the bomb while in the back of a car weaving at high speed through traffic while people are shooting at you...

 

On the other hand, tasks that are routine, I don't require a roll. To take the airplane example, for someone with piloting:

 

Routine landing on a regular strip in good weather: No roll

Routine landing on a regular strip in bad weather: Roll, but at a bonus

Routine landing on a regular strip in really bad weather: Roll

Crash landing on a regular strip in good weather: Roll

Crash landing in a wheatfeld with one engine on fire and one wing shredded: Roll at big minus

etc, etc.

 

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I have a natural disinclination to copy d20, so....

 

My view is that we should do it in the same way as we do PER rolls: if the modifiers are positive then you spot it, if the modifers are negative then you roll, SO if the modifiers for a task are positive (or zero), you automatically succeed ( you may want to say if they are positive and the final chance is at least 11-, to prevent familiarity being too useful), you only roll if the final modifier is negative.

 

Therefore in your average routine situation where you are decently trained, you get +1 to +3 you will not need to roll. This would be the equivalent of a Take 10, if you feel a genuine need to use that terminology.

 

It gets around the potential problem of giving away information by denying a Take 20. The whole point about a Take 20 is that if you roll enough you will eventually get the best roll you can. If there is a negative consequence that the PC does not know about, they can use the mechanic but with a PER or INT roll to see if they spot the negative consequence before it happens. I do not think it is necessary. I'd do it this way:

 

With any task that you will eventually succeed at, given sufficient time, determine a base time to succeed as a point on the time chart and roll 3d6. On a 3 you do it two points on the time chart less

On a 4 to 6 you do it two points on the time chart less

On a 7 to 9 you do it one point on the time chart less

On a 10 to 11 you do it in the time allotted

On a 12 to 14 you do it one point on the time chart more

On a 15 to 17 you do it two points on the time chart more, and

On an 18 you do it three points on the time chart more.

 

Makes far more sense to me: if you are running through every combination, you might get there early or late: why should you know in advance how long it is going to take?

[TheEmerged]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

That's just sloppy GM'ing.

 

That's a little harsh. It's a different style of GM'ing, and not one I'll ever belong to, but "sloppy" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people would say I'm a not "really a roleplayer" because of the extent I let dice affect what happens.

[pinecone]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I didn't read the whole thread ...but I never require a roll for ordinary things and I also don't require a roll for "heroic actions" so if you want to entertain a crowd to get donations for an orphanage you simply succeed...unless you have Unluck, Then you have to roll because things never work out for you....

[pinecone]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Ohhh and I already let PSl's work in noncombat etc and so far no problems.....

[Black Rose]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

In response to the comments by CourtFool, I give you MarkDoc's opinion. Pay close attention to "Defining relative skill levels" - it makes a llot of sense to me. If you take 11- as being a basic "I can get a job* doing this" not necessarily "I kick ass at this" or even "I'm damned good at this", I think it works a lot better. Remember, this is the "don't need to make a roll" level of things; only if the situation is adverse, or needed materials are lacking, do you have to make a roll.

 

* Substitute "I can perform routine tasks involving this skill assuming standard conditions"

[CourtFool]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

In response to the comments by CourtFool' date=' I give you MarkDoc's opinion. Pay close attention to "Defining relative skill levels" - it makes a llot of sense to me.

 

I see his point here, but I disagree based on style. If I wanted reality, I would not role play. I want cinematic flair. I want the PCs (whether I am one or not) to know their home town like the back of their hand.

 

I read a great article a couple years ago and for the life of me I can not find it. Basically, it suggested that players shy away from Skills and focus on combat because it is so much more well defined. Players are more comfortable with their combat capabilities because nearly every system spells them out in nauseating detail.

 

Combat wins the day. How often, honestly, does a skill allows the players to succeed in the adventure? At best, it may give them more information for the final combat. That is if they make that skill roll regardless of all the penalties the GM piles on due to 'difficulty'. Is it any wonder, then, that players min/max and exploit the rules to make combat effective characters?

 

It is just my opinion, but I think a lot of problems people pose with the system (any system for that matter) would be negligible if Skills carried the spotlight.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I generally don't have much to add to the discussion, but a great example when penalty only skill levels work well.

 

To offset time penalties, for a speedster. Does an hour's worth of work on the car in 12 seconds.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

on the "routine task" issue, what about skills that are more subjective, like interaction skills?

 

What's a routine task for seduction or persuasion, for example? I can think of a variety of things, but someone else might say a roll should still be required.

e.g.

making small talk at a bar, flirting with a receptionist to get a phone number, getting phone numbers from people who are already inclined to give them out to you, etc. are all examples of routine tasks for seduction, but some GMs would still require a roll.

