TL Tedium

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:22:50 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

<<<#>>>
>Who is "they"?

The ones insisting that the character uses (to do work with
a deadline) unfamiliar equipment in a way he/she may not
have tried before, of course. Just keep it in context, and
it's fine.

>> Rushing on a new device would slow you down all the more,
>> confuse and demoralise.
>
>Or else just produce an inferior result.

Or? I'd say, 'and probably'.
No, i cannot see why anyone would expect to be 'up to speed'
with anything new like that. (Even within the same tech
level.)
Hence I automatically assumed one wouldn't be, and it looks
like the game mechanics doesn't agree with me.

>>>And, of course, others may want to prioritize differently from you as
>>>a matter of course.
>>
>> They can, I might wish it were possible to accomidate them.
>> But if they think this can be sprung onto someone cold, and
>> expect anything at all sensable/useable or just 'at all'
>> they are dreaming.
>
>I have no idea what you mean with the above.

Okay, err how to clarify?
You might want the new worker to produce a document by a set
time. However, if they are not used to the program you use
they will make some mistakes while attempting to draft it.
None that you can see in the document, as this is just them
tripping up as they make user mistakes they don't expect.
The deadline makes them rush, and slows them down all the
more as they end up battling the program as it does 'weird'
aka 'unexpected', things.
If a boss tried that on me, I'd draft a resignation letter
with my own software [most likely!]

>>>The penalty doesn't come from your skill so much as it is applied to
>>>it. I really don't see this argument at all.
>>
>> Thing is, they made this a skill. And the system notes it
>> costs cp to learn. Every Tech level another skill, so it's
>> more cp.
>
>Only if you insist on learning them all. Generally speaking, however,
>that is a silly approach. Instead you default them off of the skills
>that you /do/ have.

I agree, it is a silly thing to do. But it's there, want to
do it without the minus, learn it for hard won cp.

>> I'd just have been happier if it were simply a
>> skill now available at this TL, and given it a different
>> name.
>
>How would this work?
At a TL rise, when a skill emerges (that at present would
be a specialization) it is given a entirely brand new name
and is available for the characters to learn. There would in
all likelihood (if i were writing the rules, that is) be a
shorter learning period if you also possessed useful
skill(s) already. (Like, having typing skills, to learn Word
would be easier as the 'hunt and peck' (what i usually hear
called 'two finger typing') wastes much time of the lesson.
So, TL would just indicate when the skill becomes viable.
Old skills that nobody really ever bothers with anymore
would not necessarily be totally useless, they could be of
help condensing the learning time of new skills too.
(I grant you most likely wouldn't go out of your way to
learn them, but you might already have them and rarely put
them to use.)

<<<#>>>
>>
>> I see, Is that Foo/TL6-10 correct? (I don't own the book you
>> see. I just borrow it now and then.) That's quite a jump!
>
>When trying to use IQ-based skills from a TL higher than your own you
>get -5 per TL difference, so yes.

So much for my theory that things get built to be easy to
use, (for people that haven't a clue how they work,) then.


>Cheers,
> Bent D

thanks,
mik

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:50:10 +0100, Tobias Heidelmann
<tobias.heidelmann RemoveThis @alice-dsl.net> wrote:

<<##>> mike >>
>> I would have added the time (with no bonus) and if
>> applicable noted there could be problems later (upped the
>> malf for example) to represent the inexperience with the
>> 'lowtech' equipment and its possible misuse, but not if they
>> made the Int checks (two or three at most).

>The -1 to skill gives you more flexibility. It allows the character to
>complete his task faster while accepting possible mistakes. And all with
>just one die roll.

I'm i simply wrong here?
That minus one makes you less likely to succeed at the task,
but you are working at 'normal' speed as if you posses the
skill. Is that so?

>Why exactly intelligence checks? this makes no sense. If the character
>knows this particular skill at IQ+4, it should reflect. It should be a
>skill roll by all means. (supposing typewriting is an IQ based skill,
>which i would argue against, but i am too lazy to look up the rules,
>maybe it is IQ based).

