Quote from: Settembrini;535727We call it division of labour via exchange of goods and favours. Or more correctly: civilization.

Wait. I thought civilization =ice?

From Here.

The point (at the end) is that having multiple people helping can lend realism and teamwork.

"The Clever use of Addition
The GuildSchool game is set up to encourage the clever use of skills.  This often manifests itself as players asking for a bonus on a skill CC or skill use due to a related skill. Since this is a skill based system, one based on thinking players, this is not a thorn in the GM's side.  Rather, this is something that has to be adjudicated personally, situation by situation, but try to encourage the players thinking.  I say this clearly; this is a way to award players for thinking, and should be encouraged.

 
The system is built to do this.  There is a lot of skill overlap by design.  Basic Outdoor and Basic Forester seem very similar and are indeed complimentary and meant to be used in a skill stacking situation.  Basic Forester is an artisan skill, and as such is a lesser knowledge involving the mundane aspects of this skill, whereas the Esoteric skill of Basic Outdoors includes powers and knowledge of how the House of Earth affects trees, the treants, tree spells, etc.  The social skills have a designed overlap built to encourage the creative player.

 
As a rule of thumb, skill stacking (except for dropdowns that are already allowed) are normally a maximum of 25% of the add on skill allowed.  And as a rule of thumb, even if it is totally applicable, the maximum an artisan skill can add to a non-artisan CC is 10% of the artisan skill amount, while a non-artisan skill can add a maximum of 25% of that skill.

An artisan skill to another artisan, or a non-artisan to another non-artisan, the maximum is 25%.

Remember, the idea here is not to make the players fail.  The idea is to encoutrage them to think.  This doesn't mean a cakewalk, but rather fostering and reinforcing their clever use of skills.  This creates a magical synergy in the game that is impossible to beat, where the intelligence and creativity of the player directs the game.


Some examples of additive skill use
 
Portney Bastardly, a spear Brother of the Scarlet Pilums, is trying to improve his suit of armor.  It's a normal suit of Chain Armor he wants to improve to masterwork.  He's a level 5 blacksmith and a level 2 armorer, for a total of 39%.  He's not trying to just fix or create, he's actually trying to improve it, so the GM  adjudicates it is very difficult, -20% to actually effect an improvement from basic armor to masterwork quality (to say nothing of the price).  This would be a difficult task, so Portney's player askes if his Protection, Heavy Armor skill would help.  The GM is thrilled that Portney's PC is working his skills, and since he has a total of a (basic def- Hvy armor 15% + protection-Hvy armor 5%=20%) 20% of protection-hvy armor, the GM affords him 25% of this skill (20*.25=5%) to his 39% armorer chance, for a total of 39+5-20=24% cance of success.


A more complex example, revisited.
 
Skald Pinotage AfrikanVintage of the Martial School of Song is being prodded by his group about the significance of a Statue they have found in a ruin in the Wibble Hills.  The Statue shows a monkey faced man with a noose and an ankus, with a head with three faces and three sets of arms and legs.  Pinotage only has a 5% basic scholar skill (level2), but in his artisan skills, he has Basic Artist 18% (level 3).  Since Sculpture is under the umbrella of Basic Artist, his player requests to get a bonus.  The GM feels that some of the information about the statue (the format and style is from the Old Orbic Devilkin worshippers) would be under the baliwick of Sculpture, so he gives Pinotage 1/10 of his Basic Artist Skill to go along with his Basic Scholar, bringing the chance from 5% to 7%.


Additive Skill Use by other characters

Sometimes a character wishes to aid another character to improve their chance.  This is done the same way as normal additive or skill-stacking use; up to 25% of a skill is allowed to be used.  And up to 3 character's can pool this way using the same skill or additive skills.  So a second thief helping one may use the same skill up to 25%, but a player may also create a pooled skill roll by other skils, but normally only getting 10% of the skill ability.


There is a special rule here allowing a character to reuse a failed skill roll once.  A character who fails a roll can add their skill (at 25% or less, as per above) once to the same check.  This is a little realism here, along with aloing for cooperation."

You mean they actually have time to open the door ? Because you know... the Balrog that has been chasing them, ran into a pack of goblins and is preoccupied at the moment slaughtering every last one?

I'd say... let the lesser characters have just one crack at the door. The fighter can try and try again, Or can pick one other character to try with him...but the second or third character, i.e. the fighter, the thief, etc should have an opportunity to shine as an individual... and they should be required to describe what they do in detail.

In this last scenario, the players will remember the day thusly:

The Balrog was hot on our tail as we were high-tailing it with our loot and Heavy-D just couldn't get that door open. Wimpus the mage came over, tapped on the door a couple times with his staff (Pretending to do magic), gave it a good solid tug, and we were outta there. I tell you, it's always good to have a wizard in the group.

