Stand Up, Sneak Up

[Onix]

I like the idea that a failed roll means your preparations are at an end. It's a simple consequence that's reasonably easy to handle. It also keeps the stealth threshold low (maybe?) so the player wouldn't have 50 stealth points, but is more likely to have 2-10 dependent on what the character's ability is like you're saying.

My problem with that is when the number is not maxed out, the player may just try to abort and come back another day. Okay that might be realistic but it could chew up time at the table not to mention time in game. Each time the player doesn't get what they would consider an optimum result they would just abort at the planning stage. I think some of the fun of this would be a player trying to manage under a small number of points.

Obviously there could be the story driven "There's no time, we have to go in now!" but that would get old for the players really fast.

Maybe if the results of the rolls were described differently? Instead of "You don't see anything more." when doing your surveillance and prep work, to an assurance "There is nothing more." there'd be a better player reaction? So you can't come back tomorrow and try again. The results now are fixed. That seems a bit weird though because it's based on the PC's skill.

I'm not sure about the push your luck mechanic because it would tend to leave the PC with no SP (Stealth Points) and thus defeat the point of having them in the first place.

What if each failure roll gave the player a condition where their surveillance or preparation has holes? This would be triggered at certain SP levels. For example, if I failed my second roll, my second point has a hole in it. If i fail my eighth roll then my eighth point has a hole in it. If I have to use those points, I have to do something risky or maybe hide myself fully to stay unnoticed.

I don't know, I'll work on it.

[Onix]

I jotted down how I'd apply these concepts to . My approach is intended as a special application of the concepts but with some work, could also be applied to games in general. I have the advantage that a single roll gives a result from 0-4 and coupling two skills together gives a range of 0-8 which is just about where we were saying to be. The values aren't difficult to just keep in your head at this low range so I'm not worried about tracking the values on a character sheet and each new situation would require new rolls.

[Rubbermancer]

Loving the Stealth hp idea. The Push Your Luck approach gave me the idea of using blackjack rules. The Stealth skill range would be very low, say, 0-3. You would play a quick round of blackjack with the GM, the GM goes first and starts with his first card face up, not face down as would be the usual method. Your skill would determine how many cards after the first the GM lays face up. This would represent how perceptive your character is of his environment. If you see the GM is doing well, you can abort before playing your last card. Your skill could also be subtracted or added in full or in part to your total, to bring you closer to 21.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

Oooh blackjack. That is a great idea! Nice to see you on the forums again.

I've wanted to make a gave that resolved with cards. The character's skills would let you keep a second hand or cards up your sleeve to substitute as needed. It always just got a bit caught up in how hoarded cards weren't in the deck and thus altered the probability of everything else. Maybe either there are two different color decks (skill vs randomizer) or the hidden cards are just virtual ones you've earned.

Would it help if everyone made preparation rolls before the scenario? Weapons need maintenance and loading, horses proper care, monks meditation, hackers boot up and load software. Hence its not only the ninja/stealth expert that suffers from bad preparation so they don't feel like the game is biased against their class. Furthermore, the chance of everyone maxing out is kind of low so you're inclined to go when the scores are mostly decent, rather than risking a scenario where all the characters roll poorly.

Conversely, you could let them re-attempt, or just max out their abilities (ie take 10/20 from d20) but include a penalty of the target being better prepared as well.

Perhaps if we have Vancian/D&D style magic - it can be applied to other professions. Fighters have special moves they can pull off, and sneaks have stealth tricks. Or is that how D&D 4th edition now works, making the concept redundant? (I haven't read any of the new books.) I could see a trick with cell phones to get a friend to page you while a guard is investigating - if you're not supposed to be here, you wouldn't be named on the PA system, now would you?

[J.K.Mosher]

If using cards . . . the character's "Skill Score" should represent how many cards he/she can play from their hand towards the skill/situation check.

I've been toying (and this is only in my head) with the idea of skill/resolution system using cards that has two stats . . . the first is the number of cards that can be played, the second is the number of cards that can be swapped via drawing & discarding.

So for a stealth skill say : Concealment 2(4)
- Concealment can be used to hide your person in plain sight (similar to hide in shadows from D&D) or hide and object upon your or another character's person.
2 = the maximum number of cards that can be played from the cards in hand towards resolution of a skill check.
(4) = the maximum number of cards that can be swapped (ie drawn from the deck and used to replace in hand cards); drawn cards can if the player chooses be discarded instead of discarding from their hand.

- I kinda like this setup as it gives an impression that while this character is not "overly" skilled at concealing he/she is adept enough to notice and get a chance at improve their chances at success.

Again this is right out of a dark corner of my head and undoubtedly needs major refinement, including hand size, and what the target value or action should be. (ie is it like in black jack example and you have to beat the "dealer/GM's" hand, or is it static target difficulties?)

[Rubbermancer]

JK, I can see that card system making combat a lot more fun! Perhaps the colours or suits could denote general categories of action within each skill. So, for example, with a Sword 2(4) skill, red could be offensive and black defensive, making for a bit more of a swordfightey style of play, with the back and forth and the feints and parries. And yes, swordfightey is a word now.