Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > In Nomine

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2012, 05:49 PM   #11
Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Just a brief insert, because I'm not particularly GURPS-savvy and so this thread isn't entirely accessible to me:

The Skill Default penalties in IN are extremely irksome, essentially requiring an in-game reference card/sheet. I understand where they come from (that it's easier to give first aid with no training than build a space shuttle with no training), but having a different number for each skill is unwieldy in actual play, especially because the basic character sheet has room only for the Skills you have, not the ones you don't have.

I think it would be much better to say that, as a rule, you can't attempt a Skill in which you haven't been trained. If it is extremely plausible that you should be able to make an attempt even without training, you use the raw characteristic minus a flat number (say, 2 or 4 in IN, no clue what it would be for GIN Ultra-Lite). That would be much handier than every Skill having its own default penalty--and is in the spirit of this rules-reduced version of IN.
__________________
“The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but I’ve got Good News: I saved my soul by switching to Heaven.”
—Baruel, former Djinn of the Media, now Cherub of Destiny and the Angel of Good News
Acolyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 07:08 PM   #12
Archangel Beth
In Nomine Line Editor
 
Archangel Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Frozen Wastelands of NH
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

I believe the skill penalties are meant to indicate how unlikely it is you can succeed if you don't know what you're doing, and/or how likely it is that you totally don't know what you're doing. I.e., it's more likely you've seen someone drive a car and have a vague idea that there's pedals and a wheel, than that you've seen someone drive the space shuttle.

{Edit: And that you should get a chance to do something by default because justifying it might take time, whereas "okay, you don't have the skill but the penalty is -X, so roll" is fast -- and not allowing a chance at all is often less fun. Also, having them fail miserably can be very fun. *evil grin*}

Having a flat penalty for "you don't have this skill" would certainly be one way to deal with it, since, well, IN is cinematic. On the other hand, some things are easier to figure out than others -- swinging a stick at someone else is probably easier to do than operate a motorcycle.

Hmmm.

One possibility for defaults -- which would empower humans -- would be to assign a penalty for humans, and twice that for celestials. Celestials, after all, aren't from around here. And besides, they generally have higher stats and can absorb the penalty less painfully.

Another possibility, not excluding the above, is to have flat penalties -- e.g., -2, across the board. (Or -2 for humans, -4 for non-humans).

Another possibility is to have a flat penalty based on realm. E.g., skills based on Corporeal characteristics have a -1 penalty, based on Ethereal has a -3, and based on Celestial has -2. (Or whatever.) Still varies in such a way that you need to know what characteristic it's usually tied to. (And can also have the doubling, if desired.)

Skills could be split into Combat and [Social? Intellectual? Non-Combat?], and given penalties likewise; Combat might have defaults of -2 for both celestials and humans, while Social could have defaults of -2 for humans and -4 for celestials. Advantages is that would be pretty simple to figure out ("are you damaging someone else directly with this skill, using a simple and obvious hand-held device?"), but disads are that demons should arguably be even better at Lying than some humans, while angels should be worse...
__________________
--Beth
Shamelessly adding Superiors: Lilith, GURPS Sparrials, and her fiction page to her .sig (the latter is not precisely gaming related)
Archangel Beth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 09:02 PM   #13
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

GURPS Ultra-Lite did away with default penalties entirely; regular GURPS has default penalties too, but they tend to range from -4 to -6.

Actually, if I were doing an IN2e, I'd look for some way to simplify the Default Penalty. Something like this:

Instead of a Default Penalty that varies by skill, have a flat -3 "untrained" penalty that's presented as a situational modifier (or -5 for 3d6IN); instead of varying the penalty, I'd be more inclined to take the notion of "routine tasks" from CPG and generalize the concept: something along the lines of "for routine tasks, waive the 'untrained' penalty"; then list sample "routine tasks" for each skill. I might even expand the concept to include the converse notion of "trained tasks" that can't even be attempted unless you have some training. Either forbid the roll, or allow it at a large penalty (say, -6 for IN2e or -10 for 3d6IN).

Routine and trained tasks (or "basic" and "advanced" tasks?) would be presented as the exceptions to the rule, and could be dispensed with by GMs who don't want to bother with them. Alternately, they could be used as the basis for representing humans' intuitive understanding of the Corporeal Realm: waive the Untrained penalty for most tasks, grant automatic successes on routine tasks, and/or allow them to attempt trained tasks without adequate training but with the Untrained penalty.

