Page 1 of 2

Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 15 Nov 2018, 11:46
by Benedict
Have at it gang.

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 22 Nov 2018, 20:23
by thorgarth
Being true to the toolkit mentality stated on page 3, there is a basic mechanic I will make a slight adjustment to, and that's regarding Tapping Attributes in particular and Tapping in general. Rules state that at max we can tap 2 abilities, also stating that tapping attributes should be a rare option.

I´m changing that to a more traditional approach in which players can tap one attribute (the one that best applies to the situation at hand, though one still has to justify its use) plus one skill or trait.

So tapping formula would be Attribute+Skill or Trait, applying the three restrictions mentioned on pages 17 and 18.

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 23 Nov 2018, 01:39
by Benedict
thorgarth wrote:
22 Nov 2018, 20:23
I´m changing that to a more traditional approach in which players can tap one attribute (the one that best applies to the situation at hand, though one still has to justify its use) plus one skill or trait.

So tapping formula would be Attribute+Skill or Trait, applying the three restrictions mentioned on pages 17 and 18.
Disclaimer. It's your table and not me nor anyone can stop you from doing anything.

That being said, an observation. This approach runs contrary to RAI in many ways and it contradicts itself at the same time. Two points for consideration:
"the one that best applies to the situation at hand, though one still has to justify its use"
In most rpgs like DnD skills are married to attributes. Want to creep past those guards? Roll Stealth/Sneak + Dex. In dice pool games like WoD it would be Dexterity + Stealth. The Scoundrels equivalent is roll Stealth + possible taps; if you lack Stealth / rank is too low you could sub Agility instead. Meaning that "the attribute that best applies to the situation at hand" is already taken into account when you roll Stealth. Allowing an Agility tap to a Stealth roll because "agile=silent" RAW and RAI is the definition of double-dipping. Tapping is about going above and beyond what the tested ability already brings to the table.
tapping formula would be Attribute+Skill or Trait
You have two tapping slots. By explicitly allocating Slot 1 to Attributes and Slot 2 to Skills/Traits you alter the weight of the Priority Table. Attributes suddenly become more valuable. Traits - which by default are mostly tapping resources - become less appealing.

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 23 Nov 2018, 07:09
by thorgarth
Its a matter of interpretation Benedict. For me Attributes should have a direct bear in the performance of skills, adding (in this case since tapping only adds) to it, and by that differentiating the natural aptitude at a given area. Meaning, for me attributes are "above and beyond what the tested ability already brings to the table." Considering this interpretation it cannot be counted as double-dipping. In this I'm clearly closer to the first iterations of this "series".

Not its not only for me. The rules themselves are ambiguous about it.

Let's look at this with an example.

Character 1 has Stealth 1, and Agility 3
Character 2 has Stealth 1, and Agility 7 (the guy really is known around is "neighborhood").

Now, just using the rules as is (not my interpretation, which means that supposedly the skills in both cases bring all they have to the table), we might actually think something is clearly wrong with this if both characters would have the same chance of actually using stealth, meaning 1d though their innate aptitude is so disparaging, BUT the fact is EVEN the rules acknowledge (if in a most indirect way) that attributes (as an ability) can go above, and even substitute a skill the character has. See Voluntary Substitutions.

"Under some circumstances, you might be better off choosing to sub in another skill or ability even when you have the most appropriate one for the check"

In this case although Character 1 is limited to his Stealth 1, simply put because his natural aptitude is, let's face it, ordinary, Character two CAN bring is Agility to the table and sub in Stealth by tapping is Agility (2d) instead.

In this roundabout way the rules acknowledge that attributes CAN bring something to the table in so much as substituting the skill.

Personally I just prefer to make this an intrinsic part of the mechanic, because for me it is an intrinsic part of the equation, though bearing in mind that you need to examine it in a fluid way, since we can easily postulate the usage of different attributes for the same skill given certain circumstances. Stealth, for instance, will most of the times use Agility BUT can use Cunning, to enable the character to plan in advance the best route to reach, undetected, point of ingress in Castle B, OR to plan in advance the defense so as to understand the best routes characters with devious minds and intents could take to reach the characters undetected.

