Gaming Outpost Discussions » Tag: skills

Gaming Outpost Discussions » Tag: skills - Recent Posts http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/tags/skills Gaming Outpost Discussions » Tag: skills - Recent Posts en-US Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:50:26 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/search.php M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining/page/2#post-17675 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:36:34 +0000 M. J. Young 17675@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>I would eliminate the problem entirely by making the meditative concentration a linked skill....</blockquote> This works, but it works differently. Let's assume that we're talking about a magical bonus to a magic skill. If the base time factor for the skill is one minute, and I make the ritual two minutes, I have doubled the base time and get +10 on my chance of success. Each time I double the base time I get another +10, so if I make it a 32 minute ritual I'm going to get +50. This means my chance of success is 50% greater and it will always take me half an hour to perform the skill. Instead, let's add a connected skill that bonuses my chance of success. The baseline bonus is going to be +RS/10 and it's going to take me one minute to perform; if it also takes me one minute to perform the skill, it now takes two minutes to perform both skills, and I have to roll the dice twice. If the first roll succeeds, I will add some amount of at least 1 and not greater than 10, and it will probably be on the lower end at least until I get fantastically good at it; if I manage to get my chance of success to 100%, the average bonus will be 5.5. But I can increase the ritual time of the adjunct "bonusing" skill. If I double it to two minutes, I get +10 on my chance to get a bonus of RS/10 on the next skill. I can increase the ritual time to thirty-two minutes and so get +50, but that goes to the bonus skill, which still confers only +RS/10 to the target skill. I can increase the bonus value by taking -10, which will give me +RS/5 but only +40 on the chance of success for the same time; I can increase it again to RS/2; I can even increase it to RS=SM, that if the roll is successful its value is added to the targeted skill--but now the bonus on my chance to succeed for the half hour is only +20, and there's still a 1% chance that I will roll 01, getting only a one point bonus, and probably still a significant chance that I will fail the bonus skill entirely, and thus have spent the entire half hour for no gain. Thus it is always more effective to put the bonuses directly into the skill you want to perform rather than a secondary skill. The chief advantage of putting the bonus into a secondary skill is you can get better at that skill and use it for a broad range of other skills. The chief advantage of not putting the time into the primary skill is that you can perform the primary skill more quickly if necessary. There is also the detail that if you are rolling for two separate skills, you've got two chances to fail and two chances to botch. You might increase your chance of success on the second skill (and so decrease your chance to botch), but you might botch on the first, or you might botch on the second. Also, it is generally not the referee's decision which way that happens. The player/character is making a determination as to whether to limit his ability to use a particular skill by making it a skill requirement that he invest the extra time into it (which prevents him from performing the same skill the same way in less time), and so getting a greater bonus on the chance to succeed with that skill. If the player prefers, the character can create a skill that bonuses a broad range of other skills, and if he wishes he can make certain skills contingent on a successful prior use of the bonusing skill (which would give him +10 for the requirement of successful use of another skill and prevent him from performing it at all absent that success). --M. J. Young Brock on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17648 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:56:11 +0000 Brock 17648@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I would eliminate the problem entirely by making the meditative concentration a linked skill or an optional component, something he can use when there is time for it. Whern chaining, he'd have to focus again to get the effect. If he wants the same success rate, he needs to put the same effort into it. Applying the bonus without the effort is only possible when someone else supplies the effort, such as a magical skill that has an otherworldly being directly interfere (which leaves the use of that skill up to that being, obviously). M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17603 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:12:22 +0000 M. J. Young 17603@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>Could a good trainer tell (approximately) how well someone would succeed from looking at their practice?</blockquote> I think not in the sense you mean. A good trainer would know how good a trainee is relative to other skilled users, but could not translate that into numeric equivalents. Obviously a boxing trainer might be able to say that he thinks his student can or cannot beat some other boxer, and could even say how likely he thinks it is that his student would win; but he couldn't state the probability of his student landing a punch, or getting into form quickly, or getting the first swing. An acting coach can tell a student that he's ready for the stage, but not whether the audience is going to like his work or whether he's going to remember all his lines. A swimming coach knows that his student can swim the hundred meter comfortably in a stated time, but not how likely the student is to beat that time, or to beat others in the race, or to hit the water wrong and choke. If you're looking for generalizations with no mathematical precision, trainers can give you that; if you're looking for numbers, probabilities, times, rates, durations, maximums, those just aren't the way the reality presents itself. <blockquote>Does observing someone else practice introduce pressure to that person which could be adverse enough that the person practicing can botch even if the person practicing does not care whether he/she succeeds or fails?</blockquote> I would say that as long as the one practicing is unaware that he is being observed it would not affect his practice. I would also say that the observer cannot know whether the observed is aware of the observation, and also cannot know what or how the observed is practicing. Did I take three steps and bounce on the end of the board and not go into the water because I didn't like the way those three steps went, or because I did? Did I want to practice the set up for the dive several times before actually performing it? Am I trying to decide just how hard to hit the end of the board, how high I want to go on the spring, and how to achieve that? Or am I just procrastinating about getting wet? <blockquote>A record of the longest time can be kept but knowing the exact longest time the skill could last would be hard. The character probably know currently that the skill can last more than an hour but not more than two hours. The character would not be sure that the skill would not exceed two hours but the character can guess the current limit of the skill.</blockquote> The player has the advantage that he can see the rolls, and so he can know that when he rolled thirty-seven he got thirty-seven minutes of effect but when he rolled 45 he got no effect at all. If, though, the rolls were blind, the player would know what the character knows. Suppose I rolled behind the screens, and your chance of success is actually 40 but you happened to roll 35, 27, 02, 80, 19, 17, 60, 03, 22, 19. You will have succeeded eight times in ten, and will think that you have an 80% chance of success. Similarly, if those rolls were 41, 35, 90, 85, 46, 17, 52, 88, 60, 95, you're going to have succeeded only two times in ten and botched once, which will give you the impression that you have a 20% chance of success and a 10% chance to botch. In theory you can eliminate the effects of randomness by increasing the number of rolls, but without doing any math I would not expect a hundred rolls to give you better than +/=10% accuracy, and a thousand rolls would not bring you as close as +/-2%. The data just isn't there. <blockquote>Mechanics or law of the reality is usually what a VR tester is thinking when testing a VR simulation. It might not be the same as the Multiverser rules, but there are rules on how the reality is perceived or generated. Can the VR tester come up with a way to simulate the reality that is perceived by making up related formula (which is not accurate at first considering lack of data but probably will grow as the character knows more) just like physicists?</blockquote> The complication here, as I see it, is that the mechanics are already an attempt to model reality, and so you are in essence attempting to extrapolate how the reality is modeled. Using your example of physics and virtual reality simulation, in the real world acceleration due to gravity is roughly ten meters per second per second (I just looked it up). In emulating that within a virtual world, I must first create a matrix in which there is perceived distance and perceived time. My matrix is probably going to have to include perspective, and thus that the "actual" distances perceived are distorted by the perceptual adjustment. Thus my formula is going to include that the motion of an object in freefall should appear to accelerate by moving so many units in the first fraction of a second, so many in the second, so many in the third, and so on, and then that the units themselves must pass through a translation system to provide the correct view of the motion relative to the observer, so that the units are smaller when they are further from the point of observation. If the simulation is done exactly right, you as the observer ought to be able to determine that objects in that virtual world fall at ten meters per second per second; you almost certainly cannot determine the formulas which create the perception that they do so from your observation point. Looking at modeling combat for a moment, it is assumed that when an amateur fights an amateur bare-fisted without any style bonuses, each rolls once per minute to determine whether he landed a significant blow against the other. The character does not know that; he knows that he is swinging and blocking and dodging constantly during the minute. That he has perhaps a thirty-five percent chance to connect solidly enough to matter once in the minute is not something he can perceive; nor can he determine which of the many punches he attempted is the one that "missed" if he failed to make that hit. The player perceives the actions in terms of the mechanics because the mechanics provide a simplified means of determining the outcome of a highly complex combination of actions and responses, a reality in which the character probably has closer to a two percent chance to land each of sixty attempted blows, which we simplify by the assumption that there's a thirty-five percent chance one of those sixty attacks will actually connect, and we don't worry about which one it was except in terms of an initiative roll that tells us whose thirty-five percent chance to connect comes first. The mechanics are by definition invisible to the characters, and thus undiscoverable. The player can know that his chance of success at a particular skill is somewhere between thirty-seven and forty-five percent based on the history of rolls he has made, and that his RS minutes duration means it will last a maximum that is not less than thirty-seven minutes but not as much as forty-five minutes. The character only knows that it has lasted over half an hour but never yet three quarters of an hour, and that it works somewhere between one time in three and one time in two. The system is designed to thwart efforts at getting more accurate "mechanical" answers to those questions. --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17593 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:00:17 +0000 Max 17593@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>There is also no way to calculate a meaningful rate of success--you stopped the process dozens of times before completing it because you weren't comfortable with the way it was moving, and you can't count those as either success or failure because you don't know which way they would have gone. he's giving you an approximation based on the assumption that over time you're going to get some feel for how difficult this is.</blockquote> Approximation is good enough. It might also make the character kind of know how difficult it is to do something and how much the character have improved. Could a good trainer tell (approximately) how well someone would succeed from looking at their practice? <blockquote>The assumption in practice is that there is no pressure and there are no adverse circumstances; but if you are attempting to perform or accomplish something by the actions you introduce circumstances, and they might be potentially adverse.</blockquote> Does observing someone else practice introduce pressure to that person which could be adverse enough that the person practicing can botch even if the person practicing does not care whether he/she succeeds or fails? I could see the above happening if the one in practice is aware of the presence of the observer and does things differently when there is an observer but what if the person does not aware of the presence of the observer? <blockquote>it is inherent in Multiverser rules that characters do not know and cannot discover the mechanics of the system.</blockquote> Mechanics or law of the reality is usually what a VR tester is thinking when testing a VR simulation. It might not be the same as the Multiverser rules, but there are rules on how the reality is perceived or generated. Can the VR tester come up with a way to simulate the reality that is perceived by making up related formula (which is not accurate at first considering lack of data but probably will grow as the character knows more) just like physicists? <blockquote>he has yet to discover (and possibly never will) the longest time it could last.</blockquote> A record of the longest time can be kept but knowing the exact longest time the skill could last would be hard. The character probably know currently that the skill can last more than an hour but not more than two hours. The character would not be sure that the skill would not exceed two hours but the character can guess the current limit of the skill. <blockquote>as soon as you've succeeded you're going to terminate the use and try again</blockquote> That depends on the way someone practice. The person could be having a practice on changing the properties and so uses the full duration. The person also could know the duration of the skill before terminating it prematurely via other skill. <blockquote>I hope this helps.</blockquote> Yes, thank you very much for the feedback. M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17559 Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:49:03 +0000 M. J. Young 17559@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>Does this mean that the success rate or effect of the skill would be different because it is done in practice?</blockquote> It could be so construed; but it also means that when you are practicing it is not possible to estimate your chance of success. Let me pull up an example. Sometimes I practice "playing Bridge" (haven't done so in years, but I have done it). There are two ways I can do this. One is, I can pick up a bridge column, examine the hands, consider how I would play it and what outcome I would get, and then read the column to find out what the expert sees. The other is, I can deal out four hands, pick them up one at a time, write down my bids, then play the hand, putting the dummy on the table face up and picking up each of the other hands and playing it as if I did not know the content of the hidden hands. Neither of those practice methods will give me much insight into how well I would do playing with three other people; nor will I ever "lose" a game practicing this way. The entire context of "practicing" is different from that of "doing". When I'm practicing a song on the guitar, I play it. If I blow a riff, it doesn't matter--it's not a "botch", because it didn't matter if I got it right. Maybe I'll stop and try it again; maybe I'll play through that one riff half a dozen times and then continue the song; maybe I'll start over from the beginning. Maybe I'll practice the movements of the left hand without the right, the right hand without the left, and put them together. Maybe I won't get that riff right, and I'll move on and come back to it later. So if you're "practicing" your telekinesis, you go through the mental motions of moving a targeted object. Sometimes you have an object, sometimes you don't. You do it slowly, either way. You don't have to move the object; you can stop the process at any point before you move the object, if you're not completely comfortable with the way it's going. There is no pressure--you don't have to do this. There is also no way to calculate a meaningful rate of success--you stopped the process dozens of times before completing it because you weren't comfortable with the way it was moving, and you can't count those as either success or failure because you don't know which way they would have gone. You end up with twenty percent of the attempts worked, forty percent didn't work, and forty percent were never completed because you weren't sure whether they were going to work or not, so your rate of success is somewhere between twenty and sixty percent, but you've no idea where, and you have no idea even whether you would have succeeded in every case that you did had you been under pressure to succeed, or whether you would have failed every time you failed if there had been pressure to succeed, so you really learn very little. A generous referee might tell you that you succeed one in three times, but he's giving you an approximation based on the assumption that over time you're going to get some feel for how difficult this is. After all, when I'm practicing a guitar riff I do get some idea of how easy or difficult it's going to be, how likely I am to be able to repeat it in concert, and how much omre practice I need for it. <blockquote>Does this only work for botch-able skills or does it work for all skills even the no botch skill?</blockquote> There is no such thing as a "no botch skill". What there is is a skill whose sit-mods give it a chance of success over one hundred percent under normal circumstances. The same skill performed in extremely adverse circumstances might have a negative chance of success and a very high chance to botch. The assumption in practice is that there is no pressure and there are no adverse circumstances; but if you are attempting to perform or accomplish something by the actions you introduce circumstances, and they might be potentially adverse. For my part, if you had a skill that had greater than one hundred percent chance of success under ordinary circumstances, you would botch only on a general effects roll bad enough abruptly to introduce extremely adverse circumstances. <blockquote>Can a person with professional skill level just do the everyday thing without rolling?