EDIT: the difference between a skill that's currently listed as a -1 Default and one that currently has a -5 Default is that the former would be long on Routine tasks and short on Trained tasks, and vice versa for the latter. You also have the option to tweak the lists on a case-by-case basis: Seraphim would never treat tasks that involve deception as Routine, and might even treat them as Trained, while a Belsaraph's intuitive grasp of deception might allow him to attempt some tasks that would normally require training as normal tasks, or some normal tasks as if they were routine.

Last edited by dataweaver; 04-17-2012 at 09:21 PM.
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2012, 11:05 PM   #14
Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
One possibility for defaults -- which would empower humans -- would be to assign a penalty for humans, and twice that for celestials. Celestials, after all, aren't from around here. And besides, they generally have higher stats and can absorb the penalty less painfully.

Another possibility, not excluding the above, is to have flat penalties -- e.g., -2, across the board. (Or -2 for humans, -4 for non-humans).
I like both the idea of a flat penalty and giving humans less of a penalty. It is elegant and quick, and I might just go ahead and use it for my IN.

Quote:
Another possibility is to have a flat penalty based on realm. E.g., skills based on Corporeal characteristics have a -1 penalty, based on Ethereal has a -3, and based on Celestial has -2. (Or whatever.) Still varies in such a way that you need to know what characteristic it's usually tied to. (And can also have the doubling, if desired.)
That is reminiscent of nWoD (a small penalty to Social and Physical untrained skills, a big penalty to Mental ones, although I may be misremembering the names). Which is not to say that's a bad plan. It's less elegant than the flat method (which I feel is more in keeping with IN's general quick-and-cinematic theme), but it's a lot better than the scattered numbers that exist as they do now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver
Instead of a Default Penalty that varies by skill, have a flat -3 "untrained" penalty that's presented as a situational modifier (or -5 for 3d6IN); instead of varying the penalty, I'd be more inclined to take the notion of "routine tasks" from CPG and generalize the concept: something along the lines of "for routine tasks, waive the 'untrained' penalty"; then list sample "routine tasks" for each skill. I might even expand the concept to include the converse notion of "trained tasks" that can't even be attempted unless you have some training. Either forbid the roll, or allow it at a large penalty (say, -6 for IN2e or -10 for 3d6IN).
...this plan does do some good modeling of reality, but it seems like a lot of extra rule text, which might increase book referencing at the table. Given IN's general attempt to make the rules less intrusive, I don't think that's the best way to take the idea of Skill Defaults. Might be interesting to apply to Fading Suns, though...but that's a different topic altogether!
__________________
“The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but I’ve got Good News: I saved my soul by switching to Heaven.”
—Baruel, former Djinn of the Media, now Cherub of Destiny and the Angel of Good News
Acolyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 12:03 AM   #15
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
...this plan does do some good modeling of reality, but it seems like a lot of extra rule text, which might increase book referencing at the table.
Actually, this is just a minor variation on the flat penalty model.

The rule is: apply a flat penalty if you don't have the skill. Anything beyond that is an exception that the GM makes at his prerogative, and in the interest of injecting a dose of realism into a fundamentally cinematic system. There shouldn't be any additional book referencing at the table.

Exceptions, if they happen at all, would happen on a task-by-task basis and take one of two forms: ignore the "unskilled" penalty (if it feels excessive), or double it (if it feels inadequate).
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 04:21 AM   #16
Archangel Beth
In Nomine Line Editor
 
Archangel Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Frozen Wastelands of NH
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver View Post
Exceptions, if they happen at all, would happen on a task-by-task basis and take one of two forms: ignore the "unskilled" penalty (if it feels excessive), or double it (if it feels inadequate).
That's pretty elegant, really. Probably with a little extra verbiage about how celestials -- especially wet-behind-the-wings ones -- will rarely get to ignore the "unskilled" penalty on Earthly skills?

So, who's going to playtest this thing? O;>
__________________
--Beth
Shamelessly adding Superiors: Lilith, GURPS Sparrials, and her fiction page to her .sig (the latter is not precisely gaming related)
Archangel Beth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 10:38 AM   #17
Rocket Man
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
That's pretty elegant, really. Probably with a little extra verbiage about how celestials -- especially wet-behind-the-wings ones -- will rarely get to ignore the "unskilled" penalty on Earthly skills?