Or...

Heavy-D, even with the help of Wimpus and Shadow just couldn't get that door opened... Since it was the only way out, and the Balrog was clearly on the way, Wimpus ended up throwing a lightning bolt at the door to weaken it, and then went out in the hall and used all his Rune Wards to slow down the approaching Balrog when Oakfoot the Dwarf (sometime later) finally shattered the door with a mighty hammer blow after taking turns smashing at the door with Heavy-D. We got out just in the nick of time too. You should have heard the Balrog's scream of rage when it tripped the last Rune Ward that Wimpus had laid just outside of the room we were in, and we all knew if he got into our room we would be in some serious trouble.

Or...

The door wouldn't budge. Wimpus laid down every Runeward he had in the hall. When we finally knew we were out of time, Shadow slipped out into the hall and stood at the far wall motionless trying to blend in with the wall, the rest of us turned to face this ancient horror, each preparing the in the best way possible for our time to die. When Shadow threw both daggers, and both struck the Balrog, it slipped, and the exit doorway shattered into a thousand molten shards, when the Balrogs whip hit it. We ran shouting curses at the Balrog through the flames of the now busted door for the safety of the outer hall, the Balrog still hot on our heals, and the thief trailing behind the Balrog  in the dark gloom some distance...

If the players have no immediate time constraints, then yes, they should be able to automatically open even the most ancient of doors (Although a significant amount of time might have passed...)

When time counts and they all fail at their rolls, then the players must choose some alternative to going through that door at that time, otherwise, why have them roll at all?

Quote from: Benoist;535716Yeah agreed. I really think that a case-by-case, common sense approach is sensible here.

We have a player in our Pendragon game who, at the moment, is regularly getting smacked down for "me too!"-isms. He's slowly getting it, but... it's took years.

On the other hand we also have a player in the group who will occasionally insist that her character does stuff, because she's got the highest skill levels in it. AFAIC, characters have no idea what a "skill level" is - unless they're also roleplayers, which is possible - and it really ticks me off, because failure itself is no worse than success for us as players; it's just... different... if we fail, we fail, and that's what happened. Sometimes it's reasonable, but sometimes the "wrong" character takes the action and that's just tough for anyone else.

So... I don't like me too-isms, and I don't like "I am the best, I should make the test".

So let's say we have an Elven Archer, Dwarven Fighter and Human Ranger hot on the tail of some Orcs who have kidnapped some Hobbits.

I don't want the Archer and Fighter trying to get in there and track, they're gonna mess it up for the Ranger.  Now the Ranger could ask for help making use of the Elf's superior sight, the Dwarf's superior nose, or either of their experience with Orcs, but the guy who actually knows how to track well should be the go-to guy when tracking. (Yes, I'm buying in to the conceit that Aragorn was a better tracker then Legolas, work with me here.)

I don't give two shits about niche protection or whether you think you should get more air time.  Grow up or leave.  What I care about is what the characters would really care about, namely the dumbass doesn't try to translate the Necronomican, the beanpole doesn't try to force open the Gates of Moria, and the half blind old scholar doesn't try to detect the death traps in the the Mayan Temple of Doom, mainly because not only can they fail, they can muck it up for the person who actually has a chance of accomplishing the task.

I fail to see how making some checks group based rather than individual based will lead to min/maxing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;535786I don't give two shits about niche protection or whether you think you should get more air time.  Grow up or leave.  What I care about is what the characters would really care about, namely the dumbass doesn't try to translate the Necronomican, the beanpole doesn't try to force open the Gates of Moria, and the half blind old scholar doesn't try to detect the death traps in the the Mayan Temple of Doom, mainly because not only can they fail, they can muck it up for the person who actually has a chance of accomplishing the task.

It's not a binary thing, though! Sometimes it's entirely appropriate, if it's knowledge that the characters have about each other and is patently obvious. But the characters don't have access to the character sheets, and in real life, the best person for the job isn't always the one that ends up doing it, even without taking it to extremes.

Or in other words, if you've got Track as a class feature and I've got Bash Upside Head, you find 'em and I'll smack 'em. But if you've got Disarm Trap 5 and I've got Disarm Trap 4, and I happen to get to it first, I might well try disarming that trap. And if I fail and fuck it up for you? Well, tough. That's what happened and now we all have to deal with it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;535794I fail to see how making some checks group based rather than individual based will lead to min/maxing.

Buzzkill the tank's got Forcing Bars at 5 in 6, Trap Finding at 2 in 6, and Lore at 1 in 6.

Sneakydude has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 5 in 6 and Lore 3 in 6.

Magicwiz has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 2 in 6 and Lore 5 in 6.

