[OOC] H.E.A.R.T. [Recruitment re-opened]

[TheH0ARD]

Just a heads up that I edited the GM Post.

[EPIC]

Okay, so what manner of check am I making here?

[TheH0ARD]

I'm assuming Move Object will be used on the Girders (DC 15) and Prying the doors open would be a DC 25. Toughness 15 doors.

Mind you, circumstance bonus can be applied based on how she tries to open the doors. And 'how' she does it could play a factor as well.

[TheH0ARD]

So I had an early shift today and during the slow morning, I was thinking of the campaign and how I can better run it (that's right, I think of you guys while I work. Take that however you like).

One idea that I thought of is Skill Challenges (from my D&D days).

In a nut shell (Assuming none of you played 4e), a basic over view is here.

Now a system I used in D&D was something called the Obsidian Skill Challenge System (free download here), which allowed for characters with appropriate skills to shine, while allowing others who don't have the same accumen to be able to at least contribute.

The reason I thought of this is because the thought hit me this morning: If the prevention of critical mass was a Skill Challenge, it could've been over by now without any loss of rp or interaction. People could have spotlight time, and good description/rp could be rewarded.

Using Obsidian for example:

Discovering the reason why the fail safe doesn't work is a Three segment mental Challenge. Obviously Sprocket's domain with her Science skills, but others could aid her checks with intelligence (Janice), hacking into the computers (Sandra), recon (Lily [via using light to protect her from radiation and going down there to look, which is a perception check]), etc.

Once that challenge is passed, the next would be solving the problem that is stopping the fail safe, which becomes a physical Skill Challenge.

If the previous mental skill check had failed, then the next skill check would involve getting the heck out of there or even, containing the blast.

Now obviously, powers can play a roll as well. I'm going to need to do some tweaking, but this could work.

Give me some feed back. I'm going to try this next issue, but let me know what you think.

[EPIC]

Feedback: Learn Lumi's name! You've now called her Alice and Lily! Lol

[McGuffin]

Never really played any edition of DnD much, but after a quick read-through of the link you provided the skill challenges system seems good.

[TheH0ARD]

Feedback: Learn Lumi's name! You've now called her Alice and Lily! Lol

Feedback of Feedback: "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HEr NAME IS!!!

...seriously, my bad Epic. :p

[Coyotzin]

IMHO, Skill Challenges are a great idea that wasn't fully thought through in its implementation. Social, action and situational encounters need some sort of guideline under the D&D system due to its XP rewards system, but M&M is very abstract: you don't get a set number of XP for enemies defeated or traps disarmed simply because the XP system is tied to the level system, which corresponds but is not equivalent to M&M's Power Level.

M&M awards power points for scenes/sessions finished, with the amount given being fully discretional, and with situational rewards taking the form of Hero Points.

Also, in M&M skills and non-combat abilities are balanced in cost and thus occupy the same level of importance. If you want to blow your pp's in skill ranks rather than in power ranks, you will be the God of Skills, while if you want to get all sort of nifty powers, you end up incompetent in everyday tasks. It all depends on what the players decide and how the campaign is planned. In D&D, skills remain an afterthought to the combat system.

For these reasons, the Skill Challenge as a mechanic is redundant and unnecessary. The idea, however, can be implemented if you wish for a more mechanical approach to non-combat situations. D&D had to implement the # of successes target because it lacks any other way to resolve non-combat encounters, but in M&M everything is unified under the attack target number/target resistance roll process, so you can set your "problem" have a resistance check against the "attacks" from the PCs... for example, hacking the system is an attack with a resistance DC equal to 10 + the hacker's Technology ranks or power ranks used, while directly attacking the gates is a more straightforward damage roll, but they all end up imposing -1 penalties on subsequent resistance rolls by the target situation.

Instead of the Dazed/Staggered/Incapacitated progression, you can assign an Delayed/Paused/Solved progression while treating a situation as a monster, and set an overall resistance bonus by the way of Toughness.

[flynnarrel]

hmm... won't let me download the skill challenge system without a login to ENWorld.

[Dureign]

@Coyotzin: Thats a fascinating approach... it reminds me sort of "social combat" from Mecha and Manga. Has anyone worked on implementing a system that abstract-ifies tasks and situations?

Giving them "stats" like a Defense (Difficulty? Obstacles?) and a Toughness (Persistence? Intractibility? haha) could be cool.

EDIT: Actually, ignore this. Don't want to hijack the OOC thread for this game (which I've enjoyed lurking in btw).

[McGuffin]

My sleepy brain tells me I'm in the wrong timezone to be having a conversation about this.

