forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

By the way, one other consideration I've been trying to work in, without making the rules too complex (or otherwise contrary to the spirit of TOR) is a way to avoid having the same player do all the rolling for any given test. I.e., the guy with the highest Explore doing all the Explore rolls. I thought about imposing a penalty to TN on any individual who fails a test, until somebody passes.

Maybe, to make it somewhat more like Journeys (where picking your role means you might have to use it), everybody has to pick whether they want to participate in Explore, Travel, or Riddle rolls. Then every time the Delving test calls for that skill, they all have to roll. If successes >= failures, and nobody fails with an Eye, it's a success.

Just to make it fun, there could be a 4th role for opting out ("Passive Tagalong"), that would come with it's own risks. In fact, maybe that 4th category is the only one that can get Individual Hazards...

Thoughts?

Corvo wrote: (...)
From a mechanical pov, a solution can be to use the average of the successes of the party, like in ambushing rules. Still, the problem is that it becomes very difficult to have an average of 2 successes, so the speed is pretty much fixed (well, unless you accept to take extra Hazards/Plight to have an extra success... well, maybe I'm going too far here , and I'm going near to your point 2).
(...)

The kid is distracted, I rush something!

Back to my proposal, maybe, instead of an average, we can simply multiply the number of succ. needed for any leg by the number of party member (that leg need 2 succ, four companions= 8 successes needed to complete the leg).
Math-wise, it's the same as the average, but without the flattening effect of the rounding (and that means more granularity).

Maybe this can solve the problem of "3 successes and 2 failures... what does mean?"

Corvo wrote:

Corvo wrote: (...)
From a mechanical pov, a solution can be to use the average of the successes of the party, like in ambushing rules. Still, the problem is that it becomes very difficult to have an average of 2 successes, so the speed is pretty much fixed (well, unless you accept to take extra Hazards/Plight to have an extra success... well, maybe I'm going too far here , and I'm going near to your point 2).
(...)

The kid is distracted, I rush something!

Back to my proposal, maybe, instead of an average, we can simply multiply the number of succ. needed for any leg by the number of party member (that leg need 2 succ, four companions= 8 successes needed to complete the leg).
Math-wise, it's the same as the average, but without the flattening effect of the rounding (and that means more granularity).

Maybe this can solve the problem of "3 successes and 2 failures... what does mean?"

The math may work, but it still leaves me wondering what it means for everybody to roll. Let's say there's a confusing maze of passages that require Riddle to solve. If everybody rolls does mean that at every turn there is a discussion, with a vote taken? How does a player say, "Hey, I suck at Riddle...you guys make the call and I'll just tag along and kill grues."

What did you think of my last suggestion, that players pick one (or more?) categories they want to participate in, and that picking no categories carries its own risks? I feel like it models what we saw in Hobbit and LotR: some people make the decisions, others just tag along grumbling and do dumb things like drop rocks in wells. Or they get lost in the dark and find magic rings.

I like the "tag along" possibility (with risks), not only because it reflects what we see in the books, but also because it would offer some very amusing RPing possibilities (both for the wise guides and the foolish Tooks).

Glorelendil wrote: (...)
What did you think of my last suggestion, that players pick one (or more?) categories they want to participate in, and that picking no categories carries its own risks? I feel like it models what we saw in Hobbit and LotR: some people make the decisions, others just tag along grumbling and do dumb things like drop rocks in wells. Or they get lost in the dark and find magic rings.

I understand the idea, but I struggle with the mechanic.
Probably I'm missing something (again), but if I got two PCs with skill, say, 4 and 3, what's the benefit of having both roll? The one with skill 3 risks raising the group's Plight, and he got higher chances of an hazard (EoS+Failure). Unless I'm wrong, there is no incentive in "going fast": Torches are extinguished once EoS are rolled, so two PCs rolling at the same time consume as many torches as one PC rolling twice... Again, better having the PC with the highest skill roll alone.

About the "Passive Tagalong".. what is he rolling? How can trigger an Hazard?

Glorelendil wrote: The math may work, but it still leaves me wondering what it means for everybody to roll. Let's say there's a confusing maze of passages that require Riddle to solve. If everybody rolls does mean that at every turn there is a discussion, with a vote taken? How does a player say, "Hey, I suck at Riddle...you guys make the call and I'll just tag along and kill grues."

