Full Version: Extended Tests
Personally I tend to go with a maximum number of rolls based off skill or program rating. But a few extended tests I handle as continue til you glitch. ( for example climbing a wall ) I suppose the determining factor is if the extended test is one where you can envision a character saying "I have no fragging clue what to next".
I couldn't pick just one. I generally limit the test based on skill/program or device rating/ attribute. There are situations though where a glitch or critical glitch will end a test with bad results early or where the only limit is the players frustration factor (ie test is open ended until you get bored or think you've used too much time on it)
| QUOTE (booklord @ Aug 10 2006, 01:15 PM) |
| Personally I tend to go with a maximum number of rolls based off skill or program rating. But a few extended tests I handle as continue til you glitch. ( for example climbing a wall ) I suppose the determining factor is if the extended test is one where you can envision a character saying "I have no fragging clue what to next". |
Goes down to the GM's appreciation of the situation.
It's funny, your example is one where I wouldn't allow rolling 'till you get it, depending on the situation.
If you are free climbing (no rope) on a steep surface (not such an unlikely situation for runners), you can't rest. If you don't succeed in a reasonable span of time, you'll be exhausted and probably won't be able to make it (leaving you in a precarious position).
In that case the limit on rolls might be derived from your body, to see how resistant you are.
And that's as good an example as any of how I'd handle it ; it depends.
EDIT : I'm not a big fan of just capping the number of rolls. My instinct would be more ntaurally to slowly chip away at the number of dice rolled if the situation warrants it.
For extended tests, the main thing working against a character is time...I did vote for stop at a glitch, but then, I just let the character start over again...so I really don't limit extended.
Granted, most of the time, if they haven't hit the threshold in a certain amount of time, the character quits, or in other situations, if they didn't get it done in that time, there is no reason to go on...I guess it really does just depend on the situation and GM.
Really, the only extended tests I have ran have been hacking on the fly tests...and I will let a character roll until he glitches, with the only downside being time and how long the node gets to prepare after an alert has been raised...
Granted, most of the time, if they haven't hit the threshold in a certain amount of time, the character quits, or in other situations, if they didn't get it done in that time, there is no reason to go on...I guess it really does just depend on the situation and GM.
Really, the only extended tests I have ran have been hacking on the fly tests...and I will let a character roll until he glitches, with the only downside being time and how long the node gets to prepare after an alert has been raised...
Most of the time when players are rolling extended tests, there is a time issue, so the number of rolls is limited only by the amount of time they are willing to waste. If it's a high pressure situation, I sometimes deduct a die after each roll. If it's a totaly timeless/pressureless situation (a matrix info search for instance) I don't even bother to make them roll, or I make them roll a single test for the quality of the information they find.
They get a number of rolls equal to the dice pool. This means that really stinky hard tests also only give them a few tries.
A glitch stops the test. A critical glitch gives them a result that they didn't want, like bad info or the bomb going off.
A glitch stops the test. A critical glitch gives them a result that they didn't want, like bad info or the bomb going off.
I was just thinking about this one myself. In response:
If there's no real consequence for failure, or if you're only really interested in seeing how long it takes (building something simple- no point in making a big deal out of it), you should just roll until you make it.
If there's consequences in failure, I'd say either a glitch or critical glitch could mean the activity ends in failure (free climbing along the ceiling of a cave above a deep chasm), and possiby disaster. Otherwise, I usually subtract already-achieved hits, thus extending the time needed, as well as increasing the cost, if any.
In a lot of cases, simply running out of time, or being stopped before finishing means you failed. Like defusing a bomb.
If it's a cometition, or other case where the threshold increases as time goes on, eventually, success is too far off to be considered possible any more.
Surgery: a glitch or critical glitch could cause a bleeding or other deterioration, and the patient could die before being stabilized. Sounds like failure to me.
And here's my own question: How are you supposed to measure success on an extended test, like in the case of building/crafting something? In theory, you could take more time, and pile on more hits, but a more skilled person should have an advantage even over someone who has all the time in the world.
Dread Polack
If there's no real consequence for failure, or if you're only really interested in seeing how long it takes (building something simple- no point in making a big deal out of it), you should just roll until you make it.
If there's consequences in failure, I'd say either a glitch or critical glitch could mean the activity ends in failure (free climbing along the ceiling of a cave above a deep chasm), and possiby disaster. Otherwise, I usually subtract already-achieved hits, thus extending the time needed, as well as increasing the cost, if any.
In a lot of cases, simply running out of time, or being stopped before finishing means you failed. Like defusing a bomb.
If it's a cometition, or other case where the threshold increases as time goes on, eventually, success is too far off to be considered possible any more.
Surgery: a glitch or critical glitch could cause a bleeding or other deterioration, and the patient could die before being stabilized. Sounds like failure to me.
And here's my own question: How are you supposed to measure success on an extended test, like in the case of building/crafting something? In theory, you could take more time, and pile on more hits, but a more skilled person should have an advantage even over someone who has all the time in the world.
