The Critical 00 Task Resolution System V 2.0
By James A. Smith
The difficulty spread for attempting an action which, the DM decides needs
random adjudication, such as knowing an obscure piece of religious lore,
climbing a wall, etc., runs from 13 to 24.
13, represents the Merely Difficult; 18, is Very, Very, Hard. The Critical 00
System is designed with the supposition that most attempts will fall within this
range.
But, on occasion, the DM may deem a Task to be Extremely Difficult. This is
represented by a 19–21 spread.
Lastly, you never know what player’s might try to do. 22-24 represents the
Insanely Difficult to Nigh Unto Impossible range.
A Success is determined by making a Resolution Check and matching or
exceeding the target number. Two ten-sided dice are rolled and the results are
added together, then, applicable Bonuses are added to the sum. 0 is treated as
zero, unless a double ought is rolled, the latter being treated as a Critical
Success, always.
There are two types of Resolution Checks and each one has a separate method
for determining the initial Bonus to the Roll:
The Basic Resolution Check – Characters receive a +1 Bonus at first level and an
additional +1 every four levels, thereafter (Another at 5th, then at 9th, etc.)
This is for anything the character may attempt, which is not covered by the
roll/bonus below.
The Trained Resolution Check – Characters receive a bonus of +2 and an additional +1 for every three levels of experience. Players may choose two trained skills at first level and another one every four levels. Also, any time a 00 is rolled on a Basic Check, the character is assumed to have a knack for that task and it may be treated as Trained, thereafter. Any skill idea they can come up with, subject to DM approval, may be chosen.
When applicable, a Bonus or penalty can be assessed, based upon the players’ description of how he’s going to go about performing the task at hand and overall player skill in handling the situation. The random determination shouldn’t take the place of the player thinking things through and formulating a course of action. Nor should the DM allow himself to be lazy, when imagining the situation and necessities involved, for success. The system may best be of use, when the above isn’t very practical. As a DM, I wear many hats; blacksmithing is one I’ve yet to put on. I wouldn’t expect a player to have more than a basic idea of how to go about smithing, either. I would however, grant a bonus for creative thought, whether the player came up with complete bullshit, or spoke with some knowledge of the subject.
An Ability Score Bonus may be assessed and granted, as the situation warrants and at the DM’s discretion.
I think ths has the makings of a good system!
ReplyDeleteI don't really get your antipathy for social skills, though--if you don't require a character to have actual familiarity with the Ruins of Mal Zal Shek to make a knowledge roll, or real puissance with arms, why should a socially awkward player stammer through an attempt at eloquent persuasion when its his character that's the smooth-talking bard?
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by handling it through role-playing.
this is just the skeleton of the d20 system, with 2d10.
ReplyDeleteTrey: I think he wants players to talk through things because that's all they really can do at the table. I get your point, but depending on how a referee runs things the "stammering player" can get by just fine. All that matters is the attempt!
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to try sneaking across the courtyard, and you don't care to elaborate, the referee gives you a difficult roll to make. If you describe how you're going to stick to the edge of the courtyard and scamper from bush to bush, walking on the paving stones instead of the gravel, he gives youa slightly easier roll.
Same with the social situations. The abrasive wizard and the smooth charlatan walk into the palace grounds and try to fast-talk their way in. Obviously the charlatan character will have more bonuses. But if the abrasive wizard's player elaborates more on how he is trying to convince the guards, he can get a bonus to his roll.
Now if James is saying that there will simply be no roll for social interaction, and players must roleplay those, and character skill doesn't matter, I'm not sure I agree with that. After all, your character can be better or worse at swinging a sword, or at sneaking around. It makes sense that some characters can be better or worse at social situations.
There's also a disconnect between player skill and character skill, but think in the other direction. You have a dumb character, smart player. We suppose that the smart player should dumb down his plans and schemes to fit what the dumb character can propose. And if the charismatic player has the abrasive wizard PC, he shouldn't smooth-talk everyone with his real interpersonal skills because his wizard doesn't have those.
If you grant that the gifted player must restrain himself when playing a less-gifted character, then a less-gifted player should be given more leeway in actions taken by his more-gifted character.
@1d30: I agree with what you're saying. I think there's always room for a bonus for player skill--and lack of effort to be penalized, but I don't want to rely solely on player skill for the reasons both you and I raised.
ReplyDeleteI take into account creativity and effort, at least as much as glibness and articulation. With NPC reactions, the Charisma adjustment also comes into play, if a roll is necessary. But, with social interactions, I aim to challenge the player and not the character. As regards to players, no dice or check governs their actions, period. This deserves a post of its own. It's a lot more fun role-playing an NPC trying to hood-wink the characters. Choosing how to play it out, dropping subtle tells, etc. Having a player choose to have his character fooled, is a particularly cool occurrence. I don't force players with low intelligence characters, to play it that way. Some have described it as an emulation of the other levels of the psyche, looking out for the poor dumb fool, or the characters' guardian angel, or whatever. As I understand it, that's how Gygax et al, ran things and I agree with them, here.
ReplyDeleteOh, and thanks for the comments!
ReplyDeleteOh certainly we don't force players to roleplay a certain way. It's just sort of good form if your character is weak, to roleplay weak, or if your character is smart, to roleplay smart.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this could cause player passiveness if the character has low INT, WIS, and CHA. "I'm not the smart / wise / social one, so I'll leave it to the others." Whereas it's far better if everyone participates.
You could describe social interactions as a kind of player challenge rather than a character challenge. This is how I handle puzzles. Regardless of how smart the character is, you can't just bypass the puzzle by rolling against your Intelligence score. The players need to get together to solve it.
But the puzzle is never a lock stopping the game from moving on. Failure to solve the puzzle does mean that specific task can't be finished up, or that one door can't be opened - yet. But there are always plenty of other things to do.
And isn't a roleplayed social interaction inherently a sort of puzzle? You must approach properly, gather information, possibly give information, and hopefully walk away with the "treasure" of some positive social outcome (knowledge, assistance, services).
A DM with a more linear, planned-out adventure should be wary of these "stopping point" puzzles or social interactions, because there isn't anywhere else to go if the players fail to solve it.
Anyway, I'm just saying that there can be good reasons to have a test of the player rather than of the character. It does invalidate various character abilities like a Riddlemaster Bard or a Charlatan Thief. So the players should know ahead of time, or the rules of those characters modified to give a more concrete in-game benefit.
Although physical challenges should probably still be tests of the character. The gaming shop where I play, this other group constantly has the players do little physical tasks like walking backwards or blindly to and fro. I don't have anything against LARP, but that's just not necessary.
What do you think?
I'm still thinking of going with the hardcore minimalist approach, as given in S&W. :)
ReplyDelete