So, who's going to playtest this thing? O;>
(Hand shoots up.) I like what this is turning into. There's some brilliant stuff here.
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking”
--Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor

Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger"
Rocket Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 02:38 PM   #18
Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
So, who's going to playtest this thing? O;>
Add this hand in. I might even be able to convince my normal gaming group to replace one of our usual sessions with a one-shot (none of them is more than mildly familiar with IN, but a previous one-shot did leave them wanting for more*).

Scott, we could talk via MSN about it as well.

*The Malakite of Creation PC with the vow of "never kill a demon the same way twice" impaling the villain, a Habbalite, to death on a boom mic might have had something to do with the session's lingering memory of awesome.

Quote:
The rule is: apply a flat penalty if you don't have the skill. Anything beyond that is an exception that the GM makes at his prerogative, and in the interest of injecting a dose of realism into a fundamentally cinematic system. There shouldn't be any additional book referencing at the table.

Exceptions, if they happen at all, would happen on a task-by-task basis and take one of two forms: ignore the "unskilled" penalty (if it feels excessive), or double it (if it feels inadequate).
Ah. That latter bit is quite elegant (and better than IN's skill defaults). But all the talk of listing routine tasks seems contrary to that elegance--a player might say the task is labeled as routine in the book and thus the GM is being punitive with a penalty, or a GM might feel the need to check the book for borderline cases. Rather than including examples with each skill, maybe one or two examples each of "ignore" and "double" cases at the start of the skill section, and that would be enough.
__________________
“The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but I’ve got Good News: I saved my soul by switching to Heaven.”
—Baruel, former Djinn of the Media, now Cherub of Destiny and the Angel of Good News

Last edited by Acolyte; 04-18-2012 at 02:43 PM.
Acolyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 07:19 PM   #19
Archangel Beth
In Nomine Line Editor
 
Archangel Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Frozen Wastelands of NH
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte View Post
[...]But all the talk of listing routine tasks seems contrary to that elegance--a player might say the task is labeled as routine in the book and thus the GM is being punitive with a penalty, or a GM might feel the need to check the book for borderline cases.
Hm. Probably depends on if the GM is newish and wants more hand-holding. (There is nothing wrong with a GM wanting hand-holding! Throwing them in the deep end and seeing if they drown is likely to be less fun.)

Either way -- trivial defaults for each listed, or just a few examples -- might want a big bold phrase of "The GM's Decision is Final to preserve the action. Only groups who really enjoy debate, 100%, should bother to consult the book for potential examples to back up their particular pet theory on a default penalty."


So: volunteers to playtest 3d6IN (pronounced "Three Dee Sixin'")! Which rules are you intending to test? I'm thinking the basic changes boil down to:

• Changing Characteristics, Skills, etc. to 3d6 and not d666. (And assigning characteristics with a base of 6.) Say whether you allow "buying down" [i]below[i] 6!
• Divorcing Forces from Resource points, and assigning Resource points at 20 per power-ranking. (Which can be experience in Earth and/or celestially, or represent favor from a Superior in gear or other bennies.) Is 20 too many or too few for a "basic" game?
• Skill penalties at a flat... -3? Ignore penalty if trivial; double if it feels inadequate. Background counts; go, go, humans!

Do you want to use the vessel-crippling stuff from the earliest post there? Or should we re-visit vessels now that it's swung from GIN Ultra-Lite to 3d6IN?
__________________
--Beth
Shamelessly adding Superiors: Lilith, GURPS Sparrials, and her fiction page to her .sig (the latter is not precisely gaming related)
Archangel Beth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2012, 09:34 PM   #20
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: GIN Ultra-Lite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
Hm. Probably depends on if the GM is newish and wants more hand-holding. (There is nothing wrong with a GM wanting hand-holding! Throwing them in the deep end and seeing if they drown is likely to be less fun.)

Either way -- trivial defaults for each listed, or just a few examples -- might want a big bold phrase of "The GM's Decision is Final to preserve the action. Only groups who really enjoy debate, 100%, should bother to consult the book for potential examples to back up their particular pet theory on a default penalty."
This. Even more than IN, 3d6IN depends on the GM making snap decisions in play and the group just rolling with it. Stating this up front, loudly, and repeatedly would not be out of line, IMHO.

