Unskilled rolls

[Steve Jackson]

If you don't have the skill for a normal weapon you can use it at -4.

GURPS extends this principle to most of its skills, though some have no "default." Depends on whether it seems reasonable that somebody could try it without training. Silent Movement, for instance - not all of us are ninja, but all of us can try to put our feet down quietly and not knock over the hatstand. Well, we can try.

TFT does something similar in some places, usually be saying the figure with the talent rolls fewer dice, but there is no overarcing rule on the order of "If you don't have the talent, the GM may let you try anyway, rolling 1 more die, if he thinks it's reasonable."

Discuss.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

If you don't have the skill for a normal weapon you can use it at -4.

GURPS extends this principle to most of its skills, though some have no "default." Depends on whether it seems reasonable that somebody could try it without training. Silent Movement, for instance - not all of us are ninja, but all of us can try to put our feet down quietly and not knock over the hatstand. Well, we can try.

TFT does something similar in some places, usually be saying the figure with the talent rolls fewer dice, but there is no overarcing rule on the order of "If you don't have the talent, the GM may let you try anyway, rolling 1 more die, if he thinks it's reasonable."

Discuss.

Yes Steve, I'd allow a roll of at least +1 die depending on the activity. But I wouldn't want high Attributes to compensate for Talents or there's no point in having them. So if all the characters want to jump a high fence on their horses, the Horsemen roll 3d6, the non-horsemen 5d6. If it's only +1 die, then a high DEX figure can artificially compensate for not having the Talent.

I think your statement is Ok, but I'd probably say "at least 1 more die, if he thinks it's reasonable."

[zot]

I like "roll an extra die" better than -4 because there aren't enough times when you have to roll more dice. An extra die isn't quiiite a -4, it's -3.5 on average but I think the tactility and rarity of having to roll an extra die is worth the 0.5 point gain over -4.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by zot

I like "roll an extra die" better than -4 because there aren't enough times when you have to roll more dice. An extra die isn't quiiite a -4, it's -3.5 on average but I think the tactility and rarity of having to roll an extra die is worth the 0.5 point gain over -4.

Thinking about it, shouldn't using a weapon without the requisite Talent be 4d6 v DEX, rather than -4?

[zot]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Thinking about it, shouldn't using a weapon without the requisite Talent be 4d6 v DEX, rather than -4?

That's probably how I'll be running it from now on :)

[Jim Kane]

I only have one mathematical point to make, and one word of warning to add for consideration on this topic:

1. -4 DX is a more consistent penalty than +/-1d6; as 1d6 averages to 3.5, but has a proportionately huge variance within the range expected outcomes; whihc the static -4DX does not have.
   
   
2. I would hate to see us accidentally inspire potential player-abuse, where some of the more "crafty ones" will quickly discover that it may be better to purposefully forgo certain key talents they should rightly take (and pay for) when designing their characters, and instead, elect to roll-the-dice with the wide-variance - even though they are chronically engaging that talent - all in an effort to gain other talents they rightfully should not have at a certain point total when designing their characters (aka "milking it").

My 2 cents.

JK

[Chris Rice]

I agree with that Jim, but I think that's where good GMing comes in. Now I admit that's not easy and takes time to develop, so the rules need to give some guidance to newcomers but by being too prescriptive they could play into the hands of those who would unfairly manipulate the rules.

It's a tricky balancing act for Steve to get right.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by zot

I like "roll an extra die" better than -4 because there aren't enough times when you have to roll more dice. An extra die isn't quiiite a -4, it's -3.5 on average but I think the tactility and rarity of having to roll an extra die is worth the 0.5 point gain over -4.

I prefer a -4 modifier as rolling extra dice is annoying enough as it as it, and tends to encourage stat inflation; I prefer the simplicity of modifiers.

In general, I rather liked that in TFT a large number of the Talents are not connected to die rolls but produce flat effects.

In an adventure, as a GM I would much rather say "you don't have Armorer skill? Okay, the solution is FIND AN ARMORER." (or Physicker or whatever)

If the solution is instead for everyone to make a 4d or 5d roll against IQ until they succeed, it changes a natural story-based solution to a die-rolling solution.

[Steve Jackson]

The point about the current -4 penalty for unskilled weapon use is well taken.

Absolutely, some talents cannot be replaced by high-stat "winging it." And it may be necessary to use an asterisk or something. Swimmer, frinstance - some people can thrash about and stay on top of the wet stuff. But the Diver talent - nope, you can't fake that.

Unskilled archery? Not impossible, especially with a short bow. Unskilled fast archery? Impossible.

Hmm. Giving GMs and players more tools = good. Complexity = bad. Must . . . think . . .

[schoon]

I hate to answer a question with a question, but...

In the rest of the new rules, will most modifiers result in a fixed modifier or a +/-dice.

I'd prefer the result that is more universal in the rest of the rules.

(The logical arguments both seem valid to me, so I'm going with KISS.)