Another poll related to The SR3R Project

So, in a similar vein to my 6==7 thread, but this time for Open Tests.

The only place I've ever encountered an open test in-game is Stealth, and it seems silly to have a completely different dice mechanic for so few tests. Should we keep it, or get rid of it?

I'm not opposed to them in theory, and I think they work pretty well for stealth, where there's a huge amount of uncertainty available that would be hideously complex to translate into actual modifiers.

However, while I do see them elsewhere, everywhere else I remember seeing them they have been abominations. See, for example, the "jump as far as you can" rules. As such, they end up with exactly one case in which I find them actually being used well, and I'm not at all convinced that one pretty solid application is enough to keep a mechanic that, after we remove the places where it's used badly, will almost certainly be unique in the system.

(Of course, the whole "unique mechanic" argument is very, very dangerous, because it feels really compelling, and then you do things like look at how initiative is calculated, or how scatter is done, or any of the significant numbers of unique mechanics that are pretty good as they are and would most likely only be made worse by the removal of their uniqueness and it becomes obvious that some other argument other than "we don't do this for anything else" needs to exist.)

~J

as i said in the other thread, i really dislike open tests, especially for stealth. they might be nice in theory, but in practice, it's far too easy to build up enough stealth bonuses that it's nearly impossible to spot you under any conditions (my main stealthy d00d has something like a +13 to most stealth rolls). and 'nearly impossible' is largely meaningless, since a single hot die can cut through all your preparations; more challenging foes don't have a significantly better chance of detecting you.

Shadowbeat uses them often but apart from that book they should be done away with, such as stealth, jumping, manoeuvring in vehicle combat and some of the advanced damage rules.

"Unique mechanic" only feels compelling to the lazy and the masochists, IMO.

Take Grenade Scatter, for example. Now, it may well be that we can (maybe even should) incorporate that into the Success Test. But since we don't want to put the work in, we'll just leave it like it is. That's the lazy argument, and it's not one I find very compelling, and so I won't be making it very often. I'm the kind of person who gets very obsessed with minutiae, and I don't like settling for an imperfect solution. Deviating from the core mechanics for any reason is an imperfect solution, and so it takes a very compelling reason to keep such a deviation.

The other reason to keep it is because you enjoy memorizing a dozen "unique mechanics" that somehow make you feel superior to the riff-raff who aren't as obsessed as you are, and just want to play a game. I don't like making this argument either, and for basically the same reason. I am the kind of person who gets very obsessed with minutiae, and I recognize that most others are not like me; many people just want to play a game. And that's really not a bad thing. Game rules should be built around playability, and the core of playability is being able to actually use the rules. Having to look up the "unique mechanic"-du jour is more like anti-playability

The only time I really feel comfortable making either of these arguments in with Initiative. The reason is not for either of the two reasons above, but because of what I call the "sacred cow" defense: people have been using the rule for a long time, and are actively resistant to changing it. This reason I find compelling not because it is impossible to think of a better one--I've already come up with a Success Test-based Initiative mechanic, in fact--nor because the uniqueness of the mechanic somehow feels special. It's a matter of pure pragmatism; if we changed Initiative, it may turn some people off to the game, and I don't want to do that. That's the reason I'm dropping the idea to change the Rule of Six, and it's really the only reason I'd be willing to accept to drop the idea of Open Tests.

Hm, interesting results so far.

I would like to hear from the people who are in favor of and/or unconcerned about Open Tests, though. What are your arguments? Am I missing something important?

So, basically 8-to-5 in favor of change, with 6 people effectively abstaining.

Anyone else?