If you are systematically using the highest skill in the group for cooperative tasks, this means that Ye Olde Party together have Forcing Bars 5 in 6, Trap Finding 5 in 6, and Lore 5 in 6. So long as they are attempting tasks in concert systematically, they have 5 in 6 chances to succeed at anything.

Now if your players are not aware of this, then I guess it could work, if the system itself doesn't encourage members of a party to each specialize in a specific area of expertise (whereas it is the case with Class systems, like D&D), but once they are aware of that house rule, trust me, they're (1) going to discuss who specializes in what so that all the eventualities are covered, and (2) will never ever leave each others' vicinity and attempt stuff together at all times to guarantee the group's success at searching, finding bits of lore and disarming traps. And let me stress, this is not "weird" or "cheating", it's normal: it's basically what the house rule encourages them to do, so it's natural for them to think about this this way.

Quote from: Benoist;535799[..] And let me stress, this is not "weird" or "cheating", it's normal: it's basically what the house rule encourages them to do, so it's natural for them to think about this this way.

This is exactly what SOG teams do in the real world (although generally there's a secondary and a tertiary for each specialty as well in the event of casualties).  It's how I've staffed ops centre teams for the last fifteen years.

Making sure you have the right specialists on hand to cover the most likely crisis scenarios isn't minmaxing, it's effective team leadership.

These people also train constantly to act as a team, and develop a sense of awareness of each other and coordination which helps them act in concert, rather than hindering each other in various tasks. Maybe a more convoluted rule could involve the existence of a Coordination skill from which are derived modifiers which affect the final chance of success for a group effort. It'd be interesting to develop.

As for the house rule as it's proposed, i.e. taking the highest skill systematically and basta, the end result is that you have a party that succeeds at everything with 5 in 6. If that's the result desired, and you're cool with the party succeeding at every task trivially, then everything's fine. More power to you. If you see a problem with that, you need to rethink your approach and scrap the house rule.

All of this crap is why OD&D, B/X, and AD&D got it right without skills.

I llike the idea of characters working together to maximize their strengths but prefer to see it happening through players coming up with cool shit in actual play rather than number crunching during the build process.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;535814All of this crap is why OD&D, B/X, and AD&D got it right without skills.

I llike the idea of characters working together to maximize their strengths but prefer to see it happening through players coming up with cool shit in actual play rather than number crunching during the build process.

i like characters able to get better at these skills while still needing to play them out to use their skills.

Quote from: Benoist;535799Buzzkill the tank's got Forcing Bars at 5 in 6, Trap Finding at 2 in 6, and Lore at 1 in 6.

Sneakydude has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 5 in 6 and Lore 3 in 6.

Magicwiz has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 2 in 6 and Lore 5 in 6.

If you are systematically using the highest skill in the group for cooperative tasks, this means that Ye Olde Party together have Forcing Bars 5 in 6, Trap Finding 5 in 6, and Lore 5 in 6. So long as they are attempting tasks in concert systematically, they have 5 in 6 chances to succeed at anything.

Ah right, gotcha. The main thrust was that for some skills/tests/whatever, the person who succeeds is unimportant, so why not make it collaborative?

You can do that in a number of ways (the example i used perhaps the worse of them, but hey, no-one's perfect) - for example having it run off of average party level, number of PCs in the party, or just a standard running scale of some sort.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;535814All of this crap is why OD&D, B/X, and AD&D got it right without skills.

I llike the idea of characters working together to maximize their strengths but prefer to see it happening through players coming up with cool shit in actual play rather than number crunching during the build process.

I agree, fundamentally.

Quote from: One Horse Town;535818Ah right, gotcha. The main thrust was that for some skills/tests/whatever, the person who succeeds is unimportant, so why not make it collaborative?

Sure. The principle of collaboration instead of having six rolls one after the other is a good idea.

Quote from: One Horse Town;535818You can do that in a number of ways (the example i used perhaps the worse of them, but hey, no-one's perfect) - for example having it run off of average party level, number of PCs in the party, or just a standard running scale of some sort.

Yes, you could do that in a number of ways. Or take say a base chance of 50% and modify upwards for those participating with a good skill rank, and downwards for people participating with a bad skill rank, with the intensity of the modifier depending on the exact skill rating of each participant (like say... 1/10 of the original skill rating if we're talking of percentile skills like RQ). Using the RuneQuest resistance table for that, you could add the attribute ratings of all the participants divided by the number of participants, and oppose the resulting rating against a difficulty rating for the task at hand, too. Or you could just forgo any roll and just adjudicate.

I think it's a case by case basis, for me. (that's an instance of how I use the RQ resistance table as part of my AD&D game, btw, when I want something more precise than just eyeballing chances of success on 6, 12 or percentiles)