They don't fail the skill if they fail the Int, If you
preferred (and thinking about it i would) you could roll the
skill first and the Intelligence checks after it was made.
>Why exactly intelligence checks?
To see if you can gain the benefit of the higher tech, and
avoid the perils in the lower tech.
On the premise that hitech's designed to help you more than
your used to, and that lowtech is dumber than you are used
to so you have to keep your wits sharp or you get into
problems.

>So, according to your solution the character needs to pass one or more
>IQ rolls (which he is more likely to fail than a check in a skill he is
>more profient with) and still a skill check to see if he makes any
>mistakes.
No, not 'need to' but it would be advantageous if they did.

>This is much more complicated. And what exactly is the
>benefit? All you want to answer is the question if the character can
>cope with unfamiliar (older or newer) tech. A single skill roll (with
>maybe a modifier) is more than sufficient for answering the question.

But by default it's assumed that you will fail more often.
true it is only a -1 we are on about.
I just see it as wrong, you don't get worse at it- you will
produce something from it. It might not be up to your normal
quality though, and will have taken longer.
It would make you appreciate the higher tech level more.

>all the above is true for vaguely familiar tech.
>
>If however you are dealing with completely alien technology, like
>handing a caveman a TL12 multi-purpose portable scanning device.. well..
>then i would generally rule that this tech cannot be understood bacause
>it is so far from anything familiar that not even an IQ check is
>adequate. Even if the caveman has IQ 20. The underlying concepts are
>just too strange.

yes, i would draw a line on tech that was very far removed
from the characters own.

>> 'Hitech' equipment might be able to do more than the
>> character realises at the time, but otherwise acts as good
>> quality tools (not enough for a bonus), an Int or two rolls
>> to realise how it can help, for a cut in time (they would
>> have normaly) taken or/and an improved result/product.
>>
>> Now that makes sense to me, so do you see
>> where i'm coming from ?
>
>yeah, i guess from happy-die-rolling-country?

Not really, no. But i am used to many dice

>You want to replace a single skill check with up to three separate die
>rolls. THIS seems tedious to me. I really can see no benefit in the
>additional rolls. It just lowers the character´s chances of success.

What ! No, a flat minus reduces that chance.
The other rolls modify things like the time taken and
quality of the resulting success.

>A skill is usually higher than the underlying attribute. Having to pass
>two IQ checks and a skill check instead of a skill check actually lowers
>chances of success.

If you stopped at the first roll and forbade actually
rolling for the skill.
What might that be?
'Sorry you cannot find the light switch, failed the intel
check' ?
No, that's not what it represents.

>Take the secretary. Lets assume IQ 10 and typewriting/TL8 14. According
>to the rules she has to pass a check against 11 in a TL6 environment if
>she is in a hurry.
>You on the other hand demand up to three checks against 10 if she is in
>a hurry (any maybe still a skill check to determine if she types correctly).

No, i'd just take the drop in quality and roll full skill.

>An IQ-roll is only neccessary if the skill does not exist in a higher
>TL. E.g. someone who only communicates with a computer verbally (say TL
>10) and is totally unfamiliar with the concept of a keyboard (lets not
>argue if this is likely or not). If such a person wants to use a
>typewriter an IQ-check might (depending on and modified for
>circumstances) be neccessary. But after that if the persons wants to
>type he should use the skill at default.

That's how it would happen, just for use of the new level.
You seem to think i intend the character to roll
intelligence each time the skill is used.
Not so, once they mastered it, it's taken that there's no
more to learn about that tool in question.

>T.

thanks,
Mike : -)

On 2008-12-06, mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:22:50 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
><bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
><<<#>>>
>>Who is "they"?
>
> The ones insisting that the character uses (to do work with
> a deadline) unfamiliar equipment in a way he/she may not
> have tried before, of course. Just keep it in context, and
> it's fine.

"They" in this case then is most often going to be "the environment".
More often than not, in an RPG scenario things do not tend to develop
in an ideal direction for the PCs and they end up having to make do
with whatever they've got handy. This might turn out to be an 1890's
style non-QWERTY typewriter.

>>> Rushing on a new device would slow you down all the more,
>>> confuse and demoralise.
>>
>>Or else just produce an inferior result.
>
> Or? I'd say, 'and probably'.

If you rush it, sure. If not, you can probably produce a decent
product with some care.

> No, i cannot see why anyone would expect to be 'up to speed'
> with anything new like that. (Even within the same tech
> level.)