 

We really need that Ultimate Skill book ASAP...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

What's a routine task for seduction or persuasion' date=' for example?[/quote']

 

I think this depends as much or more on the subject's inclinations as on the specific task.

 

I can think of a variety of things, but someone else might say a roll should still be required.

e.g.

making small talk at a bar

 

If the person being chatted up is open to a chat, or even indifferent, I would call it routine. If the person doesn't want to talk (painfully shy; specifically waiting for someone who's late; mad because he juist got fired) you would have to make a roll, possibly at penalties depending on the severity of their disinclination to talk.

 

flirting with a receptionist to get a phone number' date=' getting phone numbers from people who are already inclined to give them out to you, etc.[/quote']

 

Agree with the latter. With the receptiopnist, it comes down to how she is inclined. Maybe she doesn't mind giving out that number ("I can't stand that sales rep and here's a chance to make his life difficult), maybe she's moderately disinterested (don't care one way or the other about the person, but company policy is not to give out personal numbers) or maybe she's very reluctant (likes the person you're looking for; company is a VIPER front and it's her life if they find out she co-operated with you; just broke up with her flirtatious SO and your flirting sets her off negatively).

 

Like most things, it's a judgement call.

[Black Rose]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I see his point here' date=' but I disagree based on style. If I wanted reality, I would not role play. I want cinematic flair. I want the PCs (whether I am one or not) to know their home town like the back of their hand.[/quote']

 

That's cool. I can understand that. I, too, want my characters to pull off certain tasks with cinematic flair. However, and this could just be me, I also want them to pull off some tasks with normal flair. This makes the "cinematic flair" skills look even more impressive by comparison.

 

I read a great article a couple years ago and for the life of me I can not find it. Basically, it suggested that players shy away from Skills and focus on combat because it is so much more well defined. Players are more comfortable with their combat capabilities because nearly every system spells them out in nauseating detail.

 

Combat wins the day. How often, honestly, does a skill allows the players to succeed in the adventure? At best, it may give them more information for the final combat. That is if they make that skill roll regardless of all the penalties the GM piles on due to 'difficulty'. Is it any wonder, then, that players min/max and exploit the rules to make combat effective characters?

 

It is just my opinion, but I think a lot of problems people pose with the system (any system for that matter) would be negligible if Skills carried the spotlight.

 

Or at least shared it equally with Combat.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

There's something people are missing here. There is a big difference between taking 20 in D20 and taking extra time in Hero (or may be, depending on what actions you allow a character to take extra time with). In D20, you can take 20 on any action provided you have significant time. But if there are any adverse consequences you take them automatically before you succeed. It is assumed that you do attempt the task many many times before you succeed, and that you make rolls all across the spectrum of the d20 roll.

 

Now taking extra time in Hero isn't necessarily the same. Unless the GM chooses to interpret it as such, you don't have to be assumed to be trying again and again and again. You could instead be approaching the task in a calm, focused, careful manner, or throwing in a lot of extra precautions you wouldn't normally have time for (researching the OS--and it's common security holes--used on a remote system to hack into it, for example).

 

I often allow tasks to be performed automatically if they are "simple" (which I will fully admit is very subjective, and may depend on the number of coffees I've had that day), or if you simply take so much time to do them that your bonuses are rediculous. I may even allow it if you have significant secondary skills to complement your chances. I think this is great, and subjectivity is the way to go here. It will all contribute to the feel you want to your game.

 

I have also done the method someone mentioned a page or two back: I have the player make a roll, and the difference between what they rolled and the roll they needed is the number of increments down on the time chart it will take. This works well for activities where the player can easily judge how long it will take them ("Well, you've gotten 15 done so far, and you need 100. You're going to need to sleep for a few hours, but it looks like you should get it done some time tomorrow, if you aren't interrupted. Want to continue, or wait until you manage something that will speed up your progress?").

 

Sloppy GMing is the best GMing!

 

[EDIT: Revising my use of caps. ]

[prestidigitator]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Oh, and to contribute to the original question, I like PSLs for Skills. I'd probably see what the value of a Limitation would be for a CSL to match the equivalent PSL in cost, and "apply" the same Limitation value to the normal SL to determine what Skill Pentalty Skill Levels should cost (though I wouldn't make the players do it with a Limitation). This is just like the way Talents are now done; they can be bought as Powers with Modifiers, but normally this construct is just to determine what they should cost (I think thiis was an awesome way to do Talents, by the way! Go 5ed!).