The Analyze Skill

[Dust Raven]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

The character with Deduction would simply look at the crime scene, and "know" that the woman was shot by her jilted husband or fiance, who then broke her ring finger by savagely taking the wedding/engagement ring from it. The other fingers were broken to make that less obvious. He knows this intuitively, but he has no proof of it that will hold up in court... he or someone else will still have to gather it.

 

Why would anyone want to take the other Skills if Deduction is this good? Well, I suppose if one actually wanted to prove something in court or something, Criminology would be handy, but that still makes the Analyse Skill pretty useless in the long run. Too slow and too dependant upon the use of other Skills.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Criminology is mostly about gathering evidence. Analyze Evidence is mostly about interpreting evidence and making correct conclusions based on it. Deduction is mostly about making correct conclusions without evidence.

Nice breakdown.

 

The character with Deduction would simply look at the crime scene' date=' and "know" that the woman was shot by her jilted husband or fiance, who then broke her ring finger by savagely taking the wedding/engagement ring from it. The other fingers were broken to make that less obvious. He knows this intuitively, but he has no proof of it that will hold up in court... he or someone else will still have to gather it.[/quote']

Actually, I've known a few cops who seemed to work that way. One look at a crime scene and they just KNEW what had happened. Sometimes they were even right.

 

One way to look at it is that while Criminology and Analyze are fact-based, and therefore to some degree self-correcting, Deduction is entirely speculative. OK, speculative is probably too strong a word: it's partly experiential: "I've worked 100 crime scenes just like this one, soI bet I know what happened here." What I mean is that Deduction is largely internal.

 

With Criminology, there is a clear link to the world outside your own head. As a result, you often have some way of knowing (in character) if you "botched your roll" or not, ie - "Darn, I smeared the prints as I was lifting them - they're worthless!" That may be less true for Analyze Evidence, but at least you have a process to follow, and if you show your work to someone else (with similar knowledge/skill) they should be able to follow your work, even if they weren't good enough to figure it out on their own.

 

But with Deduction, the character has no way to know if his "brilliant intuitive leap" is right on the money, or miles off target. Hmm... maybe the answer is to have the GM make all Deduction rolls - that way the character thinks he knows what happened, but the character can't be sure the dice didn't cough up an 18.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Why would anyone want to take the other Skills if Deduction is this good?

It's just an example... exaggerated for the sake of illustration. Deduction can make leaps you can never make by the evidence, but Deduction alone isn't a permanent substitute for evidence.

 

It's like a Colombo episode. Even if he has a strong hunch who did it at the beginning of the episode, he still has to fill in the blanks to get the whole picture, and assemble enough evidence to get a conviction.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Nice breakdown.

 

 

Actually, I've known a few cops who seemed to work that way. One look at a crime scene and they just KNEW what had happened. Sometimes they were even right.

 

One way to look at it is that while Criminology and Analyze are fact-based, and therefore to some degree self-correcting, Deduction is entirely speculative. OK, speculative is probably too strong a word: it's partly experiential: "I've worked 100 crime scenes just like this one, soI bet I know what happened here." What I mean is that Deduction is largely internal.

 

With Criminology, there is a clear link to the world outside your own head. As a result, you often have some way of knowing (in character) if you "botched your roll" or not, ie - "Darn, I smeared the prints as I was lifting them - they're worthless!" That may be less true for Analyze Evidence, but at least you have a process to follow, and if you show your work to someone else (with similar knowledge/skill) they should be able to follow your work, even if they weren't good enough to figure it out on their own.

 

But with Deduction, the character has no way to know if his "brilliant intuitive leap" is right on the money, or miles off target. Hmm... maybe the answer is to have the GM make all Deduction rolls - that way the character thinks he knows what happened, but the character can't be sure the dice didn't cough up an 18.

 

Yep. With Deduction I often do one of two things...