Unfamiliar equipment will also usually give temporary unfamiliarity
penalties. In the case of picking up an ancient typewriter I expect
this penalty will tend to dwarf any TL penalty (not that there is one,
as I pointed out previously).

> Hence I automatically assumed one wouldn't be, and it looks
> like the game mechanics doesn't agree with me.

Not sure what you mean by "up to speed". The fact that they're getting
a penalty is a clear indication that they're not up to speed with the
equipment.

> Okay, err how to clarify?
> You might want the new worker to produce a document by a set
> time. However, if they are not used to the program you use
> they will make some mistakes while attempting to draft it.
> None that you can see in the document, as this is just them
> tripping up as they make user mistakes they don't expect.
> The deadline makes them rush, and slows them down all the
> more as they end up battling the program as it does 'weird'
> aka 'unexpected', things.

This would be the expected result of rushing the job, yes.

If they take extra time (assuming they can) the result will likely
benefit from it.

> If a boss tried that on me, I'd draft a resignation letter
> with my own software [most likely!]

Unfortunately for them perhaps, PCs rarely have the opportunity or
inclination to resign from the current scenario.

>>Only if you insist on learning them all. Generally speaking, however,
>>that is a silly approach. Instead you default them off of the skills
>>that you /do/ have.
>
> I agree, it is a silly thing to do. But it's there, want to
> do it without the minus, learn it for hard won cp.

Well, this is the case for everything though. Want to be good at
something, better cough up the CPs.

>>> I'd just have been happier if it were simply a
>>> skill now available at this TL, and given it a different
>>> name.
>>
>>How would this work?
> At a TL rise, when a skill emerges (that at present would
> be a specialization) it is given a entirely brand new name
> and is available for the characters to learn.

This happens as it is. Physician, for example, doesn't exist before
TL5.

> There would in
> all likelihood (if i were writing the rules, that is) be a
> shorter learning period if you also possessed useful
> skill(s) already.

This is handled by the "improving skills from default" rules (B173)
and in some cases (such as typewriters) by the familiarity rules
(B169).

> (Like, having typing skills, to learn Word
> would be easier as the 'hunt and peck' (what i usually hear
> called 'two finger typing') wastes much time of the lesson.

The GURPS skill system isn't this detailed. GURPS skills cover wide,
sweeping disciplines. The fact that the gritty details within each
discipline change over time (mathematicians use Mathematica rather
than call up a human calculator, surveyors use laser theodolites
rather than wooden frames with lead-weighted plumb lines, etc.) is
abstracted into the tech level rules.

> So, TL would just indicate when the skill becomes viable.

This is what happens, but in an abstract fashion because it would be
unfeasible to provide detailed lists of all the minutia that goes into
each skill for each TL.

> Old skills that nobody really ever bothers with anymore
> would not necessarily be totally useless, they could be of
> help condensing the learning time of new skills too.

Again, you can default high-TL skills from their low-TL counterparts
and improve them from there.

>>When trying to use IQ-based skills from a TL higher than your own you
>>get -5 per TL difference, so yes.
>
> So much for my theory that things get built to be easy to
> use, (for people that haven't a clue how they work,) then.
>

If a device is sufficiently complicated to use that it needs an
IQ-based skill to do it, it is by definition not built to be easy to
use.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On 2008-12-06, mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On the premise that hitech's designed to help you more than
> your used to, and that lowtech is dumber than you are used
> to so you have to keep your wits sharp or you get into
> problems.

This isn't really the case. People weren't dumber before (not the
well-nourished ones anyway), they just had a lower TL. The
practicality of many of the devices and inventions from previous eras
is truly astounding.

As an example, 18th century pocket watches are much easier to use for
telling the time than modern quartz watches on which you may have to
fiddle through all sorts of weird modes before you get to the basic
timekeeping display. On the pocket watch, the worst case is that you
may need to find a way to open the front cover.

Modern quartz watches have a lot more utility though, if you can get
past their more obscure user interface.

Whether equipment has a bonus to use is often a completely different
topic than the capability of the equipment. TL determines its
capability, equipment quality determines its modifier to use (B345).
(Although TL does impose a maximum bonus from quality.)