I understand your point. Your example is very clear: there is a confusing maze and someone has to make a decision (roll Riddle) for the whole party.
But I think a Delving roll desn't cover just a mysterious crossroad. I think it comprises many difficult points, crossroads, ominous scribblings on the walls, weird stenches, drummings in the dark, etc. Maybe it's many hours of navigating trough Moria, with dozens of places where you can take the wrong door. That means a lot of discussions among the PCs, suggestions, insights, etc.
And think about the Travel Delving roll. It's only one PC that is, well, travelling? All the other PCs are in his backpack?*
Or the Explore Delving Roll: really we expect that one PC is going about exploring while the others just fiddle around, for hours?

I think here we are speaking about the itersection between rules and narration (for lack of better terms. Bear with me: foreigner, sleep-starved, etc). Think about the travelling roles: there is a Look-Out Man. Clearly it's impossible for this guy to stand watch for four nights in a row, let alone the weeks needed to cross Mirkwood. Yet we came to accept it, cause we liked the rule, even if it doesn't make much sense narration-wise. There is a point where the rules become too complicated, even if there is a reason for that complication

*I'm using hyperbole here just to illustrate that a different point of view is plausible, Glor, don't take it as a measure of disrespect.

As any good D&D player knows, the party not in use is in the bag of holding.

More accurately, the party probably travels together, with the person who knows what he's doing going 'hey guys, go this way' and the people who don't going 'okay.'

If two people know what they're doing...well, if a delving roll takes x successes to complete, the quicker you rack up that many, the quicker you finish. Or maybe they translate to extra magical treasure rolls at the end of the journey if you exceed necessary successes.

Angelalex242 wrote:.well, if a delving roll takes x successes to complete, the quicker you rack up that many, the quicker you finish.

Yeah, this is basically what I was thinking of. Although admittedly I only had a general idea in mind, not the whole enchilada. I usually start with "one kinds of decisions do I want players to make?" and then figure out mechanics that encourage that.

So something like:
- For each test, as many people as want to may participate. Failures have Cost X (chance of Hazard?), so people with low skill probably don't want to participate.
- However, each time that attempts are made, there is a chance the whole party risks having Y happen (chance of torches going out?) so the fewer attempts it takes to rack up the needed # of successes, the better.

Obviously the guy with the highest skill will roll, but what about the guy with the next highest skill? He...and his companions...have to calculate: "What's worse...risking him failing the Explore roll, or having it take more attempts total?"

I need to play around with some numbers to make sure there's a non-trivial answer to that question...that the probability curves are non-linear...but that's the general idea. I know it's not exactly what Corvo was suggesting, but he nudged me in that direction and (at the moment) I really like it: it mirrors the "choose a role" aspect of Journeys, but with a completely different mechanic (TOR-haters on rpg.net will have a field day with that), and it introduces the idea of the "non-contributing tagalong" role, which is just begging for creative mishaps.

Stay tuned! (And keep giving feedback, please!)

P.S. The Travel roll, when made as part of a Delving test, was intended not to be a Fatigue test, but more like the way a Guide rolls Travel in a Journey Hazard: it's a test of your knowledge about choosing routes and making decisions. I keep vacillating on whether to simply make it a Wisdom roll. But here are likely to be more people with similar Wisdom scores than with similar commons skills, so using Wisdom probably doesn't work with this new scheme.

So, why use the term delving, which denotes digging, not travel (underground or otherwise)? Spelunking would be more accurate.

Otaku-sempai wrote:So, why use the term delving, which denotes digging, not travel (underground or otherwise)? Spelunking would be more accurate.

Because Delving has a primarily figurative meaning that is perfect, whereas Spelunking has a very specific, narrow definition.

Plus Spelunking is a modern word that didn't really come into usage until the 1940s. And it sounds terrible.

'Delve' derives from Old English and sounds great.

Glorelendil wrote:...Delving has a primarily figurative meaning that is perfect, whereas Spelunking has a very specific, narrow definition.

Plus Spelunking is a modern word that didn't really come into usage until the 1940s. And it sounds terrible.

'Delve' derives from Old English and sounds great.

Okay. Not to side-line the main topic but Delving still implies digging, mining or some form of underground contruction (or searching for information). As nice as the word sounds, the term Underground Travel would fit better.