Mainly personal preference and I like for sneaking to occasionally surprise all the players in the outcome. One quick little brawl-job included the stealth adept getting about 5 or 7 for his stealth tests a few ties in a row. At the same time, the almost un-stealthy combat dwarf got over 10 at least once and not worse than the adept. It was only a couple of rolls, then things got back toward the expected, but it was fun and funny.Probably not. I too dislike the jumping rules in the book, but only enough to redefine the powers and gear that improve jumping to make a base distance before the roll results rather than just increasing how high of a roll can matter. (my description of the jump situation may not sound right, it's been a while since I last read that part)

I'm in a bit of a conundrum. I like the idea of open tests (my personal record is 47), because I like the randomness of it. But, I absolutely hate them for Stealth tests. I had a player who's adept character had an 8 or 10 Stealth rating, and he would invariably be spotted by a schmoe with 3 Perception dice every game. Even with 8 dice its awfully easy to not roll any 6's, particularly on a skill you roll a lot of, and it seems like if you're going to invest that heavily in a skill, you want some level of certainty in how it works. (This particular player was not a very good roller. He's the only player I've ever seen to botch on 6 dice, and in one Gamma World game he critically failed six times in one night-- after the first three critical failure skill checks of "20" he began attacking doors, and then rolled three critical failure "1's". So maybe his being cursed by the gods was as much to blame as the mechanic.)

There's two other things that Open Tests for Stealth screw up, TN Penalties and Karma rerolls. I much prefer Opposed Tests for Stealth vs Perception. It can lead to some headscratcher moments, but if a guy can get more 10's on his Stealth test than the guards can get 2's, he deserves his moment of Ninja-like grace.

The main Open Test I remember using the most was for Perception tests to notice clues. Also on Knowledge skill checks (which my group called Inactive skills-- any system where Negotiation is called active and Salsa Dancing is called a knowledge is just odd) and artistic things. To me, the Open Test should be saved for those tests where a flash of inspiration is what is needed. James Spader in Stargate figuring out that the hieroglyphics are astrological patterns (uh, spoiler?) is an example. Multiple successes represent grunt work, craftsmanship, whereas Open Tests represent that rare moment of brilliance. All the hieroglyphic knowledge in the world is no match for seeing a constellation in the paper and realizing its the key to what you've been struggling with all along.

That is a very interesting point, and it's one that has come up a few times in the course of our attempts to get rid of Open Tests. The issue is this: for many people, it makes sense that it should be possible, but rare, to be able to have outstanding success, even beyond the number of dice you roll for a given test. Open Tests allow this in ways that the normal Success Tests at the moment do not; in the current form of the Success Test you are limited in the number of dice you roll on a given test. This means that, for example, an Int 3 person--someone of average intelligence--is incapable of positively identifying anyone, ever, as you need to score 4+ successes on the Perception test to do so, which is impossible with only 3 dice.

By the by, I should also note that Perception is not in fact an Open Test, but rather a Threshold Test. Yes, SR3 does have Thresholds; they're scattered quite liberally throughout the books, even more than Open Tests in fact. For some reason, though, Open Tests got named in the core mechanics section when Thresholds were never really explicitly named as a feature of Success Tests.

This problem too we have a solution for. Look for it in my next (probably last, for awhile) poll.

Perception doesn't really have a threshold, it's just a classic application of multiple successes meaning a better success. One success means you suspect something's there, which isn't really very helpful but is distinct from zero successes in a way that, say, two successes while trying to break L5 broadcast encryption is not.

~J

haha, i dunno, man. i've seen salsa dancing--i don't think calling it 'inactive' is appropriate either!


i dunno. i don't see a reason why you'd want to use an open test in such a situation, rather than just a regular test against a high, unknown TN.

Open tests make sense for things like making art: maybe this one really is your masterpiece...or maybe it's utter crap - you really won't find out until after it's done and people can react to it.

Other than that, it's simply a terribly clunky and unpredictable mechanic. Roll badly on an open stealth test and what's the explanation? Cell phone ringing, and you just didn't notice?

After reading some of the unpredictable results that can occur, I would like to see the Open Test lost. An opposed test still provides uncertainty of always succeeding or failing.