> But by default it's assumed that you will fail more often.
> true it is only a -1 we are on about.
> I just see it as wrong, you don't get worse at it- you will
> produce something from it. It might not be up to your normal
> quality though, and will have taken longer.

If it is not "up to your normal quality" and it "will have taken
longer" - how are you /not/ worse at it? This is exactly what being
worse at something means.

>>You want to replace a single skill check with up to three separate die
>>rolls. THIS seems tedious to me. I really can see no benefit in the
>>additional rolls. It just lowers the character´s chances of success.
>
> What ! No, a flat minus reduces that chance.
> The other rolls modify things like the time taken and
> quality of the resulting success.

That is also what the -1 to skill does.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

mike schrieb:

>> The -1 to skill gives you more flexibility. It allows the character to
>> complete his task faster while accepting possible mistakes. And all with
>> just one die roll.
>
> I'm i simply wrong here?
> That minus one makes you less likely to succeed at the task,
> but you are working at 'normal' speed as if you posses the
> skill. Is that so?
Yes. If you take time you gain a bonus (if increased time is relevant
for the specific task).

You habve to take into account what a "failure" means. In case of the
secretary a failed roll just means more mistakes. It does not mean that
she could not type anything on paper. A critical failure might indeed
mean she broke the machine or makes such mistakes that she has to start
over, but lets ignore them right now.

-1 or -3 to skill reflects that she will on average perform worse on an
old machine she is not used to than on her own equipment. And this holds
for all secretaries in all worlds no matter how intelligent.

Intelligence and training reflect both in skill. So everything is
covered by a single die roll. There is really no need to roll a separate
IQ check. The margin of success / failure shows how good the quality of
the result is or depending on circumstances and specific skill if there
is a result at all. This is the meaning of skills.

According to your suggestion what would a failed skill roll mean? and
what would the meaning of up to three (your words) failed IQ checks be?


T.
>
> thanks,
> Mike : -)

mike schrieb:

>> This is much more complicated. And what exactly is the
>> benefit? All you want to answer is the question if the character can
>> cope with unfamiliar (older or newer) tech. A single skill roll (with
>> maybe a modifier) is more than sufficient for answering the question.
>
> But by default it's assumed that you will fail more often.
> true it is only a -1 we are on about.
> I just see it as wrong, you don't get worse at it- you will
> produce something from it. It might not be up to your normal
> quality though, and will have taken longer.
> It would make you appreciate the higher tech level more.
>
Again, see my other reply. You will produce something, even if you fail
the roll. The result is just worse. This is exactly what a failed skill
roll in this context means.

There may however be skills in which you fail utterly if you fail your
roll. Like maybe lockpicking.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
<bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 2008-12-06, mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> On the premise that hitech's designed to help you more than
>> your used to, and that lowtech is dumber than you are used
>> to so you have to keep your wits sharp or you get into
>> problems.
>
>This isn't really the case. People weren't dumber before (not the
>well-nourished ones anyway), they just had a lower TL. The
>practicality of many of the devices and inventions from previous eras
>is truly astounding.

That would be dumb as in like a dumbwaiter, one could call
one over, but it's probably only going to move at a higher
tech level
No people aren't dumber at lower tech levels, I've said
myself that i don't believe that.
It's the tech 'toolkit' I’m referring to.
With higher tech available, you (or rather I, would) expect
it to help at tasks more than a lower tech version.

>As an example, 18th century pocket watches are much easier to use for
>telling the time than modern quartz watches on which you may have to
>fiddle through all sorts of weird modes before you get to the basic
>timekeeping display. On the pocket watch, the worst case is that you
>may need to find a way to open the front cover.

I've wanted one of those little pocket watches since i saw
one on a TV auction when i was very little

>Modern quartz watches have a lot more utility though, if you can get
>past their more obscure user interface.

Try 'fiddly' instead of 'obscure', and i'd be willing to bet
that a lower TL character would never discover it.