Your second point, "You have two tapping slots. By explicitly allocating Slot 1 to Attributes and Slot 2 to Skills/Traits you alter the weight of the Priority Table. Attributes suddenly become more valuable. Traits - which by default are mostly tapping resources - become less appealing.", will bear some thinking but I think even then traits will have appeal, because of the Drama mechanics, specially "playing for trouble" and "Temptation".

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 23 Nov 2018, 10:33
by thorgarth
... further, it kind of creates artificial sub-systems in which one attributes are considered, for the most part, to be included in what the skill brings to the table, with a second one, regarding proficiencies (Full melee), counting the relevant attribute as an inherent part of the equation. It strikes me as artificial and odd, though I get it the the main goal was to reduce the number of dices rolled with skill checks (but then it would be more coherent to do the same with proficiencies, though given how the mechanics work the higher number of dice would come in handy).

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 23 Nov 2018, 12:32
by Agamemnon
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
Its a matter of interpretation Benedict. For me Attributes should have a direct bear in the performance of skills, adding (in this case since tapping only adds) to it, and by that differentiating the natural aptitude at a given area. Meaning, for me attributes are "above and beyond what the tested ability already brings to the table." Considering this interpretation it cannot be counted as double-dipping. In this I'm clearly closer to the first iterations of this "series".
It's your table and your group, presumably, so you can do as you please. However, the rules are designed with the notion that attributes do not "govern" skills in the way they do in D&D or other systems. The example in the tapping section even directly calls out an example Attribute/Skill relationship in the form of Perception and says this is not the case.
Second, you need to explain how it applies to the situation. The thing you are tapping in must bring some benefit to the task that is above and beyond the normal scope of the ability being checked. Most of what an ability does is already assumed in the value of the ability itself. Having a high Perception doesn't make you better at Larceny, even if situational awareness is fairly crucial to breaking and entering. Your burglarizing ability is wholly contained within the Larceny skill.
Further, under the sidebar on the following page it points out that attributes aren't particularly common as taps because they are so broadly applicable that it makes it difficult to point to a specific benefit not contained within the skill you are tapping.

You can hack the game to do whatever you please, but the game is written with the opposite assumption about how things are set up. The point of tapping is to encourage players to be more creative with their approach to challenges, to make it mechanically advantageous to color their approaches based on other strengths their characters possess. Interesting to this point, I'd previously considered removing attribute taps from general conflicts entirely because it's so rare that they actually fulfill the design goal of adding interesting things to the narrative. Instead, people just try to justify them as a free bonus die for having scores. After all, to use your example: what does being "agile" in your stealthiness add to the narrative? It's not creative or colorful or even interesting. Agility is your hand-eye coordination and body control -- things that were already assumed in your ability to be stealthy in the first place. We haven't added anything to the situation or made things more interesting by saying "Yeah, but he does it extra agilely. With like, cartwheels and shit."

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 23 Nov 2018, 12:56
by thorgarth
Agamemnon wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 12:32

You can hack the game to do whatever you please, but the game is written with the opposite assumption about how things are set up. The point of tapping is to encourage players to be more creative with their approach to challenges, to make it mechanically advantageous to color their approaches based on other strengths their characters possess. Interesting to this point, I'd previously considered removing attribute taps from general conflicts entirely because it's so rare that they actually fulfill the design goal of adding interesting things to the narrative. Instead, people just try to justify them as a free bonus die for having scores. After all, to use your example: what does being "agile" in your stealthiness add to the narrative? It's not creative or colorful or even interesting. Agility is your hand-eye coordination and body control -- things that were already assumed in your ability to be stealthy in the first place. We haven't added anything to the situation or made things more interesting by saying "Yeah, but he does it extra agilely. With like, cartwheels and shit."
Like I said, its a matter of interpretation... But assuming people to be agile just because they learned, even if just the basics, to be stealthy doesn't strike me as logic.

I get that the rules strive to add some narrative theme to them, be colorful our creative, but when you are trying to be stealthy, for instance, you are not trying to be fanciful or colorful, or are trying to be efective so that you are not discovered, and extremely agile people will have a better chance than less agile, hence the example I gave about character 1 and 2... ;)

Its not justifying them as free bonus die for having "scores" but to differentiate between people with disparaging but relevant attributes applied to a given skill roll. The game can presume that the skill already takes that into consideration, and brings it all to the table, or so was the intention of the creators, which I respect. I just don't share it, and above all I'm just giving my feedback.