[TheH0ARD]

MHO, Skill Challenges are a great idea that wasn't fully thought through in its implementation. Social, action and situational encounters need some sort of guideline under the D&D system due to its XP rewards system, but M&M is very abstract: you don't get a set number of XP for enemies defeated or traps disarmed simply because the XP system is tied to the level system, which corresponds but is not equivalent to M&M's Power Level.

M&M awards power points for scenes/sessions finished, with the amount given being fully discretional, and with situational rewards taking the form of Hero Points.

The way I see it (on paper, mind you, which as we all know can sometimes look better then reality), the reward/consequinces will be based on narrative and story progression. A simple example being going through the door. Succeed, you're inside. Fail and you're locked out and is forced to waste time finding another way around.

One optional thing I could do is award a PP for passing at least one Skill Challenge (or to slow down progression, two or three challenges for a PP).

Also, in M&M skills and non-combat abilities are balanced in cost and thus occupy the same level of importance. If you want to blow your pp's in skill ranks rather than in power ranks, you will be the God of Skills, while if you want to get all sort of nifty powers, you end up incompetent in everyday tasks. It all depends on what the players decide and how the campaign is planned. In D&D, skills remain an afterthought to the combat system.

No arguments here. >_>

For these reasons, the Skill Challenge as a mechanic is redundant and unnecessary. The idea, however, can be implemented if you wish for a more mechanical approach to non-combat situations. D&D had to implement the # of successes target because it lacks any other way to resolve non-combat encounters, but in M&M everything is unified under the attack target number/target resistance roll process, so you can set your "problem" have a resistance check against the "attacks" from the PCs... for example, hacking the system is an attack with a resistance DC equal to 10 + the hacker's Technology ranks or power ranks used, while directly attacking the gates is a more straightforward damage roll, but they all end up imposing -1 penalties on subsequent resistance rolls by the target situation.

The aim isn't to replace, but to supplement. Every non combat situation won't be a skill challenge. But things that could drag pbp if played out (hours of research, infiltrating an installation, etc).

As you brought up, it's not going to be perfect and if it doesn't work/get too redundent, we can always drop it.

Make sense?

EDIT:

@Coyotzin: Thats a fascinating approach... it reminds me sort of "social combat" from Mecha and Manga. Has anyone worked on implementing a system that abstract-ifies tasks and situations?

Giving them "stats" like a Defense (Difficulty? Obstacles?) and a Toughness (Persistence? Intractibility? haha) could be cool.

EDIT: Actually, ignore this. Don't want to hijack the OOC thread for this game (which I've enjoyed lurking in btw).

Glad you're enjoying this, Red. I keep hearing about Mecha and Manga, I need to check it out at some point.

My sleepy brain tells me I'm in the wrong timezone to be having a conversation about this.

lol

[EPIC]

I do have a suggetion, but it's involved, so it'll wait until i get home

[Coyotzin]

The way I see it (on paper, mind you, which as we all know can sometimes look better then reality), the reward/consequinces will be based on narrative and story progression. A simple example being going through the door. Succeed, you're inside. Fail and you're locked out and is forced to waste time finding another way around

Well... that doesn't need a system; that just adjudicating character actions. Making a system to account for all the things a character is wont to do is one of the reasons why pen-and-paper RPs will always be superior to computer RPGs: the infinity of choice and ability by a human GM to adapt. To break your simple example, Hardwired doesn't go through the door and it closes. Rather than find another way around, Hardwired decides to reduce the door to splinters and go through anyway.

One optional thing I could do is award a PP for passing at least one Skill Challenge (or to slow down progression, two or three challenges for a PP).

That's still situational adjudication, and already part of the system ^^

The aim isn't to replace, but to supplement. Every non combat situation won't be a skill challenge. But things that could drag pbp if played out (hours of research, infiltrating an installation, etc).

Setting the pace is the prerogative of the GM, system or no system. As in D&D, most of the times the players seldom know when a situation is part of a skill challenge, and in my experience in pbp, we do tend to gloss over extended situations anyway, only asking the GM for confirmation or what roll to make, if we haven't made one ourselves already that we think would apply, to wait for the GM to adjudicate.

As another example, Hardwired tries to hack a system, and I make a Technology check or decide to use her Skill Mastery. It is your option as GM to decide that the single result accounts for an entire hacking session, or you can decide that additional checks are required. It's your call.

Glad you're enjoying this, Red. I keep hearing about Mecha and Manga, I need to check it out at some point.

You should. It's an awesome piece of work written by the most enlightened of authors... <.<

[flynnarrel]

You should. It's an awesome piece of work written by the most enlightened of authors... <.<

Did you have a hand in writing it Coyo?