And with such a disclaimer in place, I'd say that some guidelines for inexperienced GMs (clearly phrased as suggestions, not rules) would be quite appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
• Changing Characteristics, Skills, etc. to 3d6 and not d666. (And assigning characteristics with a base of 6.) Say whether you allow "buying down" below 6!
IMHO, "buying down" below 6 is an unnecessary complication; but if you allow it, I'd recommend an absolute minimum of 4 (the lowest non-Intervention that you can roll on 3d6). I'd also suggest that you should never be able to sell off (or buy up) the characteristics within a given Realm by more than 2 (i.e., half of the 4 Characteristic Points per Force).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
• Divorcing Forces from Resource points, and assigning Resource points at 20 per power-ranking. (Which can be experience in Earth and/or celestially, or represent favor from a Superior in gear or other bennies.) Is 20 too many or too few for a "basic" game?
Define "basic". IMHO, 40 is appropriate for a "basic" game, in the sense of "default starting characters"; 20 is probably appropriate for Relievers, Imps, Gremlins, newly-empowered ex-Figments, teenaged humans, and the like: characters who are, by concept, notably inexperienced. IMHO, we should stick with 20 points per stage of experience (due to its simplicity) unless playtesting shows that it's clearly and significantly inappropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
• Skill penalties at a flat... -3? Ignore penalty if trivial; double if it feels inadequate. Background counts; go, go, humans!
Again, GURPS skill defaults are typically -4 to -6, depending on the skill's difficulty: the only default penalties in GURPS that are smaller than -4 are based off of other skills, and represent skills that have a lot of overlap*. While this is no longer GUL IN, I think that we can still refer to GURPS for guidance in terms of what makes sense with a 3d6 roll.

Note that doubling -5 to -10 means that you'll need a characteristic of 14 or more before you have any chance of succeeding without an Intervention. Some numbers:
Code:
Probabilities of success without skill:
Attribute  -0    -5    -10
    4      2%   0.5%   0.5%
    6      9%   0.5%   0.5%
    8     26%   0.5%   0.5%
   10     50%    5%    0.5%
   12     74%   16%    0.5%
   14     91%   38%     2%
   16     98%   62%     9%
   18    99.5%  84%    26%
Note that characteristics are usually going to be in the 8-14 range. Under those conditions, -10 is a reasonable approximation of "never try this without training", while -5 gives a significant (but small) chance of success for all but the bottom end of the scale.

By comparison, here's what -4 would do:
Code:
Probabilities of success without skill:
Attribute  -0    -4    -8
    4      2%   0.5%   0.5%
    6      9%   0.5%   0.5%
    8     26%    2%    0.5%
   10     50%    9%    0.5%
   12     74%   26%     2%
   14     91%   50%     9%
   16     98%   74%     26%
   18    99.5%  91%     50%
With this in mind, a -4 is the smallest penalty I'd find acceptable; and I'd be more comfortable with a -5.

For regular IN, a -2 or -3 would be more appropriate; I'd lean toward -3 for much the same reason that I prefer -5 in 3d6IN.

* Incidently, this "defaulting" system could be generalized to handle overlapping skills, too: the simplest way to do it would be to say that if the player wants to substitute a different skill for the one the GM asks for, apply the same default penalty to the skill roll, complete with the optional waiving/doubling. If you include this (and it's potentially an unnecessary complication), I'd require that both skills use the same characteristic: you can't substitute a Will-based skill roll for an Agility-based skill roll. If the rules allow you to use different characteristics for different applications of a skill, you can use this to facilitate skill substitution; otherwise, substitutions must involve skills that share the characteristic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel Beth View Post
Do you want to use the vessel-crippling stuff from the earliest post there? Or should we re-visit vessels now that it's swung from GIN Ultra-Lite to 3d6IN?
I'd be inclined to incorporate the nerfed Vessels presented in GMG, along with the Toughness analogs for Mind and Soul Hits. This is very much in keeping with the toned-down differentials that are a (or possibly the) core motivation for 3d6IN.

I don't think that there are any other options from GMG that should be incorporated into the 3d6IN core; though the strong commonalities with the regular IN core makes most (all?) of them just as appropriate as options for 3d6IN as they are for standard IN.

Last edited by dataweaver; 04-18-2012 at 09:55 PM.
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gurps in nomine, gurps ultra-lite, house rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.