Still, taking into account the example I gave above (Character 1 vs Character 2 with different agility making use of Voluntary Substitution). How does that fit with the principle that the skill already includes the natural aptitude of the characters and brings it all to the table? Mechanically we could just decide to substitute in Agility and use its 2d to roll instead of the Stealth 1d?

And proficiencies? Why not use the same principle ands make attributes an integral and inherent part of it and not a score that adds to a pool?

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 23 Nov 2018, 13:19
by thorgarth
So basically I will just use a similar approach to this "The skill pool functions in a similar way to the attribute pool, by pairing a skill with the attribute most relevant to the given task to calculate the number of dice to be rolled. Nearly all skills can be paired with multiple attributes depending on context. Hunting or tracking may be a function of Cunning/Survival, while foraging for food may be Acumen/Survival, and moving through dense woodlands may be either Agility or Stamina-based, depending on the circumstances.", adjusting it to the new formula, meaning, instead of adding the full attribute value, I will just add its tapping value, IF ANY, and thus differentiating people with average relevant attributes from those with above average without making this component as impacting as the skill value.

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 02:31
by Benedict
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
Its a matter of interpretation Benedict.
Totally agree. I cannot stress enough that any game—Scoundrel included—should help you play the game through the rules, not hinder you playing the game through the rules. That's why I said in the first place its your table, do what you will.

That aside I have a huge "but..." . No matter your point of view, you cannot deny the fact that any system has certain design goals to adress through the rules. Altering something within the rules has a fundamental effect on the rest of the system. The more basic the element you touch, the more pronounced the shift.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
For me Attributes should have a direct bear in the performance of skills, adding (in this case since tapping only adds) to it, and by that differentiating the natural aptitude at a given area. Meaning, for me attributes are "above and beyond what the tested ability already brings to the table." Considering this interpretation it cannot be counted as double-dipping. In this I'm clearly closer to the first iterations of this "series".
Thing is that Skills are designed in such a way that no single Attribute applies as a base to each respective Skill as games like DnD do. Take Larceny for example. What would be your take on that? Agility for picking locks and disabling traps? Perception for finding traps? Cunning or Perception for casing a scene for a future burglary? You see that it suddenly doesn't come down to a single Attribute/Skill combination.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
Let's look at this with an example.

Character 1 has Stealth 1, and Agility 3
Character 2 has Stealth 1, and Agility 7 (the guy really is known around is "neighborhood").
I'll give you a more extreme example.
Char1 has Stealth2 and Agility3.
Char2 has Stealth0 and Agility10.
Suddenly Char2 is a better skulk than a dude trained in that shite because "ya know, agile shite".
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
Now, just using the rules as is (not my interpretation, which means that supposedly the skills in both cases bring all they have to the table), we might actually think something is clearly wrong with this if both characters would have the same chance of actually using stealth, meaning 1d though their innate aptitude is so disparaging, BUT the fact is EVEN the rules acknowledge (if in a most indirect way) that attributes (as an ability) can go above, and even substitute a skill the character has. See Voluntary Substitutions.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
I get that the rules strive to add some narrative theme to them, be colorful our creative, but when you are trying to be stealthy, for instance, you are not trying to be fanciful or colorful, or are trying to be efective so that you are not discovered, and extremely agile people will have a better chance than less agile, hence the example I gave about character 1 and 2.
You are forgetting a fundamental aspect of the rules tho. Task and Intent. If both said "I try to sneak past the guards" (which is boring by itself if you ask me) both should roll 1d. If Character2 (Stealth1 Agility7) said "I want to sneak past the guards using the rooftops above them" this is a different take; he'd get 3d (Stealth + Agility tap), but failing that shite might result in him being exposed to the guards by taking a dive to cobblestone below. Think that's a colorful way to use Stealth, and its RAW+RAI to boot.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
"Under some circumstances, you might be better off choosing to sub in another skill or ability even when you have the most appropriate one for the check"

In this case although Character 1 is limited to his Stealth 1, simply put because his natural aptitude is, let's face it, ordinary, Character two CAN bring is Agility to the table and sub in Stealth by tapping is Agility (2d) instead.

In this roundabout way the rules acknowledge that attributes CAN bring something to the table in so much as substituting the skill.
It is not roundabout nor ambiguous. As I pointed above, you must take Task and Intent into account. You can't tap/sub Agility in Stealth because "you know, agiles make better sneaks". Either buy Stealth, or find ways to bring your Agility into play. It's not a guarantee.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
Your second point, "You have two tapping slots. By explicitly allocating Slot 1 to Attributes and Slot 2 to Skills/Traits you alter the weight of the Priority Table. Attributes suddenly become more valuable. Traits - which by default are mostly tapping resources - become less appealing.", will bear some thinking but I think even then traits will have appeal, because of the Drama mechanics, specially "playing for trouble" and "Temptation".
My second point is interconnected to the first.

Attributes are used throughout the game as statics. Call them your "base saving throws / action enhancers" if you will. Brawn directly applies to damage dealing and resisting. Agility is used for balance effects (knockdown). Mental effects are resisted by Keen and Will. Perception resists Stealth and similar shite. Not to mention that Reflex and Perception are the base of Combat Pools.

They also get to sub for Skills when said Skill is too low or unavailable. When you lack Stealth you can sub Agility if your Task/Intent validates it. Or Cunning. And so on per Skill.

By saying that the first tapping slot is married to Attributes is both double-dipping and weighting priority tables in favor of Attributes.

1. Double dipping. Afforementioned Char2 of Agility7 Stealth1.
RAW Gets Stealth 1d; 2d (Agility tap) when subbing Agility dependant on Task/Intent; 3d when tapping Agility in Stealth dependant on Task/Intent. With your take he gets 3d (?).

If he had Stealth7 Agility7? 9d—the equivalent of a T5 pick RAW—with a T3 pick on each Attribute and Skill.

2. Priority weight in favor of Attributes. Since you will be tapping Attributes in Skills you're better off taking a T5 in Attributes. It will raise damage output, damage resistance, and effect resistance, plus all the Skills across the board. You can get a 5/5/5/5/5 array which means +1d to any Skill imaginable.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
And proficiencies? Why not use the same principle ands make attributes an integral and inherent part of it and not a score that adds to a pool?
Missing your point here. Its not Attribute that adds on top of Proficiency to form Combat Pool; its the other way around. No one is forced to have a Proficiency score. Everyone is forced to have a minimum Rank1 in each Attribute.
thorgarth wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 07:09
"The skill pool functions in a similar way to the attribute pool, by pairing a skill with the attribute most relevant to the given task to calculate the number of dice to be rolled. Nearly all skills can be paired with multiple attributes depending on context. Hunting or tracking may be a function of Cunning/Survival, while foraging for food may be Acumen/Survival, and moving through dense woodlands may be either Agility or Stamina-based, depending on the circumstances."
This was the way Bastards handled things. Which led to Attribute heavy characters being equal or better at Skills than masters of said Skills. Basically that's one of the main reasons of switching from Bastards to Scoundrels, me being one of the most vocal ones—if not the most vocal one—against such a change. This now is history. If interested tho do search through the forums a bit. This thing has been discussed on numerous occassions.

The way I see it your hack is in reality unecessary; half of what you describe is already there RAW and that's how the rules are supposed to work. In essence you limit tapping alocation more than what it already is, and incestivize heavy Attribute builds. As I said, its your table, hack away at your heart's content. Still I fear this will do more harm than actual good.

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 07:33
by thorgarth
I am sensible to your argument regarding the risk of putting to much of a focus on Attributes vs every other aspect of the characters, and that is exactly why the approach was to reduce from the raw attribute score to its tapping value, thus explicitly stating that only above average scores brings something that can make a difference.

The biggest diference in interpretation derives from the fact that you think that by choosing to tap agility the character needs to act in a certain, and different, way that he would if he only rolled his stealth, whereas I advocate that this agile nature (Agility 4 and above) allows him to try more difficult actions BUT can do any action in exactly the same way just better and/or safer. e.g. Is Agility of 7, meaning his higher coordination AND body control allows him to have a lesser chance to avoid bumping his leg against that trash can and making just the necessary noise to alert the guard, or navigate the trashy alleys without losing is footing or send that turnip rolling right up to the thug´s feet, or just recovering from a dash just slightly faster and making it into the right spot just before the person being shadowed turned his head around. It does NOT mean he has to do it cart walking or roof running, though if he wanted to or needed to (stealth via rooftops, not stealth by cartwheeling) he would have a higher chance of doing so against a higher difficulty action (higher requisites).