(The majority of the digital functions were not used in
mine. In fact although a quartz watch is more accurate, who
in day to day life could possibly notice? )

>Whether equipment has a bonus to use is often a completely different
>topic than the capability of the equipment. TL determines its
>capability, equipment quality determines its modifier to use (B345).
>(Although TL does impose a maximum bonus from quality.)
>
>> But by default it's assumed that you will fail more often.
>> true it is only a -1 we are on about.
>> I just see it as wrong, you don't get worse at it- you will
>> produce something from it. It might not be up to your normal
>> quality though, and will have taken longer.
>
>If it is not "up to your normal quality" and it "will have taken
>longer" - how are you /not/ worse at it? This is exactly what being
>worse at something means.

It’s a matter of the perspective of a higher TL character,
the work may be very good for that TL they are in. But they
themselves ‘know’ if they had the right equipment/resources
it would’ve come out much better.

>>>You want to replace a single skill check with up to three separate die
>>>rolls. THIS seems tedious to me. I really can see no benefit in the
>>>additional rolls. It just lowers the character´s chances of success.
>>
>> What ! No, a flat minus reduces that chance.
>> The other rolls modify things like the time taken and
>> quality of the resulting success.
>
>That is also what the -1 to skill does.

Let's get this straight, I’ll suggest a task a character is
attempting and ask you to clarify just what happens, If you
would be so kind?

Character is building a ‘phase weapon’ with a mixed
selection of his TL and the lower one he is in.
He rolls the dice and succeeds, and now has a fully repaired
device.
Or He rolls the dice, and fails, and now has a pile of
scrap.
That’s the only way I have played it. So is this actually
wrong?

>Cheers,
> Bent D

thanks,
mik

me >>
>> I'm i simply wrong here?
>> That minus one makes you less likely to succeed at the task,
>> but you are working at 'normal' speed as if you posses the
>> skill. Is that so?

>Yes. If you take time you gain a bonus (if increased time is relevant
>for the specific task).
>
>You habve to take into account what a "failure" means. In case of the
>secretary a failed roll just means more mistakes.

Ah. This might have just answered my last postings question.
In the games (Gurps) i played, if the secretary failed the
roll, the document would have been useless.
Another attempt would be required.

>It does not mean that she could not type anything on paper.

Oh, the paper would have stuff on it, but it would be
useless for anything other than lighting a fire :-\

>A critical failure might indeed
>mean she broke the machine or makes such mistakes that she has to start
>over, but lets ignore them right now.
>
>-1 or -3 to skill reflects that she will on average perform worse on an
>old machine she is not used to than on her own equipment. And this holds
>for all secretaries in all worlds no matter how intelligent.

If you can fail the roll, but still get a serviceable result
then that's fine.
Well, no it's not really, it means i have a GM to kill
slowly, and with lots of pain

>Intelligence and training reflect both in skill. So everything is
>covered by a single die roll. There is really no need to roll a separate
>IQ check. The margin of success / failure shows how good the quality of
>the result is or depending on circumstances and specific skill if there
>is a result at all. This is the meaning of skills.
>
>According to your suggestion what would a failed skill roll mean?

Failure of the task attempted.
Didn't make the jump across the broken bridge.
Make a grab or fall, sort of thing.

>and what would the meaning of up to three (your words) failed IQ checks be?

Two or three, i think i put
These would have affected the result of the (successful)
skill roll, possible options : time (took longer, quality
has a flaw and it gets a Malf rating/or add to an existing
one.
Perhaps it could just have been better: Less effective than
hoped (i.e. Explosives do less damage, a motor runs more
expensively on fuel, weapon's not accurate etc.) the
inverse, where it makes sense, for good IQ checks.

All above assumes the character is using TL equipment lower
than they are used to. 'less smart tools'.
No rolls at your own TL, and you can use higher TL without
rolls as if it were your TL.
If you do try to understand the stuff better you make
improvements to the quality of the things made. (In your
perspective, at the TL you are in, it would not be viewed as
such).
That was the basic idea.

>T.

thanks,
Mike : -)

mike schrieb:
> me >>
>>> I'm i simply wrong here?
>>> That minus one makes you less likely to succeed at the task,
>>> but you are working at 'normal' speed as if you posses the
>>> skill. Is that so?
>
>> Yes. If you take time you gain a bonus (if increased time is relevant
>> for the specific task).
>>
>> You habve to take into account what a "failure" means. In case of the
>> secretary a failed roll just means more mistakes.
>
> Ah. This might have just answered my last postings question.
> In the games (Gurps) i played, if the secretary failed the
> roll, the document would have been useless.
> Another attempt would be required.
I guess this might be open to interpretation. In our group we assume
that this is not logical. If i write a letter on my keyboard (or a
posting to a newsgroup) the worst that can happen is a very bad posting
with more than my usual share of mistakes or a bad structure. I simply
cannot attempt to write a posting and fail utterly (although maybe some
here might disagree ) A critical failure might mean that i knocked
over my coke and spilled it all on my keyboard thus damaging it.