Dread Polack
He does have an advantage (2 actually):
1) He does it faster.
2) He has a larger pool / skill to make tests with.
#2 assumes you're using a limit to the number of rolls allowed, but number one is almost always a factor except in tests whose time is measured in rounds and you're not in combat.
1) He does it faster.
2) He has a larger pool / skill to make tests with.
#2 assumes you're using a limit to the number of rolls allowed, but number one is almost always a factor except in tests whose time is measured in rounds and you're not in combat.
I don't think that I'd limit dice on things like climbing (look at the guys who do free climbing professionally, they're at it for hours.)
The big problem I have with extended tests is specifically with data search. It gets rid of the need for any legwork. I'm thinkinjg it should be limited by skill alone. I haven't tried it yet, but it would make sense. On the other hand, always getting to hear all the levels of info (I'm thinking in the modules here,) does move the adventure on more quickly.
The big problem I have with extended tests is specifically with data search. It gets rid of the need for any legwork. I'm thinkinjg it should be limited by skill alone. I haven't tried it yet, but it would make sense. On the other hand, always getting to hear all the levels of info (I'm thinking in the modules here,) does move the adventure on more quickly.
Heh...or if your GM has you buying successes - that 4 dice/success ratio is a killer for a lot of extended tests.
edit: especially if he limits it per roll (ex: 7 dice = 1 success per test - good luck getting that 8-12 threshold.)
edit: especially if he limits it per roll (ex: 7 dice = 1 success per test - good luck getting that 8-12 threshold.)
| QUOTE (fool) |
| The big problem I have with extended tests is specifically with data search. It gets rid of the need for any legwork. |
Almost anything worth knowing is not going to be available for free on the matrix. What is out there, and is important, will require hacking. Data Search might let you find the data, but it won't always put it in your hands.
| QUOTE (Dread Polack) |
| And here's my own question: How are you supposed to measure success on an extended test, like in the case of building/crafting something? In theory, you could take more time, and pile on more hits, but a more skilled person should have an advantage even over someone who has all the time in the world. |
For me, a more skilled person is going to be able to do the same work quicker...which is an advantage in and of itself. I mean, I see your point...two people with an artistic skill, one with a rating 1 and the other with a rating 6, should have a difference in quality if painting a picture...but really, that sort of thing is fluff and at the GMs discretion.
I mean, based on what the dice roll, I would add that type of detail on a case by case basis. Say a character is one success away from the threshold and on the next test rolls 7 successes on 8 dice. Well, that is pretty amazing, plus the threshold is surpassed by 6 successes, so I would probably make the outcome much better than what he was shooting for.
On the other hand, once the threshold is met, I wouldn't allow anyone, regardless of skill, to just keep on rolling and adding successes.
From reading responses, I am seriously considering putting some sort of limit on extended tests based on skills...that makes a lot of sense to me and could also solve this issue. I mean, a character with a rating 1 skill, only gets a single test to make the threshold, so if they only have 8 dice, anything with a threshold above 8 isn't even possibly without edge...that at least gives a sense that a more skilled character can do more than a lesser skilled one...
| QUOTE (deek @ Aug 10 2006, 09:12 PM) |
| For me, a more skilled person is going to be able to do the same work quicker...which is an advantage in and of itself. I mean, I see your point...two people with an artistic skill, one with a rating 1 and the other with a rating 6, should have a difference in quality if painting a picture...but really, that sort of thing is fluff and at the GMs discretion. |
If I was running a game where such was important, I'd either:
A) give a second 1-shot test to determine quality
or
B) have a specific timeframe/number of rolls to work from, extra successes beyond basic threshold => quality (and thus the higher dp guy would accrue more)
The chance of glitching alont he way is perhaps higher than many people think.
Chances of glitching a roll:
6 dice: 6.23%
8 dice: 3.07%
10 dice: 1.55%
Chances of glitching in an attempt to get extended 10 hits (simply calculated as expected number of rolls needed with 1/3 hits each roll)
6 dice: 27.50%
8 dice: 11.73%
10 dice: 4.58%
Chances of glitching a roll:
6 dice: 6.23%
8 dice: 3.07%
10 dice: 1.55%
Chances of glitching in an attempt to get extended 10 hits (simply calculated as expected number of rolls needed with 1/3 hits each roll)
6 dice: 27.50%
8 dice: 11.73%
10 dice: 4.58%
I limit them to (Skill+1) rolls.
Means if you're good you can rack up a fair number of successes and makes skills more valuable.
Also makes a skill of 1 (Basic Training) a lot better than defaulting.
Means if you're good you can rack up a fair number of successes and makes skills more valuable.
Also makes a skill of 1 (Basic Training) a lot better than defaulting.
Dort says it. Thats how it should work. At least with "skill critical" extended tests, like aavailability tests. Its also mentione din my SHP.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.