Like I stated before, I just think the natural aptitude of a character should influence the skill level the character brings to the table. This can come around in various ways. For instance Burning Wheel, which seems to me the biggest influence in this system introduces this by stating that standard skills "open" at half the root stat, which if adopted here would mean something like skills opening at the tapping value of the most relevant attribute, either automatically for base skills or as the first score as a character invest points in it for the first time.

Trying to stay as much in system as I can (from my perspective) I chose to make the possibility to tap an Attribute from uncommon (as the rules state) to common though the player still needs to frame it under Task and Intent, obviously. And like I also state before, the choice of Attribute though in most cases will be more or less a simple affair, its not a rigid reality. Like you state also any given skill could be used with a variety of attributes to solve different tasks. And in each and every case the character would need to address how his choice makes sense and how it plays out "in game".

As for the proficiency argument, the fact is Proficiencies and Skills cover the exact same function, quantify the characters/NPC´s, learned and trained abilities in a given area, be it practical and/or theoretical, whereas Proficiencies focus on weapons use, Skills deal with "the rest". No one is forced to have a proficiency, true, just like no one is forced to have a skill. Everyone has a minimum ranks of 1 in each attribute. And just like in proficiencies attributes can also sub in for skills.

And yes, you could've characters have 5-5-5-5-5, but hey, they would have to choose T5 to be able to do it, as T4 would give you "just" 23 points to spend, which would mean 2 attributes would be 4 or one attribute would be average (3) :). Which would mean less Skill points, and remember that in my approach skill levels add directly while attributes only add tap value.

That being said time will tell if this approach proves wrong at my table, and obviously if I find it that it that is actually unbalances things I will address the issue.

But thanks for the discussion and arguments Benedict. Cheers.

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 08:05
by Benedict
thorgarth wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 07:33
The biggest diference in interpretation derives from the fact that you think that by choosing to tap agility the character needs to act in a certain, and different, way that he would if he only rolled his stealth, whereas I advocate that this agile nature (Agility 4 and above) allows him to try more difficult actions BUT can do any action in exactly the same way just better and/or safer. e.g. Is Agility of 7, meaning his higher coordination AND body control allows him to have a lesser chance to avoid bumping his leg against that trash can and making just the necessary noise to alert the guard, or navigate the trashy alleys without losing is footing or send that turnip rolling right up to the thug´s feet, or just recovering from a dash just slightly faster and making it into the right spot just before the person being shadowed turned his head around. It does NOT mean he has to do it cart walking or roof running, though if he wanted to or needed to (stealth via rooftops, not stealth by cartwheeling) he would have a higher chance of doing so against a higher difficulty action (higher requisites).
What concerns me the most is that when you "marry" Attributes to Skills is that you downplay the Task & Intent concept which, lets face it, is great. I'll give you an example that came up in my table. Dude had Larceny6 Reflex4 Perception5. They were trying to break a really tough lock while outside the building during a heavy thunderstorm. He was using a hammer and chisel, trying to time his strokes to the thunder so they would avoid notice and he could strike as hard as possible. He got 6d from skill, +1 from Perception (noticing the lightning flash before the actual sound), and +1d from Reflex (timing strikes with thunder). From my point of view his Task and Intent was excellent and allowed him to tap two attributes for a total of 8d. Under your hack I am unsure if such creative approaches are possible.

Regarding that Agility interpretation, I could argue the following:
1. Cunning: Throwing a rock in another direction to have those guards move out of his way.
2. Perception: Noticing the best spots to hide in the crowd while tailing his guy.
3. Reflex: Timing his movement in a crowded street to remain hidden from his mark.
Yada yada.

From my point of view the player should not only describe what he does, but how he does it. Then ask taps. If it sounds like a stretch it most probably is. Note this apply to all abilities, not only Attributes. But all the above would happen in my table. Another GM might rule that all the above (your Agility take, my other Attribute suggestions) are already covered by Stealth in the first place. Imho this adds to the system, rather than weakening it.
thorgarth wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 07:33
Like I stated before, I just think the natural aptitude of a character should influence the skill level the character brings to the table. This can come around in various ways. For instance Burning Wheel, which seems to me the biggest influence in this system introduces this by stating that standard skills "open" at half the root stat, which if adopted here would mean something like skills opening at the tapping value of the most relevant attribute, either automatically for base skills or as the first score as a character invest points in it for the first time.
I can see where you're coming from, and in part, I say this take would be intriguing. Still I fear that since you'd have to marry Skills to Attributes this would have three major effects:

1. A massive write-up on Skill/Attribute dependency.
2. Tweaking of the Priority table so that there is no dump Priority.
3.. It breaks the Task & Intent concept.

Honestly I'm uncertain if its worth the hassle.
thorgarth wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 07:33
Trying to stay as much in system as I can (from my perspective) I chose to make the possibility to tap an Attribute from uncommon (as the rules state) to common though the player still needs to frame it under Task and Intent, obviously. And like I also state before, the choice of Attribute though in most cases will be more or less a simple affair, its not a rigid reality. Like you state also any given skill could be used with a variety of attributes to solve different tasks. And in each and every case the character would need to address how his choice makes sense and how it plays out "in game".
The problem is that when you tie a Tap slot to Attributes and another to Skills/Traits/Proficiencies this means I cannot tap two Attributes/Skills/Traits in there. Problematic as it limits the approach a player can have towards Task & Intent.
thorgarth wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 07:33
And yes, you could've characters have 5-5-5-5-5, but hey, they would have to choose T5 to be able to do it, as T4 would give you "just" 23 points to spend, which would mean 2 attributes would be 4 or one attribute would be average (3) :). Which would mean less Skill points, and remember that in my approach skill levels add directly while attributes only add tap value.
Where a T3 (the assumed default value) would give me 5-4-4-4-4. +1 to all Skills across the board. Hrmph.

Also note that T5 would give 8-7-4-4-4, not 5 across. The numbers have changed since the last version and I was lazy to check em. This means +2 in three attributes if you plan your Attributes correctly, and +1 for the rest. Double hrmph.

Given that you get free Traits by default, and can get another 3d with your teammates relationships, its safe to assume that by your hack T5 Attribute becomes nearly mandatory, Traits become a T1 dump priority, and the rest remain at T3. Cos with all those freebies plus your Drives plus your teammates' Drives you can milk Drama consistently. Triple hrmph.
thorgarth wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 07:33
That being said time will tell if this approach proves wrong at my table, and obviously if I find it that it that is actually unbalances things I will address the issue.
Have fun hacking away. Would love to hear how it worked out. Cheers man. ;)

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 10:05
by Korbel
Benedict, and how did handle the Req of the task?

Did you increase it, because it was harder to open lock this special way? But as player's pool increases, it kinda cancels the higher Req.

If you didn't increase the Req, we have this paradox of performing better under worse conditions

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 13:47
by Benedict
If you didn't increase the Req, we have this paradox of performing better under worse conditions
Why should I increase it in any way? He wanted to open a back door lock in a populated area with heavy patrols during a storm without being noticed. Req was 6. Why should I increase req because he narrated a plausible way to milk 2d with tapping? It kinda defeats the whole taping concept, doesn't it?

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 15:28
by Korbel
And what Req would it be to open this lock 🔒 without caring for noise?

Re: Sword & Scoundrel 0.2.0 Feedback : Book I : Initiation

Posted: 24 Nov 2018, 19:33
by thorgarth
Just one final point Benedict. I'm not marrying one attribute to a skill in such a way as to avert any other attribute to be used. Not in the least. The example with the Stealth and Agility combo is based on the attribute that is most often relevant BUT it doesn´t mean that that is true in each and every case. I even gave an example of Stealth + Cunning when planning the beast route to reach X undetected, or find out the best route or spots for an enemy to reach their location or mount an ambush.

Apart from that or any other hacks I may do (and I do hack all the systems, as I think everyone does at a level or another) I must say I really like this system, even those mechanics that I usually cringe from in other games.