The same holds for similar skills where utter failure is just not
possible under normal circumstances.


> Two or three, i think i put
> These would have affected the result of the (successful)
> skill roll, possible options : time (took longer, quality
> has a flaw and it gets a Malf rating/or add to an existing
> one.
> Perhaps it could just have been better: Less effective than
> hoped (i.e. Explosives do less damage, a motor runs more
> expensively on fuel, weapon's not accurate etc.) the
> inverse, where it makes sense, for good IQ checks.
all this is covered in the concept of "margin of success / failure". The
better your roll the better the result. Same for worse.

If you take your time you can actually increase your skill level for
some skills. and furthermore, in case of the secretary, if she takes
enough time a skill roll might not even be required. Even if some
unskilled guy who types with one finger takes enough time, he will get a
document free of mistakes (if it is an easy document). So not even here
a skill roll might be required.
if under pressure and time is of importance however, a skill roll is
neccessary.

It really makes no sense in some cases to correspond a failed skill roll
to an utter failure. When you sing a song, a failed skill roll might
mean that you missed some tones. it does not mean that your performance
was unrecognizable as a song. It was only a bad presentation. An utter
failure usually is only a critical failure. However all this depends on
the skills in question. In some skills, as i said, a failed roll means
an utter failure (to hit rolls, spell checks, lockpicking, and so on).

T.

Paul Colquhoun schrieb:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:37:29 +0000, mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> | Let's get this straight, I'll suggest a task a character is
> | attempting and ask you to clarify just what happens, If you
> | would be so kind?
> |
> | Character is building a 'phase weapon' with a mixed
> | selection of his TL and the lower one he is in.
> | He rolls the dice and succeeds, and now has a fully repaired
> | device.
> | Or He rolls the dice, and fails, and now has a pile of
> | scrap.
> | That's the only way I have played it. So is this actually
> | wrong?
>
>
> I'd say the "pile of scrap" should be reserved for a critical failure.
>
> The spectrum of results runs something like this:
>
> 1) Fully functional weapon
> 2) Functional but degraded in some way/ways
> - lower range
> - lower damage
> - less accurate
> - lower battery life
> etc,
> 3) Non-functional, still needs more work
> - re-roll after getting some more parts
> 4) Pile of scrap after a major failure
>
> Even after result 2), you might allow another roll to try and fix
> whatever the problem is, but it would risk making things worse so some
> players wouldn't take the risk.
>
>
possible interpretation of the roll:

1 is a success with margin of success >2
2 might mean success but margin <=2
3 failure
4 critical failure

a very generous GM might even consider some results of 2 up to a margin
of failure of 1 (one degradation) or 2 (two degradations). But this is
personal taste. i doubt if there is an official rule.

The margin of success / failure concept is nicer than the strictly
binary succeed or fail view.

T.

On 2008-12-07, mike <mikespam.DeleteThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Bent C Dalager
><bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>>
>>If it is not "up to your normal quality" and it "will have taken
>>longer" - how are you /not/ worse at it? This is exactly what being
>>worse at something means.
>
> It’s a matter of the perspective of a higher TL character,
> the work may be very good for that TL they are in.

Only if it's a very highly skilled character so that even after the
pain of working with unfamiliar paradigms he can still be considered
very good.

> But they
> themselves ‘know’ if they had the right equipment/resources
> it would’ve come out much better.

Or, in other words, they know that they perform more poorly in the low
TL than they would in their own native TL. Hence the penalty when
working in the lower TL.