</blockquote> The answer is, probably, but you don't get to define "the everyday thing". If a character had developed simple TK to professional level, I would not roll for such things as moving small objects around a room, grabbing a pencil to hand, placing a note on a desk. I would still roll for snatching a ball in flight, grabbing an object out of someone's grasp, lifting a creature against its will, putting the point of a weapon in a targeted spot (whether an assailant or a scabbard or a block of wood), and numerous other tasks that seem ordinary enough but "matter" in some sense. I might allow an expert to perform some of these without a roll, but not those that matter to someone else. An expert might not have to roll for sheathing a weapon or sticking it into a block of wood, but would have to roll to use it for an attack. <blockquote>A zero percent or very low success rate skills because of the effect of heavy penalty to sit-mod but still learn-able because of high bias is also a good candidate to test the bonus of concentration skill.</blockquote> It is important to note that it is inherent in Multiverser rules that characters do not know and cannot discover the mechanics of the system. They can talk about bias being high or low, but cannot know that a world has a 15@ bias or that this gives them +30 on all skill use in that bias area, or that their force field is a 10@ skill that gives them a 10@ bias. What they know is that some skills are more difficult to learn, some skills do not work in every universe, some skills are more difficult to perform and more likely to botch. Players are permitted to have the mechanical information because it is the easiest way to communicate concepts. That is, saying that you have a 1@5 strength which means thus-and-such in mechanical terms enables everyone to understand how strong the character is; what the character knows is that he is stronger than some people, not as strong as others, able to lift amd carry certain objects easily, others with more difficulty, and others not at all. When the player attempts to have the character act with an eye toward game mechanics, all such efforts fail automatically, because characters do not and cannot understand or acknowledge the existence of game mechanics. As far as durations of skills, what the player knows is that they last a number of minutes equal to the roll of the die unless terminated prematurely; what the character knows is that they last different lengths of time, never less than a minute, usually considerably longer, and he has yet to discover (and possibly never will) the longest time it could last. After all, you might roll the best possible roll for the skill, but your character knows nothing about that, and does not know that the skill could not have lasted another ten minutes--which would be the case if the best roll you ever happen to have rolled is ten points lower than the best you could have rolled. Because of this, you can't determine durations from observing practice. You don't know enough. Besides, if the practice is trying to improve performance, as soon as you've succeeded you're going to terminate the use and try again, just as if I'm trying to perfect that riff I'm not going to play the part of the song that I don't need to practice. I hope this helps. --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17555 Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:06:59 +0000 Max 17555@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>improve his skills in a low-stress situation without having to worry about his skull exploding</blockquote> Does this mean that the success rate or effect of the skill would be different because it is done in practice? <blockquote>maintaining an element of risk in skill performance</blockquote> Does this mean that practice have an equal amount to botch too or does it mean that the skill performance will be lower to minimize the risk? Or does something like safety net are added into the practice to minimize the botch but not during real performance? That gives me an idea to develop a safety net like object or skill for other skills. <blockquote>when all you were trying to do was go through the motions.</blockquote> This kind of practice would not show any observable effect thus can be done in any world right? Would this kind of practice affect similar skill if the motion gone through is similar? <blockquote>I'd just make a General Effects roll for how soon you botch, how well the attempts go before that time, and how catastrophic the botch is when it happens.</blockquote> Does this only work for botch-able skills or does it work for all skills even the no botch skill? If it works to no failure skill, does this mean the SAL of the skill does not level, goes down or something, or does it mean all the effects are all at minimum? If it works to no botch skill but still could fail, does this mean the SAL of the skill does not level, goes down or something, or does it mean all the effects fails? <blockquote>if you observed a person practicing, your data would be about practice.</blockquote> What sort of data can be gathered during practice? Is it the way the practice is done? If the practice still have observable effect, can this effect data be gathered? Can a person with professional skill level just do the everyday thing without rolling? Would this person does not have to roll even if there is a heavy penalty sit mod on the professional skill? Can the effect data be collected from such a person? ***** A zero percent or very low success rate skills because of the effect of heavy penalty to sit-mod but still learn-able because of high bias is also a good candidate to test the bonus of concentration skill. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17551 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:04:42 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17551@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ The intent of the distinction between practice and nonpractice is 1) to allow the player to rehearse and improve his skills in a low-stress situation without having to worry about his skull exploding, while 2) maintaining an element of risk in skill performance. All rulings on the subject are made with this intent in mind. Once you start trying to do more than simply improve your skills, you put me in a difficult position if you try to call it "practice." From a mechanical perspective, removing the chance to botch during practice is essentially a mercy - it saves me the trouble of having to roll thousands of times when the outcome doesn't matter, and it saves you the trouble of having your skull explode dozens of times when all you were trying to do was go through the motions. It's a kindness. If you're using the skill in a circumstance where the outcome does matter, it's hard to justify that kindness; if you want to use your TK to build a castle "as practice," I'm less inclined to be merciful. If the distinction between practice and skill performance blurs too much, I'll be forced to remove that botch protection. Probably I wouldn't roll out thousands of attempts; I'd just make a General Effects roll for how soon you botch, how well the attempts go before that time, and how catastrophic the botch is when it happens. ____ The other thing is, if you want data on skill performance, you're not going to get it by observing practice. Thus, if you observed a person practicing, your data would be about practice. If you performed the skill yourself, you would either be practicing, never botch, and gathering data on practice, or you would be performing the skill repeatedly, risk botching, and gathering data on skill performance. Does that make sense? Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17548 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:15:14 +0000 Max 17548@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>if the outcome matters, you roll.</blockquote> If I said I observe other person practice, does that person have to roll every time that person practice? Does this mean the person can botch if I observe that person in practice but when that person is not observed that person would not botch? (Sounds like Heisenberg uncertainty principle right?) If this is the case, does a person with professional level skill need to roll for the skill if another person observes the effect? <blockquote>Would you consider driving a car down the highway every day as an experiment to see how often you crash or lose control of the car?</blockquote> Only in virtual reality or if I can live through it such as in the verser case. That gives me an idea of experimenting in virtual reality. I did think of making a hundred replica of myself in virtual reality to experiment on these kind of things. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17544 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:04:38 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17544@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ The rule is: if the outcome matters, you roll. If you're gathering data on your skill use, attempting to learn something, the outcome matters. I would probably still allow that your SAL increased due to practice, but it wouldn't be "practice" in the sense that you don't have to roll for the skill. <blockquote>I think my character does not know about the botch system yet so probably he will choose the former experiment until it eventually botches but after several encounter with botches he will probably try to conduct the experiment to determine the rate of botches.</blockquote> There's no "yet" about it. In-game, there is no "botch system" to know anything about. All your character can hope to learn is that sometimes he makes very bad mistakes, but the easier a task is or the more skilled he is, the less often he screws up. This is isn't something that requires careful experimentation to learn, and careful experimentation on the subject is unlikely to learn anything more than this. Would you consider driving a car down the highway every day as an experiment to see how often you crash or lose control of the car? Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17530 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:26:34 +0000 Max 17530@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>And it did exist the first time I pressed "back" (it hadn't posted), but once I logged in - in another tab - it stopped existing.</blockquote> That happen to me once before which is why I copy my post every time before I pressed "submit". Thank you for pointing out what the recovery time refers to. <blockquote>* The SAL may increase during this time due to practice, * Countless rolls made for the purpose of experimentation will result in many, many botches, any of which could end the experiment early in any number of nasty ways.</blockquote> The first problem could cause the result to increase due time. Considering this is doing the same thing all over again, the skill would not increase due to new use. The problem left would be if the SAL increased due to practice. (The other problem would be the increase in my attribute or increase in my bias. These could be avoided if the attribute increase slow enough that the experiment finished first and I do not try anything new that might raise my bias. I could also raise the SAL, the attribute or the bias to optimum level that I think that any more practice would not benefit it.) If it is practice then would you have to roll for each of it? What if in practice I just extract the data from it because I know the skill would work in this world but I am just gathering data on the duration of the succeeded attempt? If this is the case, would every observable skill would have to be rolled even in practice? If for example countless roll would have to be made, the experiment could be done by enhancing the success rate of the targeted skill to 91% to 95% (but preferably 91%). The concentration skill bonus would have to be half of the original bonus (RS/20) but the success rate is enhanced to no failure. If the targeted skill success rate is over 95% then make another skill to replace it. I think my character does not know about the botch system yet so probably he will choose the former experiment until it eventually botches but after several encounter with botches he will probably try to conduct the experiment to determine the rate of botches. After that, the character will probably conduct the latter experiment. <blockquote>I encourage you to try this out in play. I've got lots of lovely world ideas I haven't been able to use lately.</blockquote> Probably much later in the future when the mission of that world is over. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17514 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:31:41 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17514@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>A trick I always use before I press "submit" is I copy what I wrote then I press "submit". That way you would not lose what you wrote. If you have not copy what you wrote then probably it might still exist if you press "back" on your browser but the chance is rather slim.</blockquote> I "always" do this, too, but didn't this time. And it did exist the first time I pressed "back" (it hadn't posted), but once I logged in - in another tab - it stopped existing. Take my word when I say I tried most reasonable avenues of recovery. <blockquote>What is this recovery time?</blockquote> I'm referring to this: <blockquote>1) In the minute when the duration of the out-of-body skill is about to expire, I tell you so. You have the option to chain if you wish. 2) If you wish to chain, you must first make a successful difficult Willpower check (roll d30+10, fails if it is equal to or greater than your decimalized Willpower). 3) If the Willpower check succeeds (a seven out of thirty chance for you right now, given your 1@8 Willpower), you must roll a skill check with a -10 sit-mod. 4) If the skill check succeeds, you extend the duration of the effect by RS minutes. 5) If you attempt to chain again, each consecutive attempt suffers a cumulative -1 penalty to your effective Willpower for the attribute check and a cumulative additional -10 sit-mod to the skill check. 6) If at any point you fail to chain, you may not attempt the skill again until you have recovered and there has been a change in circumstances. What constitutes "recovery" and "change in circumstances" are entirely referee's discretion and I will not answer questions on the subject in advance.</blockquote> It's analogous to the time it takes for you to catch your breath after running for several miles and regain enough energy to be ready to run several more. <blockquote>Can I eliminate the effect of the current skill just before the concentration ends and replace it with a new one if I want to consecutive chain it? </blockquote> If I understand you correctly - you want to begin a second attempt half an hour before the first duration expires, and then end the first effect the moment you finish the half-hour prep period for the second attempt - then yes. But if the prep period involves high concentration, your skill attempt may be penalized (my discretion) if you're attempting to maintain low-concentration psionic skills during that period. If you're attempting to do anything else that's high-concentration at the same time that you're engaged in a high-concentration prep period, that will be nearly impossible. <blockquote>After countless experiment,</blockquote> Two problems with this: * The SAL may increase during this time due to practice, * Countless rolls made for the purpose of experimentation will result in many, many botches, any of which could end the experiment early in any number of nasty ways. I encourage you to try this out in play. I've got lots of lovely world ideas I haven't been able to use lately. Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17510 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:18:59 +0000 Max 17510@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>the character cannot know with any certainty the maximum possible duration.</blockquote> First conduct experiment on the duration of single skill. After countless experiment, the average skill duration could be found and a maximum duration could be deduced. Make a probability chart of the results. Then try the skill cumulatively. If the cumulative experiment results in a chart that looks like number of tries of the single skill chart, this would mean the single skill duration is accumulative. If the cumulative skill results in a chart that are leaning towards longer duration but are still in the range of single skill, it probably chooses the best duration of the skill. If the results are the same as the single skill chart, it probably chooses the last duration. The above are easily done because the effect of duration can be observed. However, for effect like bonus of one skill to another, that would be much harder if there are no observable effects so the effect have to be observed on the target skill instead. The character can know the success rate of their own skills by experimenting although they would not know the sit mod of their own skills right? By knowing the target skill success rate and observing the duration of the target skill, the character can use the above experiment to know whether the concentration skill affects are cumulative or not. Knowing whether it takes the best bonus or the last bonus would be much harder considering the result will be pretty close but with enough repetition the result could be clarified. The part near the longest duration would also look different for each case. <blockquote>I really can't stand how my post just now was apparently lost due to my being automatically logged out between when I started composing it and when I pressed "submit."</blockquote> A trick I always use before I press "submit" is I copy what I wrote then I press "submit". That way you would not lose what you wrote. If you have not copy what you wrote then probably it might still exist if you press "back" on your browser but the chance is rather slim. <blockquote>Any psi skill which can't be readily performed on a minute's notice can only be chained strenuously (willpower check, cumulative penalties, etc). Note that recovery time will likely be shorter for skills with less demanding start-up procedures.</blockquote> What is this recovery time? Is it the time when I could try the skill again after I fail to chain it? Can I try a similar skill during that time? Does the recovery time equal to the concentration time? Can I eliminate the effect of the current skill just before the concentration ends and replace it with a new one if I want to consecutive chain it? WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17506 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:52:17 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17506@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ You know what? I don't want to have two systems for chaining, anyway. Here: * Any psi skill which can't be readily performed on a minute's notice can only be chained strenuously (willpower check, cumulative penalties, etc). Note that recovery time will likely be shorter for skills with less demanding start-up procedures. * For any other psi skill, chaining is basically the same as just using the skill repeatedly, anyway, so it'll be treated just like multiple attempts. On to the game. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17504 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:24:03 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17504@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Wow. I really can't stand how my post just now was apparently lost due to my being automatically logged out between when I started composing it and when I pressed "submit." Maybe I'll reconstruct it. Someday. M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17484 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:43:42 +0000 M. J. Young 17484@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Scott: <blockquote>if we allow the player to keep the best result of multiple rolls (excepting botches), we're still allowing the character to play Yahtzee with his skill, manipulating the probabilities of botch and relative success depending on the needs of the situation. Isn't a skill roll meant to represent a character's total best effort?</blockquote> Yes, but? I'm reminded of a ST:TNG episode in which an attempt to teleport someone was not working, so the engineer started a second attempt before ending the first, which worked. I can see someone deciding to bake a pie for someone special, and deciding to make three pies, starting them one after the other, and then when they're done choosing the best. O.K., not good examples in the context, but examples of doing the same skill in multiple overlapping efforts and taking the best of the outcomes. I can see an AD&D Augury spell being used to determine whether opening this door would be beneficial or detrimental. I can see that the result of such a spell might be nothing at all, because it's just an empty closet or something. AD&D spells are automatically successful; Multiverser spells are not. If you get no result at all, you very well might try again--and that's exactly like the danger sense skill here. <blockquote>It's like a subconscious weather forecast for danger. He puts in his activation time, and when it works, he gets a report of all future danger in a format inaccessible to his conscious mind, from which information surfaces only when a particular danger is temporally and spatially proximate.</blockquote> I see the argument, but I see this skill more as a crossbreed of the other two. It's like the first that's "always on" and has to be rolled retroactively to see if it worked in the current danger, but like the second in that it has to be activated for a limited duration. In a sense, he's giving himself a temporary "Spidey sense" which is just like the "always on" but that "whether it works" has already been rolled, and how long it will be active is not known to the user. So maybe the answer is that Maxx can create a skill that gives him this temporary danger sense for the specified duration, which then enables him to roll if during that duration there is something to sense (your first skill type), with a bonus to both rolls based in the first instance on the fact that the skill is not always on, and in the second instance on the fact that he doesn't know if the duration has lapsed. (The second roll would only work if it hasn't, obviously, but he wouldn't know that.) Of botching terminating the skill use: <blockquote>On the contrary, this reduces the hazard of botching.</blockquote> Au contraire, mon ami! You misunderstand. Early termination of the skill would not be a separate entry on the botch list, but would be included into all botch results for which it is not contrary to the sense of the botch otherwise--e.g., brain burn, psionic shock wave, neural breakdown, wrong skill use, wrong target, all mean that this happened and your flight abruptly terminated; only something like hyperacceleration or rapid elevation, botches which involve the skill going wrong, would allow the skill to continue. Maxx: <blockquote>I also wonder what will happen to skill such as simple TK. Would doing it twice kind of raise the bias of the skill to be multi TK?</blockquote> My ruling generally is that you can use simple TK multiple times to control multiple objects, but there is a cumulatively increasing penalty each time you add another link to another object, and they are all run individually. That also means generally you have to pick up the objects one at a time at one minute intervals, and if you have to chain the skill to maintain hold you must do so in the minute the skill will expire, and if two skills expire in the same minute you can't chain both. Multiple TK allows you to pick up a collection of objects simultaneously and/or consecutively and manipulate them individually and/or collectively as part of the same roll. <blockquote>To know whether the bonus would accumulate or not would be easy.</blockquote> Not from a character perspective. Let's suppose you roll three times for a telekinetic hold on single object. You will know whether the first attempt succeeds or fails; you will only know whether the second does so if the first failed, and you will only know whether the third does so if the first and second failed (unless one of those rolls botches). If the first roll succeeds, it could be five or fifty. If the total winds up being forty-five minutes, you don't know whether the best roll was forty-five or the three rolls totaled forty-five. The amount of data the character would have to accumulate from information not known to the character is significant. You would have to get a result in excess of the maximum possible duration to know that durations had been cumulative, and the character cannot know with any certainty the maximum possible duration. You can only divine the answers you want by using player information to solve character questions. --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17481 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:16:34 +0000 Max 17481@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Thanks to both of you I think I have learned a lot of things now. So a lot of the calculation will depend on the intention of the character. This means that if I want to extend the duration of the skill via chaining, it will be treated under "consecutive chaining" rule. I guess whether there is a minute warning when I fail the chaining check will be determined in play. Further attempts of consecutive chaining without a change in circumstance get the same result. A skill properties could also be changed using the same sit-mod as long as it remains within the skill original activation time. Would failure to change the properties result in immediate failure of the skill? A skill could also be done twice to replicate the effect but there will be a penalty for it (if said skill effect can be separated). I wonder what will happen to the case the effect could not be separated such as flight. Would this be treated as "consecutive chaining"? I also wonder what will happen to skill such as simple TK. Would doing it twice kind of raise the bias of the skill to be multi TK? <blockquote>That is probably not something you can even test as an in-game character.</blockquote> To know whether the bonus would accumulate or not would be easy. The hard part is to know whether the highest bonus or the last bonus apply when the character knows that the bonus does not accumulate. This would relate to the "chaining" problem which ask whether the old remaining time would still be used if the new time is lower than the old remaining time. So the answer to that would apply to the intention of the user. In this case something to show the presence of the bonus such as developing a skill that shows level of concentration by adding effect that can be perceived by sense such as different intensity level of light (or it could also just be a feeling like detect Psi skills) might be able to tell the character about it. <blockquote>Obviously, converting +RS/10 to a fixed +10 is not fair and deserves a penalty.</blockquote> Does converting +RS/10 to +5 a fair trade? If it is fixed at +1, does the DCS gets any bonus (and how much is it)? If the DCS gets -10 penalty, would the TS bonus be +2 or +11 (if formerly the TS bonus is fixed at +1)? I think I did miss some things here and there so I think I probably address them later. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17476 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:30:04 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17476@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ (Second post, addressing Maxx) <blockquote>Your ungenerous mood is still generous enough for me which is why I am a bit confused before. If it was me, I would fail the skill immediately and would not wait for a minute because I think that would be more logical.</blockquote> For early attempts at chaining (attempts made with over a minute remaining), I was allowing the same minute's warning you usually get when a skill is about to fail. For attempts made with less than a minute remaining, the character has already had a minute's warning, so he doesn't get it a second time. You might be right, though. You'll find out if you've persuaded me the next time you fail a chaining check in play. __ MJ answered the force field issue to my satisfaction. (Thanks, MJ.) If he hasn't answered it to yours, tell me how and I'll happily clarify. Ditto for the dedicated/non-dedicated question. As for the variable-bonus to fixed-bonus conversion, there's no penalty (in my game) as long as the conversion is fair and appropriate. Obviously, converting +RS/10 to a fixed +10 is not fair and deserves a penalty. Probably what I would do is first adjust the relative bonus to the proper magnitude, penalize for that, and only then convert it to a fixed bonus based on what I thought a fair conversion was for that range. If I thought a fixed bonus were inappropriate for the skill, I wouldn't penalize; I just wouldn't allow it to work that way. I think MJ covered the rest. We can continue this discussion here (and I expect we will), but feel free to post on the game thread any time that you're sure what you want to do. Don't wait for me to give you permission. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17474 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:45:16 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17474@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I'm going to respond to MJ first, because that way I'll have a better understanding of which points he's already addressed when I respond to Maxx. First, the math. I anticipated the objection that multiple rolls also increase the chance to botch. This is no comfort to me; if we allow the player to keep the best result of multiple rolls (excepting botches), we're still allowing the character to play Yahtzee with his skill, manipulating the probabilities of botch and relative success depending on the needs of the situation. Isn't a skill roll meant to represent a character's total best effort? I'm fine with chaining; it allows us to require a character to succeed at multiple checks in order to perform a lengthy task without the awkwardness of saying "you flight over the Atlantic went well; your TK Flight stalled out nineteen times, but you restarted it just fine every time (after a half-second's free-fall)". I'm fine with multiple separate attempts at a skill, too, as long as they're actually separate. I think the danger sense is a bad example, here. There's two kinds of normal danger sense, and I don't think Maxx's is either one. The first kind is rolled once and that's that - the kind the GM rolls when the player reminds him. The second kind the player has to use in advance when he thinks there's danger, and you'd have a very hard time convincing me to allow a player to roll that one multiple times, either. Why? Change in circumstance. For all he knows, it's on. You wouldn't let him reverse a botch with a second consecutive attempt; why let him reverse a failure, or improve a success? He's given it his best shot at the moment, and straining himself won't do any more good. Further attempts without a change in circumstance get the same result. Maxx's seems to be a third kind, with stress on the precognitive. It's like a subconscious weather forecast for danger. He puts in his activation time, and when it works, he gets a report of all future danger in a format inaccessible to his conscious mind, from which information surfaces only when a particular danger is temporally and spatially proximate. The consequences of this which immediately spring to mind are that 1) this is really an instantaneous skill, whose "duration" is merely the temporal scope of the report produced, and as such, 2) it is questionable as to whether his psionic skill detection skill is able to detect if it worked; also, 3) it can't be chained, only repeated; by the same token, there's no reason that a failed 2nd attempt would cancel an earlier success even if you accept my ruling on consecutive chaining. That's a key point, I think. When the player says he's making multiple attempts, is he really using the skill multiple times, or is he trying to enhance his performance by making multiple rolls? The latter is repugnant to me. It smells of mechanical thinking. (The former's just fine, and I wouldn't use my chaining rules to adjudicate the situation.) <blockquote>Talking in-game reasoning again, I can imagine that a character was in flight and saw that he was, say, ten minutes from his goal but five minutes from a safe landing spot, and have him at that moment decide he wants to "attempt to push the flight long enough to reach the goal, but take the safe landing spot if I don't think it's going to work", and then roll for chaining. </blockquote> Why have him roll for chaining? It strikes me that the first order of business here is to ask, "How do you expect to know if it's going to work?" Unless he changes his mind in response to the question or gives me an answer I don't expect, I would check his remaining duration and narrate one of four outcomes: 1) His flight will last at least ten minutes, so I tell him he reaches his goal without any trouble. 2) His flight will last less than five minutes, so I roll for chaining at that time and narrate the results. 3) His flight will last between five and seven minutes, so I tell him that he feels it going out before he reaches his goal, but fortunately he's close enough to the safe landing site that he can (stay aloft long enough)/(turn back in time) to reach it; I don't roll for chaining since he's told me he won't in this circumstance, but I would allow him to try again once he's landed with no further change in circumstance (once). 4) His flight will last more than seven but fewer than ten minutes, so I roll for chaining once he's past the safe spot (he thought he could make it) and narrate the results. No need to allow the player to roll chaining early and keep the time if he failed, especially since it doesn't answer the question of how he could know if he'll make it or not. Actually, under my proposed chaining ruleset, you might model this circumstance just by rolling for chaining when the character reaches the safe spot. If he fails, he has a minute's notice in which to land, exactly as he would have if the skill had been slated to naturally expire on minute six (that is, just as if he'd had to make the chaining roll then instead of electing to). If he succeeds, tell him he feels like he can push on. (If the roll was four or less, he'll need to chain again, but who says feelings are always right?) This might look like penalizing the character for his caution - especially if in fact he had over ten minutes left and fails the chaining check - but consider that by doing it this way, he's eliminated possibility number (4), where he pushes on past the safe spot only to founder short of his goal. That sounds like a perfect mechanical model for caution in this circumstance. Next post, I respond to Maxx. Edit: <blockquote>Now, I can see an argument that the remaining duration ought to be that of the last successful roll; but I would normally allow a character to finish out the clock on his last successful roll following a failed chaining roll. I would normally terminate the skill on a botch, which again heightens the hazard of botching. </blockquote> On the contrary, this reduces the hazard of botching. My ruling heightens the hazard by shifting early termination of the skill off of the botch list into the realm of normal failure. The remaining botches that weren't already worse must now be made worse to avoid players sighing in relief when they find out a high roll botched. (Well, excepting those botches that are obviously benign; that's intentional.) M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17458 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:42:51 +0000 M. J. Young 17458@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Scott: <blockquote>Keeping the old time gets especially bad when the character doesn't necessarily know the skill is working and can't be sure how long it will last. In that situation, depending on the math, it will sometimes make sense for the character to attempt the skill three times in a row to increase his chances of getting a good duration. I don't want that to ever make sense, because it's only the math that makes it make sense. (Does that make sense?) I suppose I could accomplish something similar by just not allowing chaining except when necessary to maintain the skill. I dunno. I'm interested in whatever reasons you have that it shouldn't work this way.</blockquote> I don't think I would object to a character attempting the same skill several times in a row. For an example, the proposed continuous danger sense skill can't be detected by the user, so he does not know whether or not it is working. That is, this would (at the table) be a blind roll: player declares that he's turning on the danger sense, referee rolls the dice behind the screens. If the roll is successful and there is something to sense, the referee informs the player that his character senses danger; if the roll fails or there is nothing to sense, the referee informs the player that the character senses nothing. In reality, such a character might well attempt to start the danger sense multiple times, particularly if he was in a situation in which the no-danger result surprises him. He might even launch it several times just to be certain he has a "firm grip", as it were, even if on the first try he detects something. The practice of multiple rolls also increases the chance to botch. If I have a five percent chance to botch on one roll my chance not to botch is 95%; but if I roll twice my chance not to botch decreases to about 90%, and on the third roll to 86%. If I am going to roll three times regardless of whether I think the first succeeds, I've kicked my chance to botch to nearly thrice what it was. Compound this by the facts that any botch is almost certainly going to negate any success and that a botch might deceive a character into believing he has a success (e.g., a false positive danger sense reading, character senses danger whether or not it is present), and you've got plenty of reason to let a player do multiple checks for the same continuous skill. Now, I can see an argument that the remaining duration ought to be that of the last successful roll; but I would normally allow a character to finish out the clock on his last successful roll following a failed chaining roll. I would normally terminate the skill on a botch, which again heightens the hazard of botching. Talking in-game reasoning again, I can imagine that a character was in flight and saw that he was, say, ten minutes from his goal but five minutes from a safe landing spot, and have him at that moment decide he wants to "attempt to push the flight long enough to reach the goal, but take the safe landing spot if I don't think it's going to work", and then roll for chaining. Whether I would tell him the result of that roll is another question, but even if not we're looking at a character who 1) might have made it to the goal without attempting the chain, 2) might have decided to attempt the chain because he was not certain he would make the goal otherwise, 3) having attempted to chain might rely on his hope that it was successful to carry him the distance, and 4) was willing to risk a botch to make it. So loosely, those are my thoughts. Scott, quoting Maxx: <blockquote> <blockquote>1) The bonus that DCS provide to TS was a variable but can be set to be fixed but the then the success rate of DCS will be penalized.</blockquote> I'm not sure why this would warrant a penalty. Without that penalty, the chain of reasoning leading to your (4) weakens significantly.</blockquote> I think that comes back to me. I believe I said that ordinarily if you create a skill that provides a bonus to another skill, the bonus is variable based on relative success, and that if I felt that a particular skill ought to be so treated but the character was converting it to a fixed duration, there would be a penalty for the conversion. Part of my reasoning is that fixed durations are more predictable and more reliable (making the distinction between those two words intentionally); part of it is that you tend to get longer fixed durations than you get from RS durations because of the variable chance of success--an RS/5 duration is 1 to 20 which averages to 10.5, and a fixed duration of 10 sounds like less, but the odds of 100 being a successful roll are really slim if it's not a completely packed skill, so you're more likely to have averages ranging from 4.5 (for chance of success 45%) to 8.5 (for 80%). So in that sense converting from RS to fixed improves the skill's potency, and ought to be penalized absent some specific warrant or game basis otherwise. <blockquote>What happens when the character does know how long the skill will last?</blockquote> Technically the character should only know exactly how long the skill will last if the skill has a fixed duration and thus always lasts the same length of time no matter the conditions or the success roll. Even a detect should only give an approximate value for how much longer a skill will last. In the case of preemptive chaining of a fixed duration skill, the question arises as to why the character would do that; but since I can see a possibility (it's a 10:00 duration, you've used 6:00, you want to do something else that requires 8:00 and don't want the first skill to lapse before you're finished, so you want to "restart the clock") I would say that given Scott's reasoning you would probably notice. Given my reasoning, you would realize that the chaining did not work later when the skill expires. Maxx: In the first force field example, there would probably be a penalty against maintaining two force fields simultaneously, but if you have separate skills they create separate force fields. For comparison, if you were using one skill that created a force shield against incoming missiles and another that created a platform on which you could stand, you would expect them to function independently. A similar answer applies to the second force field example: what did you do with the first shield, and why did you create the second? I would suggest that the possibilities are: <ol> <li>You created a second force shield, at a penalty, in a different location, and are now splitting your concentration between two force fields. Don't expect to be able to do much else that requires concentration.</li> <li>Your second roll was an effort to manipulate the original shield, moving it from its original position to its new position. (Such shields must be fixed relative to either the character or the frame of reference, so there could be good reason to want to move it from in front to behind.) There is only one shield, the position changes, but the estimated end time remains the same.</li> <li>You shut down one shield and created another so you would not have the penalties against maintaining two shields. Duration of psionic skills after all assumes that you continue to maintain them, and thus the maximum time for which they are maintained without renewal. Thus if you want the new shield you can give up the old one; the new duration is the time indicated by the new roll, but of course you couldn't know what the new roll was going to be before making the decision about whether to shut down the other shield.</li> </ol> Maxx, quoting Scott: <blockquote> <blockquote>I suppose I could accomplish something similar by just not allowing chaining except when necessary to maintain the skill.</blockquote> This creates a problem of when is it necessary to start chaining for a skill that have more than 1 minute of concentration.</blockquote> I disagree. It's an excellent solution to the entire quagmire, because it says that the normal way to do psionic skills is without advance "preparatory concentration", and that if you use such preparatory concentration you get bonuses on your chance of success which you pay for by eliminating the option of chaining. Were it not for certain aspects of the in-game history I would say this was the obvious answer. Maxx, on concentration bonus skills: <blockquote>Will the skill success gets any bonus if this skill is a "Dedicated" one?</blockquote> Technically all such skills are "dedicated" at some level. For example, you can have a psionic skill that bonuses your chance of success at magic skills (just as you can have a magic skill that bonuses your chance of success at psionic ones), but cross-bias bonusing skills are always limited to specifically related skills. Whether the referee wants to allow a "bonuses all psionic skills" skill or limit it to broad areas (as I previously discussed) and penalize the "all" version is his call. I can imagine giving a bonus for a prep skill dedicated to a specific skill, largely because it would give you so many skills to practice that you would have to specialize to make it worthwhile to use any of them (the reason why the Architect is not as good as the Psientist at psionic skills: the Architect expanded into many skills in all bias areas, and so has spent less time on each area). I don't see a level between the category and the specific skill, though, so the bonus is probably not that significant (probably +10, but it's not my call in Scott's game). <blockquote>If this skill target the next specific skill, would the bonus accumulate if the skill is done multiple times? If not, will the highest bonus or the last skill bonus apply?</blockquote> I'm afraid at this point the answer becomes, "How would you know?" That is probably not something you can even test as an in-game character. Character questions are not permitted to be phrased in game mechanics terms, because for the characters the game mechanics don't exist. Even apart from that, I cannot imagine any experiment a character could perform that would reveal that question. If you're asking it in the position of a student referee, the answer is that there are too many variables in what you've asked for their to be a single answer, and the answer would probably become obvious once the variables were all addressed. I think the discussion of the transfer skills skill is too far off topic to pursue here. It would normally produce a temporary copy without destroying the original; an extremely difficult version might produce a permanent copy without destroying the original, but the skill would have to be rather specific and the user extremely well practiced, and that's a very difficult combination to get. And "the book suggests intensities" means that the increase is RS/10 intensities from what it was. My calculations were based on RS/10 skill marks, which prevents surges into the upper third level based on straight-line increases. It means that a roll of 50 would give +5 intensities regardless of the starting level, so 1@1 becomes 1@6, 1@10 becomes 2@5, and 3@5 becomes 3@10. Oh--"intensity" is the word universally used for the number after the @ sign in all multiverser scores; "level" refers either to the first number or the two numbers together, but "level only" means the first number. A skill that increases a "skill" increases the character's skill ability level at it by increasing the second number, the "intensity", and if that intensity exceeds 10 it reverts to 1 and the level rises. If the total reaches 3@10 it does not go higher, because such higher attributes do not exist (with the exception of density, and you do not want a 4@ density, as this is incompatible with life). --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17457 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:10:05 +0000 Max 17457@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>When I made my earlier post I was in an ungenerous mood</blockquote> Your ungenerous mood is still generous enough for me which is why I am a bit confused before. If it was me, I would fail the skill immediately and would not wait for a minute because I think that would be more logical. <blockquote>Keeping the old time gets especially bad when the character doesn't necessarily know the skill is working and can't be sure how long it will last.</blockquote> What happens when the character does know how long the skill will last? Will the character observe that the skill duration can be shortened when the character tries to chain it preemptively? <blockquote>5) If the skill is no longer active by the time the check is make, the check is treated like fresh attempt at activating the skill. I don't want that to ever make sense, because it's only the math that makes it make sense. (Does that make sense?)</blockquote> It somehow make sense when I try reading (5) again which somehow answer a part of my questions. Will the effect of doing "the same skill twice" be the same as doing "similar skill with different concentration"? Will the result be different if the intention is to create additional effect compared to trying to consecutive chain it? Consider the following examples: 1) Skill A is a force shield skill with 10 minutes of concentration. Skill B is a force shield skill with 1 minute concentration. At 10:00, Skill A is initiated and after 10 minutes at 10:10 it is activated with 20 minutes time. Skill A will be estimated to end at 10:30. At 10:11, Skill B is initiated and after 1 minute at 10:12 it is activated with 10 minutes time. Skill B will be estimated to end at 10:22. The question is whether there is now 2 force shield present or will Skill B effect overlap Skill A effect thus shutting down Skill A effect? If Skill B effect take over Skill A, does it end at 10:22 or 10:30? 2) Skill C is a force shield skill with 2 minutes concentration period. At 10:00, Skill C (first) is initiated and after 2 minutes at 10:02 it is activated with 20 minutes time. Skill C (first) will be estimated to end at 10:22. At 10:05, Skill C (second) is done once again and after 2 minutes at 10:07 it is activated with 10 minutes time. Skill C (second) will be estimated to end at 10:17. The question is whether there is now 2 force shield present or will Skill C (second) effect overlap Skill C (first) effect thus shutting down Skill C (first) effect? If Skill C (second) effect take over Skill C (first), does it end at 10:17 or 10:22? <blockquote>I suppose I could accomplish something similar by just not allowing chaining except when necessary to maintain the skill.</blockquote> This creates a problem of when is it necessary to start chaining for a skill that have more than 1 minute of concentration. The detect would not work in certain world so how would the character know when it is necessary to start chaining because the warning could only be felt 1 minute before the skill will expire. <blockquote>And why allow this second attempt to fuse seamlessly with the first effect?</blockquote> That makes me wonder if another similar skill can be fused seamlessly with the first effect. I also wonder if the the first effect can be used to guide the second effect of the skill without hampering the first effect. Does the second attempt try to copy the first effect or cut it? So what is the final verdict? If the attempt to try to extend the duration fails, will it result in the failure to extend its duration or will it be a failure to maintain the skill too? Even if the chaining attempt succeeded, will it shorten the remaining time if the new time is lower than the old remaining time even if the intention is to extend its duration? ***** <blockquote>If I tried, I would just be making up particular skills and then telling you about them; not particularly useful.</blockquote> I understand. It would be a good practice to do it though. Making particular skill and trying to calculate it can make that person see something that that person have not seen before such as hidden problems. You do not have to tell the result to others if you do not want to because this practice will probably increase your SAL or something. It could also help you invent a system to solve a particular problem like what you are doing right now. <blockquote>this approach works best when the "Concentration Skill" is not "Dedicated" - that is, when you use the same skill to bonus a wide variety of other skills. Notice that a variable number of attempts of the same fixed-TF bonus skill would create the appearance in-game of a variable concentration time.</blockquote> Will the skill success gets any bonus if this skill is a "Dedicated" one? If this skill target the next specific skill, would the bonus accumulate if the skill is done multiple times? If not, will the highest bonus or the last skill bonus apply? <blockquote><blockquote>1) The bonus that DCS provide to TS was a variable but can be set to be fixed but the then the success rate of DCS will be penalized.</blockquote> I'm not sure why this would warrant a penalty.</blockquote> Concentration skill bonus is usually at RS/10. To increase this to a specific number (or to fix it to an acceptable rate), the DCS success rate will be penalized when it tries to fix the bonus to 10. (How much penalty will the skill be given when trying to fix a skill with RS/10 bonus to 10?) It will be then be penalized again when trying to increase the effectiveness to 20. I am not sure what happen next because when DCS success rate are penalized for doubling (which is -10), would the effectiveness be doubled to 40 or will it increase to 30? The above is why I ask how this kind of skill is calculated. ***** <blockquote>psionicist in the party lending the skills of the dying fighter to his apprentice to finish the battle.</blockquote> Can the alter ability do a complete permanent transfer of a fighting skill to his apprentice considering the dying fighter would not be needing it anymore thus entrusting his fighting skill to the the psionicist apprentice before he died? (Although I think the above is more likely a magic skill considering it require the same amount of sacrifice thus works like cut and paste. For psionic skill, I think copy and paste would be easier unless the read is too powerful that it damages the portion of the mind that contains the fighting skill. That could happen if the transfer is done is an emergency such as in the above case.) If this skill works, does this mean that the dying fighter completely forget about his fighting skill before he died? If the fighter verses out, would he remember the fighting skill or would he have to relearn it from the beginning like a person who relearns how to walk after a brain injury? <blockquote>but for temporary effects, the book usually suggests intensities.</blockquote> Does this mean in the case of temporary effects, it will use RS instead or RS/10? Or do you mean the intensity is at RS/10? What does the intensity represent if for example the target is remaining time of (next or current) skill? Does the intensity represent a multiplier or an addend? For example, the remaining time of a skill is X, and the intensity rolled for is Y. Does the remaining skill time become X*Y or will it become X+Y? WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17455 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:35:33 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17455@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ (second post) This isn't very relevant, but I saw it on a second or third read-over: <blockquote>Although I cannot find the reference, my recollection is that the recommended limitation is RS/10 skill marks.</blockquote> Permanent effects always use marks, but for temporary effects, the book usually suggests intensities. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17454 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:18:17 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17454@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ MJ: <blockquote>Scott--I admit to being surprised to the statement that a failed chaining roll gives you only one minute left on the skill. I would think that if he had forty-five minutes remaining on the original roll and he performed a thirty minute chaining skill check and failed he would still have the fifteen minutes left. Can you give me your reason for the chaining roll costing him his original time? </blockquote> When I made my earlier post I was in an ungenerous mood and so I went with the more restrictive rule, but I'm not fully decided one way or the other. I've given the question some thought, and I suppose it depends on whether one interprets a failed chaining attempt - that is, a failed attempt to extend the duration while maintaining the skill - as primarily a failure to extend the duration or primarily a failure to maintain the skill. If the former, failure has no effect on the remaining duration. If the latter, failure ends the skill. The case for "failure to maintain the skill" begins with my impression that success is primarily about maintaining the skill, with extension of the duration being merely a necessary side effect of that. My proposed ruling also discourages preemptive chaining, a practice which makes no sense to me. Chaining is a mechanic intended to allow a character to maintain a skill which would otherwise fail; why should a character be able to apply it to skill which is not failing? And what is he really doing, in-game? Keeping the old time gets especially bad when the character doesn't necessarily know the skill is working and can't be sure how long it will last. In that situation, depending on the math, it will sometimes make sense for the character to attempt the skill three times in a row to increase his chances of getting a good duration. I don't want that to ever make sense, because it's only the math that makes it make sense. (Does that make sense?) I suppose I could accomplish something similar by just not allowing chaining except when necessary to maintain the skill. I dunno. I'm interested in whatever reasons you have that it shouldn't work this way. (One argument that's already occurred to me is that a chaining check is really just "doing it again," and that if you fail to do it again then nothing changes. But if that's so, why isn't the character penalized for multiple concurrent uses of the skill (briefly concurrent, but concurrent)? And why allow this second attempt to fuse seamlessly with the first effect? My point is that it's not "just doing it again," and so it doesn't necessarily follow that a failed attempt to chain should have no effect on the status quo beyond the wasted time.) Max: That Perceive Purpose skill is a very good example of why I want an explanation of how and why a skill would have a variable prep period before making a ruling about it. It makes sense for that skill, and MJ's ruling on the mechanics of it makes sense. That doesn't mean that any skill can work that way and use those mechanics. This is kind of thing I do on a case by case basis, and that's why I can't quote modifiers for you. If I tried, I would just be making up particular skills and then telling you about them; not particularly useful. <blockquote>For (b), I will call the skill with a long time factor as "Dedicated concentration skill" (DCS) and the skill with instant activation as "Targeted skill" (TS). </blockquote> Actually, this approach works best when the "Concentration Skill" is not "Dedicated" - that is, when you use the same skill to bonus a wide variety of other skills. Also, the duration of the concentration skill needn't be very long; if it fails, you can try it again. Notice that a variable number of attempts of the same fixed-TF bonus skill would create the appearance in-game of a variable concentration time. Consider also that a non-dedicated concentration skill could be designed such that it was capable of bonusing itself. <blockquote>1) The bonus that DCS provide to TS was a variable but can be set to be fixed but the then the success rate of DCS will be penalized. </blockquote> I'm not sure why this would warrant a penalty. Without that penalty, the chain of reasoning leading to your (4) weakens significantly. <blockquote>That is a bit confusing. Does this mean that the skill will fail one minute after it is failed to be chained if the duration remaining is over one minute? Does that mean that situation for (a) only applies if the duration remaining is less than a minute left? </blockquote> Yes and yes, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17447 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:10:49 +0000 M. J. Young 17447@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Maxx, I'm going to point out that the Perceive Purpose skill is an @0 psionic skill and thus does not use any "real" psionic power--it's mostly about gathering and manipulating information. Thus the time factor is made variable as a situation modifier on the amount of information you have gathered, but it is required that you be specifically observing for this purpose during that time. That is, you could walk into a party and identify the host. Sixty-four minutes later you might say, "I want to use my Perceive Purpose skill to determine what the host is up to here." However, at that point you have not been observing the host with that intent, so you have not gathered the necessary information for this; you may observe him starting now for at least one minute, and roll for success. On the other hand, you could walk into that same party and state that you are going to observe the host in an effort to Perceive Purpose, identifying the skill use, and then focus on that. This would mean that the referee would concern himself with whether the host maintained a consistent purpose from that moment (and for how long); it would also mean that your character would have to act in manner consistent with careful observation (probably not dance or drink or party more than a bare distracted minimum). At some point either you would state that you believe you have observed long enough and wish to make the roll or the referee would state that the roll has been made because the host has changed his purpose so your observation time has been cut short. If that happened at sixty-four minutes, you would get a significant bonus, and might know that the host is planning to assassinate one of the guests, or establishing an alibi for a crime in which he is involved, or hoping to bed a particular lady present, or trying to get through this night without breaking down into sobbing tears over some grief he is concealing. If it happened at two minutes, you might still be able to ascertain some of those facts, but not with as high a chance of success. In essence, I took the "information gathering time" sit-mod for your chance of success on the skill use and formalized it so I would know how much bonus you get for how much information. (I should also mention that some of those "purposes" might be negatively sit-modded themselves, that the host might have skills which conceal his purposes from observers which would create sit-mods against your success, and that the more specific details might require a professional level of skill. Right now your skill is pretty limited to recognizing when your father wants to eat, go hunting kiss your mother, or play with you--a rather narrow limit of "purposes" from which to choose. The complexity of possibilities will make the skill harder, but you are improving at it as well, I believe.) Scott--I admit to being surprised to the statement that a failed chaining roll gives you only one minute left on the skill. I would think that if he had forty-five minutes remaining on the original roll and he performed a thirty minute chaining skill check and failed he would still have the fifteen minutes left. Can you give me your reason for the chaining roll costing him his original time? Maxx--"instillation of a skill from one character to another" does not mean that either character loses a skill; it means that the targeted character gains a skill which another character has. This would cover, for example, a powerful psionic borrowing the technological skills of an engine mechanic to enable him to diagnose and repair a problem with a spaceship engine (note that this is not merely having the book knowledge, but having the "experience"), or the psionicist in the party lending the skills of the dying fighter to his apprentice to finish the battle. It doesn't take the skills from one person, but simply duplicates them (usually temporarily) in another. --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17443 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:31:21 +0000 Max 17443@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>if you put more wood on the fire when it's fading you will extend the duration, but if you put more wood on at the beginning it will probably just burn hotter and brighter for the same amount of time.</blockquote> I like this analogy. It somehow gives me an idea on alter ability. <blockquote>Chris and the Teleporting Spaceships</blockquote> That was funny. Too many similar skills can be confusing (and dangerous). Putting notes to a copy of character sheet would be a good idea to remind self about such things. I will combine both of the suggestion and put down the below in my character sheet: <blockquote>Strenuous chaining: Skill may be chained on difficult will power check with cumulative -1 penalty after first chaining and -10 cumulative SM on each attempt including first chaining. 1@1 Spirit Travel P5@10 with 30:00 preparatory concentration in which body is placed on sleep-like autonomic process time measured by mental countdown, allows spirit to sever all connection with body and travel independently for RS minutes or until terminated; strenuous chaining, +59SM</blockquote> <blockquote>Striking the extension of time from it is simple--it never happened that way. changing the properties does not extend the duration, but you are allowed the full +59 SM on those skill checks.</blockquote> I am glad we all agreed on that. <blockquote>If your question is "how big of a bonus will my character get from X as opposed to Y," I don't want to talk about it.</blockquote> I think I can guess the bonus but I just wanted to confirm it which is why I did say "if you like" to calculate the success rate. The methods I have given also is a part of solution of the "chaining problem" to provide an alternative way how a concentration and chaining can be treated. This however is not limited to my character and you can give an example which does not relate to my character. It would also be more fun to experiment it in game. <blockquote>This seems like a bizarre way for a real technique to work, and I would want you to describe to me exactly why and how this hypothetical technique works this way.</blockquote> I do have some example of how a technique can work that way which is why I propose it. <blockquote>1@4 Perceive Purpose P1@0 enables user to recognize in detail what a target is doing, e.g., identifying that the target is "looking for something" including what it is he seeks, baseline assumes familiarity with target and one minute of direct observation. Each doubling of observation time grants +10, provided the target is still doing the same thing. Also used to predict response to possible suggestions.</blockquote> However, the above does not limit it to 30 minutes but until the target's action changes. <blockquote>(a) two skills that do the same thing with different time factors and separate SALs, or (b) one skill with instant activation that performs a function and a separate skill with a long time factor which somehow provides a bonus; which one it is (a or b) will depend on your explanation.</blockquote> I also thought of the above alternatives but I am somehow curious of (b). This is because (b) seems more interesting although I think the bonus for (b) would not be as high as (a). For (b), I will call the skill with a long time factor as "Dedicated concentration skill" (DCS) and the skill with instant activation as "Targeted skill" (TS). There are several interesting aspects which include: 1) The bonus that DCS provide to TS was a variable but can be set to be fixed but the then the success rate of DCS will be penalized. 2) This will mean that the DCS itself will have a low success rate. 3) To counter (2), DCS must increase its own success rate so it will have to add additional concentration time. 4) This will make DCS end up with a very long concentration to get both DCS and TS to work reliably. <blockquote>Try it and find out.</blockquote> I will probably do it in the future. I am just suggesting the methods for now. <blockquote>The effect will cease to be active after a brief period of time has elapsed, either a) the duration remaining when the chaining check was rolled, or b) one minute, whichever is less.</blockquote> That is a bit confusing. Does this mean that the skill will fail one minute after it is failed to be chained if the duration remaining is over one minute? Does that mean that situation for (a) only applies if the duration remaining is less than a minute left? ***** The below are probably unrelated questions in regards to the topic but just came up when M.J. mentioned alter abilities. <blockquote>instant instillation of skills from one character into another.</blockquote> Does that include making a character forget a targeted skill if the roll makes the character targeted skill SAL to drop below 1@1 or does the SAL need to be drop to 0@0 to make someone forget a skill? Does it have some sort of (cumulative) penalty to increase or decrease the same skill? WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17440 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:49:30 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17440@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ (Second post) To be clear, this is how consecutive chaining works: 1) Any time before the duration of the skill expires, you may decide to chain. (If the remaining duration is known, this is typically the moment when the remaining duration is equal to the time factor, but the decision can be made at any time the skill is active.) 2) You perform (again) all of the steps and actions necessary to initiate the skill and make a skill check with all appropriate modifiers. 3) If the skill is still active when the check is made and the check succeeds, the skill remains active with no interruption and the duration is recalculated based on the new skill check. The new check result replaces the old one. 4) If the skill is still active when the check is made and the check fails, the skill also fails. The effect will cease to be active after a brief period of time has elapsed, either a) the duration remaining when the chaining check was rolled, or b) one minute, whichever is less. You may not reattempt the skill without a change in circumstance. 5) If the skill is no longer active by the time the check is make, the check is treated like fresh attempt at activating the skill. Questions? Objections? WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17439 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:22:36 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17439@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Computer trouble delayed me today. I'd hoped to get here sooner in order to resolve this more rapidly. MJ: Yeah, I thought of fire-building, too, and discarded it for the reasons you give. The thought gave me ideas for alternative approaches, but it's not my character, not my skills, and thus ultimately not my job to invent workarounds. __________________________________ Preface for Maxx: The way I prefer to play is that you tell me what you do and what you intend, and I tell you what happens. Notice that none of that necessarily entails any discussion of mechanics; even with skill design, I prefer that the design process consist of you communicating your in-character intent and actions to me and me translating that into appropriate mechanics behind the screens. At the table, my players don't even know the mechanics of their skills until they see them written on their character sheets. Obviously, the forum format changes this somewhat. Because these are teaching games, I need to include all of the behind-the-screens information in a post somewhere for the edification of the forum's readers (I usually draw a line at the end of the game thread post and put everything mechanical below it, in italics). For the same reason, we have threads like this one where we discuss how Multiverser handles certain mechanical problems. That's fine. However, I would prefer not to act as your character's skill design consultant, helping you find the most effective way to accomplish your objectives with efficiently crafted skills and optimally balanced sit-mods. That is, if your question is "how does such-and-such work in Multiverser?", that's great, start a thread and we'll discuss it. If your question is "how big of a bonus will my character get from X as opposed to Y," I don't want to talk about it. Try it in play, and you'll find out when I update your character sheet with the new skill. (I'll put the update in the behind-the-screens portion of the game thread post). With that said . . . __________________________________ Your assessment of the penalties on your out-of-body checks are correct on all counts. Here's my version of the out-of-body skill on my sheet: <blockquote>1@1 Spirit Travel P5@10 with 30:00 preparatory concentration in which body is placed on sleep-like autonomic process time measured by mental countdown, allows spirit to sever all connection with body and travel independently for RS minutes or until terminated; strenuous chaining, +59SM </blockquote> You may notice that all I added was a semicolon and the phrase "strenuous chaining," which is what I've decided to call the system I laid out above. The other kind (what we're working out here, for the rest of your skills) I think I will call "consecutive chaining." This will make it easy to note how we're treating chaining for any given skill without cluttering up the character sheet. <blockquote>What about force bar? I have chained it multiple times before without prep time but that is mainly to change its properties with the side effects of prolonging its active time. Do you treat it just like out-of-body skill? </blockquote> No. I agree with MJ's assessment: changing the properties does not extend the duration, but you are allowed the full +59 SM on those skill checks. If you wish to chain it, it will use consecutive chaining. Quoting you quoting me: <blockquote><blockquote>(b) require that you know when the skill is going to end - which in this case means half an hour's advance warning </blockquote> Intuition check instead of willpower check? </blockquote> No. You automatically know that the skill will end one minute before it expires. If you want to have more warning than that, you will need to use a skill of some kind to obtain that information. No intuition check. <blockquote>1) Variable concentration which need only 1 minute of concentration to have any chance of succeeding on doing the skill but can be added up to 30 minutes so that the skill is reliable enough. 2) 30 minutes of dedicated concentration which can be only used for specific skill but can be omitted (which will work like magic skills that is penalized without sound but still can work). (If this is a separate skill, how is it calculated and how does it effect the other skill?) 3) Just as magic have manipulate magical skill, I do not see why Psi cannot have an equivalent manipulate Psi skill. In this case, the thing that is manipulated is the active time. (How effective is this method and what is the limitation?) </blockquote> This is the part that prompted me to write that preface. Here's what I'm willing to say: 1) This sounds like you're thinking of the mechanics first and the "reality" (that is, the in-game explanation) second. This seems like a bizarre way for a real technique to work, and I would want you to describe to me exactly why and how this hypothetical technique works this way. My rulings would depend on what I thought you were actually doing. 2) Again, why does the skill work this way? What about your technique allows you to do this? That will decide what the situation is, and my ruling will stem from the situation. Probably this will end up either being (a) two skills that do the same thing with different time factors and separate SALs, or (b) one skill with instant activation that performs a function and a separate skill with a long time factor which somehow provides a bonus; which one it is (a or b) will depend on your explanation. 3) Try it and find out. M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17422 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:01:57 +0000 M. J. Young 17422@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I apologize for the pie analogy. My point was supposed to be that skills which require an extended investment of time to obtain a successful result are not then repeatable without the repeated investment of time. A pie was the first thing that came to mind. I knew even while I was writing it that it was a poor analogy--it probably takes twenty minutes to "make" most pies and then another hour to "bake" them, and it probably does not take much longer to "make" and "bake" two or even four pies at once, and you can certainly overlap the "making" of the second with the "baking" of the first. However, assuming you have put the first pie in the oven, making the second does not take (much) less time than making the first did. O.K., that's enough of me trying to justify the analogy. The point, ultimately, is that if a skill takes necessary time (as Scott says) it requires that time to "repeat" it, and "chaining" is not really other than repeating a skill without lapse of the effect. I could have used firebuilding skills, but the extension of igniting a fire is a different skill, maintaining a fire, and doesn't really require the same kinds of time factors. It does, however, illustrate the notion that you can't chain it initially--if you put more wood on the fire when it's fading you will extend the duration, but if you put more wood on at the beginning it will probably just burn hotter and brighter for the same amount of time. Maxx: <blockquote>Do I have to add anything to the character sheet regarding the description of the skill? </blockquote> As I see it (Scott may disagree) you are under no obligation to keep any information on your character sheet. The character sheets are what in theory terms are called "authorities", that is, references to which we refer to support statements we make in game. Since you can't hand your sheet to me or to Scott, we are obliged to keep copies of your character paper for our reference, and to keep them up to date. You need only maintain a sheet so that 1) you have the information you need to run your character and 2) if we forget to update something you can inform us of the current status. If you don't wish to maintain a character sheet at all, you're welcome to play without one; you'll suffer a disadvantage, though, as it is unlikely you will remember all the details of your skills otherwise. Even with a character sheet, players sometimes forget what exactly their skills do--as the famous story of Chris and the Teleporting Spaceships graphically illustrates. That said, I have updated my copy of your sheet to read <ul>1@1 Spirit Travel P5@10 with 30:00 preparatory concentration in which body is placed on sleep-like autonomic process time measured by mental countdown, allows spirit to sever all connection with body and travel independently for RS minutes or until terminated, skill may be chained on difficult will power check with cumulative -1 penalty after first chaining and -10 cumulative SM on each attempt including first chaining, +59SM</ul> I think that describes the adjustment accurately, and I commend Scott for his solution on this (although I didn't realize the skill had already been chained, and would have been satisfied if he simply said it was not chainable and that any previous indication that it was was simply that you didn't realize how much longer you had). <blockquote>What about force bar? I have chained it multiple times before without prep time but that is mainly to change its properties with the side effects of prolonging its active time. </blockquote> This I think is easily resolved. As you note, the "extended time" was never the purpose of any of those rolls, and was simply a bonus tossed into the mix; I'm not certain whether it ever extended the time beyond what would have been the maximum possible on the first roll, but since your character does not know how long it can be maintained and that time grows as your SAL increases and is dependent on the very random roll of the dice, it's simply stated that you never really increased the time (how could you know if you had done so?). The rolls were required for your efforts to manipulate the force, to determine how well you did so. That rule remains in effect. If you were telekinetically flying and you wished to accelerate (or subsequently decelerate) or perform a sharp turn or tricky maneuver, you would be required to roll your telekinetic flight skill check to determine whether you succeeded in doing so. In the same way, if you are manipulating some aspect of the skill you need to roll for whether your skill ability is sufficient to make that manipulation. Presumably when you reach professional level such rolls will be required less frequently (that is, you can do more things within the initial roll). With the force wall, it's particularly awkward because the skill is supposed to be for a force object that does not move, so your ability to move it by making another roll suggests that you're in essence "canceling" the skill and "restarting" it in a new location; but I have always treated it as manipulating the force by "moving" (or in some cases "coloring") it, and maintaining it during the interim, and that's not really unreasonable. In some sense, your initial concentration validates the greater ability to manipulate the force, and thus perhaps validates transferring the sit-mod to the manipulation. Striking the extension of time from it is simple--it never happened that way. Maxx, quoting Scott: <blockquote> <blockquote>(b) require that you know when the skill is going to end - which in this case means half an hour's advance warning </blockquote> Intuition check instead of willpower check? </blockquote> An intuition check suggests that there is something to notice--to notice subliminally, but still that there is something. Half an hour before a skill faded out of existence there would not be anything to notice about it that would tell you it was going to fade. I could see it maybe if we were talking one minute, but I already give what is in essence a one-minute warning that a skill is fading, so requiring the intuition check would make it more difficult. Maxx suggests several possible alternatives for comment. First: <blockquote>1) Variable concentration which need only 1 minute of concentration to have any chance of succeeding on doing the skill but can be added up to 30 minutes so that the skill is reliable enough. </blockquote> Personally, I hate "variable time factor" skills and almost universally disallow them. If you have a skill that requires one minute of concentration, you get the bonus for one minute of concentration, and if you concentrate for three hours, you get the bonus for the last minute of concentration, the rest of it being anticipatory because you weren't sure when you were actually going to launch the skill. If you want versions of the skill that have different sit-mods based on different time factors, you have to create them as separate skills--as Harry well knows from his several variants of the same magic skills. The problem is not just that it's a bookkeeping nightmare for the referee; it's that it gives an unreasonable advantage to a player who is then taking advantage of the distance between the real world and the game world. That is, were I to say that you could get +10 for a minute of concentration and +10 more for every doubling of that time, you could then tell me that you were going to concentrate for three hundred minutes, and I would be forced to acknowledge a bonus of (256=+90, +44 more is roughly 19% of 256) +92 on your chance of success on the assumption that your character was able to sit and concentrate for five hours--when I've already stretched my disbelief suspenders by imagining a toddler sitting still and focusing on one idea for thirty minutes. Besides, if you make the time variable, you can "trigger" it whenever the time ends--that is, you can say, "I'm going to concentrate up to the moment I must activate the skill, and that throws it on me to determine when that moment comes and to give you the bonus for however long you were able to concentrate. I've been through this with John Cross: tell me how long you intend to pray, because I'm working out the probability of success based on that time. One of the practical reasons why variable time factors are disallowed is exactly this, that if you must concentrate for five hours to perform the kill and you are interrupted at four hours fifty-nine minutes fifty-nine seconds, you failed. There is no partial bonus. The bonus itself is justified by the fact that you are required to spend the time to have any chance at all of success. <blockquote>2) 30 minutes of dedicated concentration which can be only used for specific skill but can be omitted (which will work like magic skills that is penalized without sound but still can work). (If this is a separate skill, how is it calculated and how does it effect the other skill?) </blockquote> Well, that's a clever suggestion. The analogy is not compelling but is plausible. The first and most obvious difference is that in the "sound" example the character is not doing anything different--he is still saying the words, it's just that no one can hear them. This gives him the slight advantage that a "silence" spell won't prevent him from performing the spell, and he can do it if he is (somehow) in space or other non-atmosphere environment. If he can't move his mouth, it still doesn't work, because he must still say the words. Further, in that example it does not matter whether the words are audible or not; that is, the sound of the words becomes superfluous to the performance of the magic. In theory, the character could mouth the words so silently that no sound was audible and it would still work (provided "loudly or forcefully" was not also a factor). The more serious problem I see here is that if you include concentration as an element and then you allow that it can be omitted, you must cancel the full value gained from the concentration and take a penalty for performing the skill differently from the stated norm. Mechanically, I would prefer to treat that as a completely different skill which accomplished the same objective--that is, you have one skill that enables you to spirit travel after half an hour of preparatory concentration that has a +59 sit-mod, and another skill that allows you to spirit travel at the snap of your fingers that has no sit-mod. Your skill ability level at each tracks separately. Even were I (emphasized because it is up to Scott, not me) were to allow such a treatment, I would insist that the skills you have learned to date were not learned with this possible variant in view, so if you were to learn these variants they would begin as new skills anyway, and you're better off learning them as zero-sit-mod variants. <blockquote>3) Just as magic have manipulate magical skill, I do not see why Psi cannot have an equivalent manipulate Psi skill. In this case, the thing that is manipulated is the active time. (How effective is this method and what is the limitation?) </blockquote> I agree that there "ought to be" a psionic skill that enhances ability at other psionic skills--and in fact there is such a skill: <blockquote>(A) Alter Abilities Psi 14@5 Any skill which directly changes the attributes or skills of an individual, either the user or a target character/creature, which is not explained by some other psionic skill, is a skill under this heading. It includes direct increase or decrease of attributes, psionically enhanced skill ability levels, and instant instillation of skills from one character into another. The baseline suggests that these results are temporary, lasting from hours to days, but permanent changes should be possible at a -20 sit-mod. The baseline also suggests that the skill use follow the limits suggested under skills and attributes concerning the amount a skill or attribute can change from a single event, or be penalized. Reverse result and misdirection are common botches, but enhancement (or handicapping) of the wrong skill or attribute is possible.</blockquote> Although I cannot find the reference, my recollection is that the recommended limitation is RS/10 skill marks. Accounting for level, if you were 1@ at the concentration skill and rolled a successful 45 on it, that would give you +5 marks, sufficient to increase a 1@5 skill to 1@10, a 1@8 skill to 1@10, a 1@9 or 1@10 skill to 2@1, a 2@1 to 2@2, and have no effect on a 2@10 skill. If your concentration skill was 2@, it would give +10 marks, which would increase a 1@1 to a 1@10, 1@4 to 2@1, 1@8 to 2@2, 2@1 to 2@3, and have no effect on 2@10. If your concentration skill was 3@, that's +15 marks (again for a roll of 45), which would increase a 1@1 to 2@1, 1@3 to 2@2, 1@7 to 2@3, 2@1 to 2@4, and no effect on 2@10. I would also note that such skills are nearly always limited to specific categories of skills, and the degree of limitation is entirely at the discretion of the referee. I would be inclined to follow the broad divisions of psionic skills--telepathics, informations, metabolics, alterations, telekinetics, devices--but I can see several other potential divisions. (It could be made skill-specific, although my inclination would be that using this skill for attributes or non-psionic skills ought to be specific, and using it within the psionic bias area should have a bit more leeway.) It could be made level-specific, and I would certainly not suggest that Scott can't devise another system that determines the divisions of psionic skills. I note that it is actually easier to create magic skills that will enhance your chance of success at psionic ones; but that's not the question, so forget I said that.... --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17419 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:14:12 +0000 Max 17419@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>Do you understand what I'm saying here?</blockquote> I think I understand what you are trying to say. I do have some questions though. <blockquote>as for how the out-of-body skill works, I'll just tell you now and it'll be final.</blockquote> Do I have to add anything to the character sheet regarding the description of the skill? First chaining will succeed if I succeed both difficult willpower check then skill check with -10 penalty. Additional chaining will suffer -1 cumulative penalty to willpower check and -10 additional cumulative penalty for skill check (which will make the third chaining suffer -2 penalty for willpower check and -30 penalty for the skill check). Is this right? <blockquote>We'll assume that you succeeded at the requisite difficult attribute check this time, but next time I'll make you roll it.</blockquote> The next would be the second chaining which will have -1 penalty for willpower check and -20 penalty for the skill check right? What about force bar? I have chained it multiple times before without prep time but that is mainly to change its properties with the side effects of prolonging its active time. Do you treat it just like out-of-body skill? What if I want the skill to prioritize on changing the properties rather than prolonging its active time? <blockquote>(b) require that you know when the skill is going to end - which in this case means half an hour's advance warning</blockquote> Intuition check instead of willpower check? <blockquote>There are other methods which do do that.</blockquote> Let me list of the methods which I think might be suitable for that and you can comment if it is suitable or not. You could also calculate the success rate of the skill if you like. (Let just say the skill success without any concentration is 40%.) 1) Variable concentration which need only 1 minute of concentration to have any chance of succeeding on doing the skill but can be added up to 30 minutes so that the skill is reliable enough. 2) 30 minutes of dedicated concentration which can be only used for specific skill but can be omitted (which will work like magic skills that is penalized without sound but still can work). (If this is a separate skill, how is it calculated and how does it effect the other skill?) 3) Just as magic have manipulate magical skill, I do not see why Psi cannot have an equivalent manipulate Psi skill. In this case, the thing that is manipulated is the active time. (How effective is this method and what is the limitation?) WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17417 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:57:31 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17417@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ [Third Post] Let me start out by saying that I don't like any of the analogies proposed so far for Maxx's preparatory concentration. I don't like any of the variations on the pies, I don't like the acrobat, and I certainly don't like the stretching exercises. These are what I see as the crucial characteristics of the preparatory concentration period in Maxx's designs: 1) They are a crucial component of the skill - that is, the skill cannot function without the prep period; and 2) They are dedicated to the skill of which they are a part - that is, the concentration period for the history-of-object skill is not the same as the concentration period for the danger sense. They each prepare for their own specific skill; Maxx cannot say, "I start concentrating for thirty minutes in preparation for my retrocognitive skill," and then thirty minutes later change his mind and roll for his danger sense. He's not prepared for his danger sense; he's prepared to learn the history of an object, and if he wants to do something else instead he's wasted half an hour. With that in mind, all of the analogies have significant problems. * The acrobat analogy fails due to (1). * The stretches and warm up analogy fails due to (2), and probably due to (1) as well. * The pie analogies fail for a number of reasons, foremost among them that there is no pie. Rather, it is unclear what the pie represents. Is skill success having a pie? In that case, when the duration expires, there should no longer be a pie. Was it eaten? In any case, you can't reheat a no-longer-extant pie. Well, in that case, is skill success having a hot pie, and chaining is reheating it? In that case, where did the pie come from, and what does the cold pie represent? In summary, the analogy fails because the result of the skill being modeled is a temporary condition, while the result of pie-baking is a permanent object. Fortunately, no analogy is necessary. "Chaining," in my mind, in this circumstance, is little more than redoing the skill without an interruption in the effect. Let's reiterate that definition: (a) re-doing the skill (b) without interrupting the effect in progress For most skills, this is not problematic. However, when you mix chaining with concentration (of the kind defined in this post, with attributes (1) and (2)), you run into problems. Doesn't (a) require you to concentrate for another half-hour, since by property (1), the skill cannot function without it? And doesn't (b) require that you know when the skill is going to end - which in this case means half an hour's advance warning? I have a few solid ideas about how I want to handle chaining these skills, in light of the above. However, I've been typing a long time, and I want to make sure we're both clear on this before I go on. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I hope I've laid out the problem well enough, and that soon we can discuss the solution. I will say that I don't think this kind of skill design is what you want or wanted. I think what you wanted was to make your skills easier with an initial time investment, after which you could use them freely. This doesn't do that. There are other methods which do do that. They're worth considerably less than +59, in the main. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17416 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:19:13 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17416@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Alright, Maxx. First let me say that not all of your skills will be treated the same way with regard to chaining. There will be two main varieties: skills that work like your out-of-body skill, and skills that work somehow else. This discussion will be about the skills that work somehow else; as for how the out-of-body skill works, I'll just tell you now and it'll be final. The reason I'm making the distinction is because, in play, you have already successfully chained the out-of-body skill without repeating the prep time, which means it has to be possible to do that. Since it's possible, I have to come up with a system for that which satisfies me. This is that system: 1) In the minute when the duration of the out-of-body skill is about to expire, I tell you so. You have the option to chain if you wish. 2) If you wish to chain, you must first make a successful difficult Willpower check (roll d30+10, fails if it is equal to or greater than your decimalized Willpower). 3) If the Willpower check succeeds (a seven out of thirty chance for you right now, given your 1@8 Willpower), you must roll a skill check with a -10 sit-mod. 4) If the skill check succeeds, you extend the duration of the effect by RS minutes. 5) If you attempt to chain again, each consecutive attempt suffers a cumulative -1 penalty to your effective Willpower for the attribute check and a cumulative additional -10 sit-mod to the skill check. 6) If at any point you fail to chain, you may not attempt the skill again until you have recovered and there has been a change in circumstances. What constitutes "recovery" and "change in circumstances" are entirely referee's discretion and I will not answer questions on the subject in advance. Again, that's how your out-of-body skill works. I have to let it work that way because of the history in your game thread. We'll assume that you succeeded at the requisite difficult attribute check this time, but next time I'll make you roll it. In my next post, I'll pick up the discussion of how everything else works. Glantri on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17415 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:55:48 +0000 Glantri 17415@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Thanks, I think I understand better now. :) WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17414 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:49:22 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17414@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Mike: Is your question about @3 bias in response to this from MJ? : <blockquote>That will depend significantly on whether the laser blaster has an @0, @1, or @2 bias level.</blockquote> If it is, then any bias from @3 to @10 means the same thing as the @2 does; the distinction is between intensity zero, intensity one, and intensity anything-else. If your question has some other context that I missed, I don't know how to answer it absent that context. <blockquote>And does this mean that having too much of an understanding of something means it doesn't work everywhere? </blockquote> No. The understanding under discussion stems from character bias, which is not the same thing as skill bias. Skills are curved out based on the bias of the skill and the bias of the world. Character bias (which is equal to the skill bias of the character's highest-biased non-@0 skill) helps to modify the chance of skill learning and performance in that bias area. Character bias is distinct from "curving out," which is just a label for one the interactions between world and skill bias. If that's still unclear, I'm more than willing to answer further questions. However, you might want to start another thread on the subject, because I'm about to import a verbose discussion from Maxx's game thread into this thread, and our posts on bias might get lost in all the bru-ha-ha of trying to sort out his attempts to chain skills requiring lengthy periods of concentration to perform. ____ Alright, so I'm moving the discussion that resurfaced in <a href="http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/maxximum-reality-maxx-starts-play/page/13#post-17378">this post</a> and the three subsequent posts, all from Maxx's game thread Maxximum Reality. I'll post my thoughts presently, but if anyone (probably Maxx or MJ, but anyone) has anything they want to say while I'm drafting my post, I'd be grateful it if it were said here and not there. Glantri on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17410 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:15:45 +0000 Glantri 17410@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ What does an @3 bias mean? And does this mean that having too much of an understanding of something means it doesn't work everywhere? johnosevens on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17409 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:11:43 +0000 johnosevens 17409@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Max - As I understand it, you get a bonus on bias even for unrelated things because the higher bias implies a deeper understanding of the general principals of that bias area, regardless of their specific application. So yes, someone who understands how the gasoline engine works (which is different from knowing how to use one - actual auto mechanics is a pain to learn, as I know from experience) will find a steam engine easier to understand, and will also find, for instance, archery to understand, from a Tech perspective, because the idea of using pressure to move something and moving something to do work is a pretty easy underlying idea at that point. On the other hand, some primitive who still thinks archery is a pretty novel idea would be utterly boggled by the idea of the gasoline engine - it would seem like sorcery to someone that far under the bias curve. Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17405 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:29:32 +0000 Max 17405@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>you're saying that someone who understands gasoline engines should be able to use his 8@ bias to apply to grasping 7@ steam engines</blockquote> That is right. <blockquote>someone who understands steam engines would get no bonus for trying to understand gasoline engines.</blockquote> This is however a misunderstanding on what I meant because the context which I said those is the effects of a higher bias skill when a person tries to learn a lower bias skill. What I want to say is a higher bias skill should not help a person to learn a non-related lower bias skill. Can someone who knows 8@1 manual transmission gets bonus to learn lower bias skill that is not related to it because of the higher bias? M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17386 Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:15:36 +0000 M. J. Young 17386@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I'm just hitting a few spot points on this. <blockquote>That will raise the success rate to 21% after that right?</blockquote> I don't have the number in front of me, but assuming (which I know to be the case) that he has less than a 1@10 SAL, it will raise the SAL one intensity, which will in turn increase the chance to hit by 1%, all other things being equal. <blockquote>In this case, would that person got a new use on the device or not if this is the first time that person have ever use this kind of device even though that person botch?</blockquote> I think probably not. If you shot yourself in the foot with a real revolver, you would have much more important things on your mind than how you did that. <blockquote>That could be done if you use the bias to only apply to related skill below it but that would make the system to be more complicated.</blockquote> If I understand your suggestion aright, you're saying that someone who understands gasoline engines should be able to use his 8@ bias to apply to grasping 7@ steam engines, but someone who understands steam engines would get no bonus for trying to understand gasoline engines. Part of the sense of bias is that it creates a "building" aspect in each bias area, a tendency to work from the lower abilities upward. That's what Lauren did in teaching psionics to John; it's what every martial arts instructor I've ever run does with his students. You build from the easier skills to the harder ones, because mastering the easier ones prepares you for the harder ones. <blockquote>I also wonder if a person who uses a laser blaster can use the high bias to bonus learning of lower bias skill that is not related to it even if the person only have limited knowledge of the laser blaster and have very low bias if not for the laser blaster skill.</blockquote> That will depend significantly on whether the laser blaster has an @0, @1, or @2 bias level. The @0 bias level is useful, because it allows a character to operate equipment he does not understand, and at the same time it means he does not understand that equipment--a 12@0 bias skill does not "confer bias", and thus does not count for skill learning or skill use. The @2 bias is also a useful number, because it means that the character does understand the technology on some level, but the skill is not going to work in every universe precisely because it is dependent on his understanding of the technology. The @1 bias is the one the player wants, because it gives him bias and is within the flatlined curve. The example I usually use is the difference between an 8@0 automatic transmission and an 8@1 manual transmission. To operate the automatic transmission, you only need to know enough to turn the key, push the right pedals, and put the lever in the right place. To operate the manual transmission, you've got to have some understanding of how the revolutions per minute of the engine relate to the velocity of the vehicle, so you know when and to some degree why to make the shifts between gears. I hope that helps. --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17365 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:05:39 +0000 Max 17365@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>Thanks for asking, Maxx.</blockquote> You are welcome. I would also like to thank you for answering it. <blockquote>I am glad that you agree with Scott, because he's taking over your game, and I'm not second-guessing his rulings henceforth.</blockquote> I am also looking forward to Scott's ruling. Speaking of that, I also have thought of another way to calculate the chaining using "Concentration storage system" which will deduct appropriate points from the concentration every time the skill is chained and the concentration needed to chain the skill is over the success rate when it does not have any concentration time. For example: 16 minutes concentration skill will have +50SM. The skill without concentration will have 50% success rate. This skill would be a no failure skill if it is done without chaining. 1) The skill is initiated, the person rolled 54. (Excess of 4) This will make the storage for concentration be 50-4=46. (Next success rate is 96) 2) The first time chaining, the person rolled 50. (No excess) So no change in the the storage. (Next success rate is still 96) 3) The second time chaining, the person rolled 96. (Excess of 46) This will empty the storage. (Next success rate is 50) 4) The third time chaining, the person rolled 96 and although it is the same as the previous roll, this is a botch. I think the above can be calculated easily and fit to the mechanics of concentration and chaining. You can also -10SM for every chaining attempt which will make the above scenario like this: 1) The skill is initiated, the person rolled 54. (Excess of 4) This will make the storage for concentration be 50-4-10=36. (Next success rate is 86) 2) The first time chaining, the person rolled 50. (No excess) This will make the storage for concentration be 36-10=26. (Next success rate is 76) 3) The third time chaining, the person rolled 96. The skill fails. I think a high concentration Psi skill will be treated like chaining in bod skills which are related to running skills. A low concentration Psi skill will be treated like chaining in bod skills which are related to walking (or strain-free) skills. ***** <blockquote>The roll will work the device but miss the target, and I'll give him new use for force generative devices.</blockquote> That will raise the success rate to 21% after that right? <blockquote>Note that a botch could mean that the weapon functioned perfectly and he managed to shoot himself in the foot</blockquote> In this case, would that person got a new use on the device or not if this is the first time that person have ever use this kind of device even though that person botch? <blockquote>I've a few more that we can credit to Maxx for forcing me to consider in an earlier thread on a related subject</blockquote> What a coincidence. I seem to attract coincidences. I wonder if that is categorized as alter reality subtly. ***** <blockquote>Still, on some level, the result in this case does not quite seem to follow from the cause, and I'm still wrestling with what, if anything, ought to be done about that.</blockquote> Do you mean you want the result to be more specific? That could be done if you use the bias to only apply to related skill below it but that would make the system to be more complicated. You could draw a bias tree diagram which points to related skill or make a connected skill list but that list will be long. So in the end, it is up to the referee to decide what bias level that have to be used to match a skill. I also wonder if a person who uses a laser blaster can use the high bias to bonus learning of lower bias skill that is not related to it even if the person only have limited knowledge of the laser blaster and have very low bias if not for the laser blaster skill. M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17362 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:13:40 +0000 M. J. Young 17362@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Yes, that has bothered me at times, as well. It's not the only thing that has bothered me, but it is significant. But then, it does tend to "come out in the wash", as they say. What you learned to do was capture some trace of supernatural power within a material object; you've fused the supernatural with the natural. that's an incredibly potent task to accomplish. This is one of those, "if you can build a time machine, you can probably build anything else you can imagine" things. If you can capture supernatural power and trap it in a material object, manipulating supernatural energies in just about any other way ought to be considerably easier. You did it. You took a very elaborate approach to doing so, but you managed to capture supernatural energy in a natural object. Now, that means you would have considerably less difficult, say, summoning a djinn, or teleporting to Kansas, or healing the blind. You have a grasp for harnessing supernatural energies that goes far beyond any of those abilities. Yet what it does not tell you is how difficult each of those tasks would be. The first time you attempt to heal the blind--a relatively low bias task (which is, I'm pretty sure, curved out in your current world), the bonus for your bias is going to be so overwhelming that you'll learn it almost no matter how you try to do it; but when you repeat the skill, your SAL at healing the blind won't be above 1@3, and your bias won't give you more than +30 (and considerably less in a flatlined world). Thus you might have designed a skill that will work to learn it but with such high penalties you will have great difficulty repeating it. Conversely, the teleport is a very difficult skill bias-wise, and your bonus for learning isn't going to be that much (that is, the difference between your bias and the target skill bias is probably less than 20 percentage points). Thus you might fail to learn the skill if you don't include a few substantive bonuses. You still have "gaps" in your knowledge. Those gaps are not at all related to your ability to understand the process of tapping and controlling magic generally; they are related to knowing how difficult any specific task would be, and how much you should invest in learning and doing it. So I've decided I'm not uncomfortable with you having leapt to a 15@1 mag bias. You applied some very insightful and innovative conceptions of how to control magic, and derived a positive outcome. Your understanding of how to control magic and how magic is controlled obviously expanded in that effort. Your knowledge of the applications between here and there is spotty, and will require that you learn more. Your ability to extrapolate from what you know to what you guess is very much a part of filling those gaps, and a quite appropriate part of the system. --M. J. Young WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17356 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:20:03 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17356@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote>Well, I don't know that this is one hundred percent accurate. After all, the psi chapter does say at the bottom of page144 . . .</blockquote> I'll grant a +59 bonus for nearly six doublings of the time factor is obliquely alluded to on the strength of the focus bonus and the sit-mods for power. So, yes, I'll concede the point while noting (as you do) that a principle of treating psi and mag sit-mods differently is also established by the same passages. <blockquote>Sort of--and it bothers me once in a while, but usually it doesn't, and I'll tell you why. I see this in magic all the time: [. . .] So sure, you could give yourself a slew of bonuses to try to learn a 5@10 skill, but if its a 15@10 skill you might suffer serious consequences for your miscalculation. </blockquote> This has bothered me off and on for a long time, but for a slightly different reasons than discussed here. I think my own character is a nearly perfect example. Due to a series of events (recorded in the game thread), he now has a magic bias of 15@1. That bias implies understanding of the magical principles behind everything from blessings and healing to energy creation to golems to resurrection to granting wishes; furthermore, that's how the rules for skill learning interpret that bias. He got that way by performing a very involved, very elaborate, and sufficiently successful ritual for creating a holy symbol. I understand and support the mechanics behind that, for the most part. The technological analogies make sense to me. Still, on some level, the result in this case does not quite seem to follow from the cause, and I'm still wrestling with what, if anything, ought to be done about that. M. J. Young on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17339 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:44:14 +0000 M. J. Young 17339@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ Lot's to address. Thank you, Harry, before I forget. John: <blockquote>I hope this doesn't sound overly rude, but if he found a loophole in the rules that you never considered, I think you should let him have it.</blockquote> He didn't really find a loophole in the rules. He found a loophole in the interpretive application of the rules in a space the rules did not cover. I should have made the ruling up front that if it took him thirty minutes of preparatory concentration to activate the skill, it would take him the same thirty minutes of preparatory concentration before doing anything else with it; but since what he was trying to do with those initial rolls was simply manipulate a force he had created, I didn't make that ruling then, and I didn't want to impose it retroactively later. Scott: <blockquote>I would impose far stiffer penalties in exchange for that +59 (plus fifty-nine!) sit-mod.</blockquote> It seems egregious, but my observation is that if he has to sit quietly and concentrate for half an hour before performing a skill, it's not something he can do in an emergency. That is an inherent limitation. It's also the case that even if he thinks he has time, he might not. As a toddler sitting in the clearing while his mother tends to making dinner and such, he's pretty much undisturbed--but it has happened more than once that he has been interrupted by a mother concerned about what he was doing or what he was supposed to be doing. In fifteen years, if he's trying to do a retrocog on a dead human he finds in the forest, it's entirely likely that the half hour of closing down all other activities will result in him being completely surprised by the dozen other humans who think him responsible for the corpse he's examining. <blockquote>You're being generous enough allowing the bonus in the first place (which, by the way, isn't even alluded to in the rules for Psi - you're borrowing that from Mag out of the kindness of your heart);...</blockquote> Well, I don't know that this is one hundred percent accurate. After all, the psi chapter does say at the bottom of page144 <blockquote>Occasionally, psionicists use objects which are not psionic in nature, but are more akin to a focalpoint for the psionicist’s concentration. Such skills are learned and used at +10, but cannot be used at all inthe absence of a focal object (although there may be some leeway in selecting the focal object, such that anyitem which fits the skill definition may be used). Skills which use such focal points also suggest a higherlevel of concentration, limiting the use of other high-concentration skills.</blockquote> Granted, that's different from material components in magic in two distinct ways: first, all objects are worth +10; second, there is an implied limitation to a single object. However, it also invokes the basic underlying principle which is then stated in the next paragraph at the top of the next page, <blockquote>A skill may bedefined in any way, but should be sit-modded for distinction from the baseline. Generally, any doubling orhalving of a skill’s potency creates a ten-point sit-mod to balance it (negative if the skill is stronger or easier,positive if harder or weaker).</blockquote> The preparatory concentration requirement does make it harder, and thus ought to grant a bonus; the problem is in calculating the bonus. If it were mag, I would feel oblitaged to make it +20 for the first minute, because it's a -20 penalty to convert from TF to RF skills (a rule designed to make it at least a bit more difficult to launch a high-powered skill in an instant and then simply wait out the repeat factor time before doing more magic), and I've always felt that going the opposite direction would be the same bonus. However, we've established that the rules are different for psionics, and so a ten point bonus for shifting from once a minute at the beginning of the minute to once a minute at the end of the minute seems fair enough. A minute is an eternity in combat, sometimes, and if I'm being attacked by a machine gun, the fact that I'll have my shield up at the end of the minute might not matter in the least. I do agree that guidance on such matters is inadequate in the psionics chapter. That's my fault--we never had players do much with them that was off the baselines (which, given the instant activation nature of psionic skills in general, is rather powerful). However, I agree that it is much more reasonable to say that if the character wants to extend the time he must do the concentration again, and I would certainly not object to the application of that rule in play. I wasn't going to do that because I'm a strong believer in protecting the reasonable expectations of the player; this thread was in part an effort to redefine those expectations. I would also footnote that there are similar questions unanswered in the tech and bod bias areas. There is mention in connection with "light fire from spark" that a cigarette lighter is a heavily bonused use of that skill, but no suggestion as to how to calculate those bonuses; that's very much the referee's seat-of-the-pants calculation. Similarly, wouldn't stretching exercises in preparation for the use of bod skills make a difference in their use? I suspect that's one reason why characters practicing acrobatics and martial arts don't botch in practice. The techniques are not mentioned. It's not likely, though, that having been jumped in a back alley you'll be able to get your assailants to wait for a few minutes while you stretch and get ready for the fight. Mike: <blockquote>Could Max redevelop the skills so that they were the skill without the prep time and thus without the bonus?</blockquote> My instinctive reaction is yes, but then it occurs to me that you might not mean quite what I think. Maxx can teach himself a precognitive skill which requires thirty minutes of prep time to activate and has a +59 sit-mod for the prep time requirement. He can then teach himself a precognitive skill that does exactly the same thing without the prep time, which thus has no such sit-mod bonus. The key point I would raise is that at this point he has two precognitive skills that do the same thing in slightly different ways--one with prep time and one without--and that any practice he does will apply to one or the other, not to both. If that's what you mean, yes, he can do that. What he can't do is turn the one skill into the other, or use the same skill two different ways. As a footnote, in theory he could develop a skill that involves meditative preparation that gives him a sit-mod bonus to whatever psionic skill he performs next. The bonus would probably be RS-based, or possibly a fixed bonus; it would probably not be as big a bonus as the +59 he gets for his meditative prep time. This is reasonably justified by the facts that he can use it for anything (and thus increase his chance of success at all his psionic skills at once) and that it is an independent skill that has to be advanced independently. Most skills become more powerful as they improve, and that includes psionic skills (last longer, hit harder, repeat faster), so not improving the base skills themselves means not being as good despite having a better chance of success. <blockquote>One thing I could see going wrong with allowing prep time to learn a skill and then being allowed to redevelop the skill is that one could get an insane bonus from prep time to learn a much higher bias skill, and then relearn the same skill much easier without the prep time. It'd be the equivalent of right now me seeing a 5@10 psi skill and meditating for half an hour to have the same chance to learn it, and then just reteach myself it without the prep time, since I have the benefit of having a 5@10 skill... It seems a little bit like cheating the system. </blockquote> Sort of--and it bothers me once in a while, but usually it doesn't, and I'll tell you why. I see this in magic all the time: guys define a desired effect and then pack in the bonuses creating very elaborate rituals to make sure they won't botch (wise enough). Then they roll, and they wind up with solid skills with lots of bonuses that are very involved. But if you've got a 3@3 mag bias (randomly selected number) and you decide you want to try to learn a skill about which you know nothing but that you just invented it, you have no idea whether that's a 5@10 skill or a 15@10 skill--and that's a one hundred point difference in the chance to successfully learn it. Sometimes guys botch horribly trying to teach themselves magic skills they think are going to be simple; sometimes they put huge amounts of effort and ritual into skills that turn out to be something they could have picked up with a veritable snap of the fingers. So sure, you could give yourself a slew of bonuses to try to learn a 5@10 skill, but if its a 15@10 skill you might suffer serious consequences for your miscalculation. Maxx: <blockquote>I also agree with Scott with a few points which make chaining a Psi skill to be too easy although I would not object if you want to be generous.</blockquote> I am glad that you agree with Scott, because he's taking over your game, and I'm not second-guessing his rulings henceforth. (Insert appropriate emoticon here.) <blockquote>How do you chain bod skills and how is it calculated?</blockquote> The most common uses of chaining in bod skills are related to running skills--you can sprint this far in this time, but how far can you go if you attempt to maintain that speed for twice that time? The rule in bod is that each successive chaining roll takes a -10 penalty. Thus if you have a 60% chance to run 300 yards in one minute, then you have a 50% chance to run that far in the next minute, a 40% chance in the third, and so on. Since running skills also allow that RS can represent a velocity greater than the stated base, it also can mean that you are slowing down--if you rolled 57 on the first roll, you'll go significantly further than that 300 yards in that first minute; but in the second minute a 57 would fail, so the fastest you can go would be slower than that. <blockquote>If for example Micheal decided to concentrate 4 minutes on the shot which would bring it to 103, then -53 for penalty, which will have 50% to hit the target, what will happen if he rolled 97? Does this treated as shooting botch but succeed in using the psychic device?</blockquote> I have not decided whether you can bonus a use device skill by advance concentration. However, because of my intention to preserve the botch, the 97 would be a botch. This relates to the treatment of relative failure. If the device were a revolver and the chance of success were the same, it would fall within the referee's prerogative as to whether a roll between 51 and 95 (96 would be the botch) means that the bullet barely missed, or missed by some distance, or whether the gun simply did not work. That's the prerogative I was exercising in that situation--the fact that his target was so small made more difference in whether he would actually hit the target than in whether he would be able to fire the weapon, and so I took that into account in determining the outcome. What necessarily "would" happen in each case is never completely certain. Note that a botch could mean that the weapon functioned perfectly and he managed to shoot himself in the foot (the limitation on self-injury in botches is a combat situation limitation only), or that he so activated the weapon that it exploded, or that he rendered it inert. The failure result when operating a weapon is thus a scale in which the operation or non-operation of the weapon is very much at the discretion of the referee. On a 90 I might say that at the last instant someone wandered into view and you managed not to pull the trigger; on a 99, maybe you didn't manage not to pull the trigger, and they might have been hit, or they were. There's a fair amount of flexibility in referee interpretation in a lot of situations, based on the applications of relative success and relative failure. Some of them are defined rather clearly in the rules, some are described somewhat loosely, and some are left open. --M. J. Young Max on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17336 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:28:46 +0000 Max 17336@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I think the rules for Psi needs to be reviewed to include certain aspects such as this. I also agree with Scott with a few points which make chaining a Psi skill to be too easy although I would not object if you want to be generous. I also think that Psi normal concentration time could be set linearly until 10 minutes to make it match the increase of 10% success rate. After that you could double it to 20, 40, 80 and so on. At 1 minute of concentration, it will only increase 1% success rate. If the skill can be repeated two times in a minutes then it is calculated like normal (which is -10% success rate). I like the way Scott calculate if a person succeed in chaining a skill or not. I also thought of an alternate way to calculate it which the time needed for chaining could be a variable that depends on RS. If the RS is 97 and the success calculation without concentration is 47% for example, the time needed to chain the skill would be 97-47=50%. That will be 16 minutes (if 1 minute is needed to chain any skill without adding a bonus to success then the calculation for concentration needed would either be doubled to be 32 minutes, added to be 17 minutes or just be overlapped to be 16 minutes) of concentration needed to chain the skill. If the initial concentration time or the time left to chain the skill is fewer than 16 minutes then the skill will fail to be chained. For cases that the initial concentration time is less than 16 minutes, the skill will probably botch. (I think the skill will botch when the skill success rate is 60% or less which will make concentration time that can add 14% or more to be safe of botch. That would mean a 2 minute concentration skill will result in a failure and 1 minute concentration skill will result in a botch.) For cases that the time left is less than 16 minutes, the skill will fail to chain because there is not enough time to "chain" it. I think that will resolve a lot of problem concerning chaining and it is fair mechanically. The problem would be it is a bit complicated for the referee to calculate the time needed for the chain to occur. <blockquote>However, I recall that there is a solution for that given under chaining bod skills, which I will apply if I remember to do so henceforth.</blockquote> How do you chain bod skills and how is it calculated? ***** I also have some questions regarding the use of psionic weapons that somehow related to concentration. <blockquote>There's a +20 point blank sit-mod, 1@10 RSV, 1@2 SAL, and 2@1 BRA=73, minus a 07 TV and a size penalty, which for a "fist-sized lump" means a ball somewhere less than five but more than three inches in diameter, so we'll say about the same as a four inch diameter circle, -46. That gives him a 20% chance to hit the target. The roll will work the device but miss the target, and I'll give him new use for force generative devices.</blockquote> First situation: If for example Micheal decided to concentrate 4 minutes on the shot which would bring it to 103, then -53 for penalty, which will have 50% to hit the target, what will happen if he rolled 97? Does this treated as shooting botch but succeed in using the psychic device? Second situation: If for example Micheal decided to concentrate 2 minutes on the shot which would bring it to 93, then -53 for penalty, which will have 40% to hit the target, what will happen if he rolled 97? Does this treated as failure in using the device but not a shooting botch considering he fail to use the device in the first place? ***** <blockquote>Could Max redevelop the skills so that they were the skill without the prep time and thus without the bonus?</blockquote> I think that could be easily done but that would be a different skill with an example of the previous one. <blockquote>It'd be the equivalent of right now me seeing a 5@10 psi skill and meditating for half an hour to have the same chance to learn it, and then just reteach myself it without the prep time, since I have the benefit of having a 5@10 skill.</blockquote> I actually also have thought of that but teaching self to learn a less reliable skill would only benefit self in emergency situation which need that person to execute the said skill immediately. Glantri on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17335 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:13:53 +0000 Glantri 17335@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ How does this work anyway? Could Max redevelop the skills so that they were the skill without the prep time and thus without the bonus? If so I agree with WilliamTWodium, otherwise there's very little reason not to do prep time. One thing I could see going wrong with allowing prep time to learn a skill and then being allowed to redevelop the skill is that one could get an insane bonus from prep time to learn a much higher bias skill, and then relearn the same skill much easier without the prep time. It'd be the equivalent of right now me seeing a 5@10 psi skill and meditating for half an hour to have the same chance to learn it, and then just reteach myself it without the prep time, since I have the benefit of having a 5@10 skill... It seems a little bit like cheating the system. WilliamTWodium on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17333 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:30:10 +0000 WilliamTWodium 17333@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I think your fair solution is entirely too generous. If it were me, I would impose far stiffer penalties in exchange for that +59 (plus fifty-nine!) sit-mod. I think this bit of reasoning is telling: <blockquote>And I would not object to someone chaining a TF skill with a TF of one minute, because you probably have about that long before the skill dies; and thus assuming you're not doing something else that prevents you from concentrating on this, you should be able to put the minute into the preparatory focus necessary to keep the skill alive.</blockquote> Why not treat this skill the same way? As long has he has advance warning equal to the required prep time, allow him to chain without penalty (that is, just like with normal clairvoyance or flight or whatever). However, if he discovers that he wants to chain the skill with fewer than thirty minutes remaining in the duration, he's out of luck: this skill expires while he's still "gearing up", and when a half hour has passed since the decision to chain was made, he's allowed a fresh roll to start the skill up again. Thus, he always gets the +59, but that +59 is always justified by the thirty minutes of concentration. Notice that under this system, any successful roll under 30 will not last long enough to support chaining. I think that's my favorite part. Again, my instinct here is to clamp down. You're being generous enough allowing the bonus in the first place (which, by the way, isn't even alluded to in the rules for Psi - you're borrowing that from Mag out of the kindness of your heart); there's no need to give away the farm. johnosevens on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17329 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:46:22 +0000 johnosevens 17329@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I like MJ's solution. JohnA1nut on "What I don't like about mixing concentration and chaining" http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/what-i-dont-like-about-mixing-concentration-and-chaining#post-17319 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:02:22 +0000 JohnA1nut 17319@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ I hope this doesn't sound overly rude, but if he found a loophole in the rules that you never considered, I think you should let him have it. (Doing Therapy)