Either roll for the characters, or assign a random modifier to the roll (two different colored dice, one High/Low for +/-, one (or a half die) for the value of the modifier.

I do similar things with secret PER rolls.

[Manic Typist]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Nice breakdown.

 

 

 

 

But with Deduction, the character has no way to know if his "brilliant intuitive leap" is right on the money, or miles off target. Hmm... maybe the answer is to have the GM make all Deduction rolls - that way the character thinks he knows what happened, but the character can't be sure the dice didn't cough up an 18.

 

 

We have a winner.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

But with Deduction' date=' the character has no way to know if his "brilliant intuitive leap" is right on the money, or miles off target. Hmm... maybe the answer is to have the GM make all Deduction rolls - that way the character [u']thinks[/u] he knows what happened, but the character can't be sure the dice didn't cough up an 18.

Well, the character probably doesn't know (s)he screwed up; the question is whether you trust the player(s) to keep that knowledge out-of-character and act appropriately on it. Then, it also might be more fun for the players not to know. I suppose it depends on the group and the circumstances.

[Manic Typist]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

No, see, what is REALLY fun is that you roll behind the GM screen.

 

Don't let the player see the result.

 

Tell them what they deduce.

 

You might also let them roll, and regardless of what they roll, tell them information based off what YOU rolled.

 

"Yes! I rolled an 8!" (Behind the screen: 17). GM: "They went that way!" etc, but more devious.

 

I'm tired.

[Lethosos]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Let's veer off slightly here.

 

I was thinking about a way to allow a rogue to get a quck estimate of a pile of treasure, and attempted in HeroDesigner to see if I could attach an Explosion onto a KS: Valuables skill...

 

Then I found this thread, and realized right off that an Analyze Treasure skill would be perfect! You wouldn't need to actually do an estimate--you'd only need to spot the least valuable stuff to winnow out, and haul the rest back with you. And if you needed to do it in a split second... make it a Find Weakness, for those times when you only have a minute between patrolling guards...

[prestidigitator]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Let's veer off slightly here.

 

I was thinking about a way to allow a rogue to get a quck estimate of a pile of treasure, and attempted in HeroDesigner to see if I could attach an Explosion onto a KS: Valuables skill...

 

Then I found this thread, and realized right off that an Analyze Treasure skill would be perfect! You wouldn't need to actually do an estimate--you'd only need to spot the least valuable stuff to winnow out, and haul the rest back with you. And if you needed to do it in a split second... make it a Find Weakness, for those times when you only have a minute between patrolling guards...

Sure. Actually, this could fit in the province of a 'PS: Thief' type skill. If not, Analyze could certainly work. Even if it is in a split second, though in that case there might be penalties and/or an accuracy tradeoff involved.

 

Find Weakness? Never for this use IMO (unless it is some funky thing against the guards' Flash Defense or something?! ).

[bigdamnhero]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

Well' date=' the [i']character[/i] probably doesn't know (s)he screwed up; the question is whether you trust the player(s) to keep that knowledge out-of-character and act appropriately on it. Then, it also might be more fun for the players not to know. I suppose it depends on the group and the circumstances.

Agreed. I know some player that love RPing their failures nearly as much as their successes. But I know other players that just can't bring themselves to make their characters do something that they know OOC is wrong, stupid or a waste of time. I've also known some players who feel genuinely cheated if the GM makes a roll for them. So yeah, it depends.

[Dust Raven]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

No' date=' see, what is REALLY fun is that you roll behind the GM screen. [/quote']

 

Deduction is a roll I tend to make behind the screen for the players (along with Concealment, Steath and a hoard of other Skills the character wouldn't necessarily know they've mess up on). In cases where the information is trivial or easily varifiable or immediately apparent, the player can make the roll because there is no sense in keeping it from them.

[Tim]

Re: The Analyze Skill

 

For most skill, I ask the players to tell me how much they make or miss by. This way, I never have to tell them the modifiers, so they can neveer be sure if they only make it by one or 2.