>>> What ! No, a flat minus reduces that chance.
>>> The other rolls modify things like the time taken and
>>> quality of the resulting success.
>>
>>That is also what the -1 to skill does.
>
> Let's get this straight, I’ll suggest a task a character is
> attempting and ask you to clarify just what happens, If you
> would be so kind?
>
> Character is building a ‘phase weapon’ with a mixed
> selection of his TL and the lower one he is in.
> He rolls the dice and succeeds, and now has a fully repaired
> device.
> Or He rolls the dice, and fails, and now has a pile of
> scrap.
> That’s the only way I have played it. So is this actually
> wrong?

Pile of scrap for mere failure is only really an option for a very
rushed, do-or-die type of project. E.g. you are cutting corners and
rushing to get the gun ready for when the Alien Queen rounds the
corner in fifteen seconds time. More often, this is the case when
you're performing something for which partial success is difficult to
define. For example, you are trying to jump across a pit - any failure
means you fall into the pit (although a kind GM might let you grab
onto something if your margin of failure was low).

For a more deliberate, carefully planned project a failure could mean
that the result is in some way inferior, that you must try again, or
perhaps the GM will just let you increase the time used in order to
get whatever bonus you'd need to get a success. In the latter case
you're not really rolling to see if you succeed or not but to
determine how long the project is going to take you.

Degree of success/failure is addressed on B347.

Generally speaking, for non-combat non-tense rolls against skills at
which your character is proficient (12+ skill), success can generally
be assumed without a die roll unless there's a lot of negative
modifiers involved. This is described on B171. (Sometimes the GM may
want you to roll anyway just to see if you get a critical failure.)

So while you may have to roll against your Mechanic-12 to repair your
car in the middle of a chase scene, the same damage could
automatically be repaired by you if you had it sitting peacefully home
in your garage and did it over the weekend.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.DeleteThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On 2008-12-07, mike <mikespam.RemoveThis@invariant.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> All above assumes the character is using TL equipment lower
> than they are used to. 'less smart tools'.
> No rolls at your own TL, and you can use higher TL without
> rolls as if it were your TL.

You seem to focus on the use of high-tech tools. The tech level rules
concern themselves with working in high-tech /fields/ more than with
the tools used. Tools give bonuses/maluses of their own regardless of
tech level. If a given TL8 brand of pistol is +4 to use because of
item quality then a TL5 shooter will still be seeing a net bonus of +1
after the TL malus.

If your suggestion were to be adopted then this would mean that a 17th
century gunsmith could repair TL9 laser pistols with no penalty. This
seems unreasonable.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Tobias Heidelmann <tobias.heidelmann.DeleteThis@alice-dsl.net> writes:

> Paul Colquhoun schrieb:
> > The spectrum of results runs something like this:
> >
> > 1) Fully functional weapon
> > 2) Functional but degraded in some way/ways
> > - lower range
> > - lower damage
> > - less accurate
> > - lower battery life
> > etc,
> > 3) Non-functional, still needs more work
> > - re-roll after getting some more parts
> > 4) Pile of scrap after a major failure
> >
> > Even after result 2), you might allow another roll to try and fix
> > whatever the problem is, but it would risk making things worse so
> > some players wouldn't take the risk.
>
> possible interpretation of the roll:
>
> 1 is a success with margin of success >2
> 2 might mean success but margin <=2
> 3 failure
> 4 critical failure

This is contrary to my own view. I'm very much of the school of
thought that any success gives the character *at least* what they were
trying to do. It's quite unfair to have a success roll come out as
"success" yet interpret it as "not quite there".

I would have the above results assigned differently:

Critical success: Weapon of higher quality grade than was attempted,
or some other *significantly* better result.

Success: Achieve level of quality attempted, with no unexpected
flaws. Margin of success dictates fewer resources consumed, less
time used, more visibly appealing result, etc.

Failure: *Only* a failure would give a result less than what was
attempted. The margin of failure might indicate slight flaws, use
of more resources or time, etc.

Critical failure: The weapon is flawed in a significant way *but
that's not obvious* to the craftsman; e.g. it's worse quality than
desired, but doesn't look like it. Or some other result
significantly worse than a normal failure.

> The margin of success / failure concept is nicer than the strictly
> binary succeed or fail view.

Yes, it's very useful for keeping the results usefully variable.

I do feel strongly, though, that a success is not something the GM can
tarnish with "partial failure"; only once the roll fails can failure
results be imposed.

--
\ "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." —Mark |
`\ Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney