Player Paranoia and Character Surprise: How to GM

[Cassandra]

Originally Posted by dscheidt

I use modifiers all the time. Defaults still suck,though. Consider the DX 12 guy driving a car. Driving is DX/AVE, defaulting to DX-5. So he's got a skill of 7. Plus 4 for routine stuff gives 11. That's 62.5% chance of success; put the other way around, a 37.5% chance of failure. He's only got a 40% chance of making two rolls in a row. That's pretty slim odds, for something your life depends on.

Um, failure doesn't necessarily mean "you crash your car to a gas-truck and everything explodes BOOM, you and a dozen passersby die!". In my games, someone driving a car with a default skill, on a normal trip through the city, failure by 1-4 would mean stalling the car at traffic lights, not noticing a STOP sign, or a near-crash with brakes screeching and fingers being waved. Failure by 5-8, would be a dent in something or so, and only a critical failure would mean injury to the driver. I would probably even ask for another Driving roll, and only if that too was a critical failure, there would be a life-threathening accident. Otherwise, 1d damage and a $1000 repair job.

If you get routine bonuses to a skill roll, the result of a failure are usually "routine", too.

[JoelSammallahti]

Good point about the one-point investments. I'm still not convinced, though, that it's worth while to spend 8 points on Karate to get the damage bonus, if unarmed combat isn't a focus for you. For two points more, you could get Striking ST +2 and enjoy the bonus on all your muscle-powered attacks. I do think it's best to spend just one point on backup skills.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by dscheidt

I use modifiers all the time. Defaults still suck,though. Consider the DX 12 guy driving a car. Driving is DX/AVE, defaulting to DX-5. So he's got a skill of 7. Plus 4 for routine stuff gives 11. That's 62.5% chance of success; put the other way around, a 37.5% chance of failure. He's only got a 40% chance of making two rolls in a row. That's pretty slim odds, for something your life depends on.

I believe most drivers have one point in Driving (though there are some who disagree). Drivers with years of experience - you know, the people with the low insurance premiums - probably have 2 points in it. Professional drivers (truckers, racers, cops) presumbly have enough points invested to get their skill to 12 or better...

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Xplo

I believe most drivers have one point in Driving (though there are some who disagree). Drivers with years of experience - you know, the people with the low insurance premiums - probably have 2 points in it. Professional drivers (truckers, racers, cops) presumbly have enough points invested to get their skill to 12 or better...

I mostly agree. There's such a huge gap between brand new drivers (young people 16-21)* and experienced drivers that a point of skill seems the best way to represent that.

*Statistically speaking of course.

[Kaldrin]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I mostly agree. There's such a huge gap between brand new drivers (young people 16-21)* and experienced drivers that a point of skill seems the best way to represent that.

*Statistically speaking of course.

You know... I heard Ewan McGregor say about Calgary once (paraphrasing) "We drove through gansters in Russia, mud valleys in Mongolia, almost got killed by a moose in Alaska... but F***, I hate Calgary."

Around here drivers who have any measure of skill points are outnumbered by those who just own cars.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Good point about the one-point investments. I'm still not convinced, though, that it's worth while to spend 8 points on Karate to get the damage bonus, if unarmed combat isn't a focus for you. For two points more, you could get Striking ST +2 and enjoy the bonus on all your muscle-powered attacks. I do think it's best to spend just one point on backup skills.

I think in 4e, one of the things that has changed just optimizing by increasing DX and IQ is the addition to the new skill roll rules. Specifically, rules that allow the GM to switch the controlling ability a skill is based on, and the rules that discuss flat 10 roll in order to get at training and not just skill.

Nowadays, all those folks with only 1 pt in a Karate might find themselves in trouble when having to do an IQ based Karate roll to figure out something intellectual about Karate, or when doing a based on 10 roll to highlight training experience.

Now, many folks will still just optimize...but now there are compelling reasons not to do so as a matter of course. That, and the increased cost of DX and IQ makes it more difficult to optimize that way.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I think in 4e, one of the things that has changed just optimizing by increasing DX and IQ is the addition to the new skill roll rules. Specifically, rules that allow the GM to switch the controlling ability a skill is based on, and the rules that discuss flat 10 roll in order to get at training and not just skill.

Sure... But the IQ- and flat 10-based uses of Karate are pretty inconsequential next to its primary use, that is, punching and kicking. In fact, I can't think of anything "compelling".

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Anthony

One realistic way to handle PC alertness, though I've never seen it used in a game, would be to have people specify their alert level. Higher alert levels increase your assumed level of preparation, but mean that everything takes longer, fatigues you more, and gives you penalties on skills which are not related to what you're worrying about.

GDW's TNE rules had levels of alert for starships, and keeping your on a high alert level for too long made everything become harder as the crew deteriorated and routine maintenance needs piled up. I threatened the use of similar rules in my GT game, and suddenly the PCs changed their watch orders to something that had most people off-duty or doing normal shipboard duties, rather than most people closed up in action stations when performing normal cruising operations.

Mind you, I think there were only three potential ship-ship combats, and only one turned real.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Kromm

That said, I've never once had a player complain when the camp is attacked at night and I've said, "Well, unless you were on watch, you're probably not in armor." Of course, this is in part because I'm fair about letting people "play dead" and surprise their attackers, and about making sure that those in their skivvies get bonuses to evade heavily laden foes. I'm also fair about surprises . . . I don't have leopards attack camps of armed men sleeping around campfires, and I don't have would-be assassins attempt suicide attacks at every juncture. In any event, most players of warriors seem to be keen on showing that their heroes can best foes even while naked and armed with nothing but a snapped-off bedpost, or while dressed in formal wear and armed with only a piece of silverware.

Oddly, even my munchkin player is okay with sleeping in armour not working, and in my D&D game he didn't even bother with the feat that would let him do so.

As for fending off foes while naked, I'm put in mind of an incident years ago which saw a young hero trying to drive lions off his horses at night wearing nothing more than his hat (complete with an array of exotic feathers) and his boots (for the thorns) and flailing wildly about him with his rapier.

In the field on an adventure, though, I would never penalize a player for checking for traps or covering tracks. Of course professional adventurers take measures while actually on the hunt or being hunted. I can't imagine why even the bookish academic would forget his concealed .25 or use the front door instead of the back door while going to the library, if his objective is to research a dangerous conspiracy that might be spying on him even as he works, and I wouldn't fault the ex-commando for putting Claymores outside the party's log cabin at night after assassins have made a couple of attempts on party members. I only start assessing "readiness level" penalties when the measures taken are excessive and inappropriate. Things like concealed weapons and trip-wire mines are designed to let people be ready without being excessively on edge.

I'm of much the same mind, except for those PC whose players have been so unkind as to encumber them with Absent Mindedness. As I've watched someone in RL who probably qualified for Absent Mindedness walk right through a tripwire we'd set not two hours previously, and right in front of his position in his line of sight, and shown him (along with the rest of the section), I have no qualms with being mean to the Absent Minded characters at all. Fortunately it was only a trip-flare, and not the claymore it might have been had it not been merely an exercise.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Sure... But the IQ- and flat 10-based uses of Karate are pretty inconsequential next to its primary use, that is, punching and kicking. In fact, I can't think of anything "compelling".

FWIW, I would imagine that raw experience (measured by 10 + relative skill) would be pivotal in a master's decision to teach a would-be disciple the Seven Secret Kicks or the Hand of Death. And I suspect that once we get a mass-combat system, IQ-based combat skill rolls will stand in for Soldier, Tactics, etc., for such irregular troops as PCs.