Loose Screws

[frogspawner]

Regarding Cooperative skill rolls (this may not really be worthy of it's own thread, but I didn't want to clog Jason's "Typo's" thread in this critical and no doubt highly stressful weekend):

Originally Posted by Jack Tar

A quick query about the Cooperative skill rolls on pg.173.

The benefit of having someone help you is that it adds 10% to your roll (or 15/20% for special/critical success).

However, that means somone with a very low skill level, let's say 5%, who is aiding you could be adding 10% or even 20% to a score.

This seems wrong to me. Intuitively, I'd argue that someone with virtually no skill is probably a hinderance to someone with skill. "Will you stop trying to help me?! You're just getting in the way!"

Would it not be wiser to say that only someone with a reasonable amount of skill (say minimum of 10%) can potentially aid in a cooperative skill roll. If they get a critical success and add 20%, that's just a fluke that should be allowed as it will rarely happen.

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

The assumption is that the higher-skilled character is essentially saying to the relatively unskilled character "Okay... you don't have much skill... but here's exactly what you need to do if you want to help me."
It could also be regarded as offloading "busywork", enabling the higher-skilled character to focus on execution of the primary task at hand. For example, a master chef might ask for unskilled assistance chopping or performing some routine task while he or she works on the stuff requiring a high degree of expertise.
The low chance of a character with a skill of 10% or under successfully being able to contribute to a cooperative task is the balancing factor.
If the GM feels it's not plausible, then he or she is free to rule that a character without an appreciable skill cannot aid in a cooperative task, as is stated in the first sentence of that section.

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I would figure most things would benefit from another set of hands. Even if it is just "Hold theses screws; don't loose them", or "put pressure here."
BTW, Is there a penalty if the assistant fumbles? I could see that too.
"I thought I told you not to loose the screws"

If they're both doing it, why can't they just both roll? Two chances to succeed (and fumble...), in proper proportion to their skill.
Alternatively, the lower-skilled could just be at a disadvantage (i.e. skill x1/2).

[Atgxtg]

The problem I see is that with a lot of tasks that would increase the chance of success to near sure thing proportions. And in many cases it wouldn't make sense. Smomeone couuld conceivable aid you in picking a lock, or applying first aid, but each character rolling would makes two 50% characters the same as one 75% character. Same with someone flying copilot.

[frogspawner]

Oh! I've only just realized how the mechanism works: they do both roll. But if the 'helper' succeeds, all they do is give +10% to the 'real' roller (or +15/20% if they spec/crit). Right? Hmmm - seems a bit odd to me, but OK.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Oh! I've only just realized how the mechanism works: they do both roll. But if the 'helper' succeeds, all they do is give +10% to the 'real' roller (or +15/20% if they spec/crit). Right? Hmmm - seems a bit odd to me, but OK.

Odd in what way? Too little, too much?

I'm looking at it like a dental hygienist or nurse in an operating room. They might just stand there and hand out instruments, and apply suction when needed. They are not actually doing much to help the patient directly, but just making the job easier for the person who is.

[frogspawner]

Good example, thanks. It's fine then - they're not doing the same job, but the separate job of assisting.
Odd because I don't usually like straight percentage plusses (or minuses) to rolls, but in this case it seems difficult to get around.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

If they're both doing it, why can't they just both roll?

Two examples of why to use cooperative skills:

Increased chance of success:
For example, Susan (skill 20%) successfully aids Mathias (skill 75%) in a cooperative task. Mathias now has an effective skill of 85%. This raises his chance of a special success from 15% to 17%, his critical chance increases from 04% to 05%, and his fumble chance drops from 99-00% to just 00%.

Indirect assistance:
Mathias (Pilot 15%) is on the ground, in an air traffic control tower. Susan (Pilot 25%) is at the controls of an airplane, trying to land it after the pilot was shot in a terrorist attack. Over the radio, Mathias offers advice to Susan on the situation, including giving her what advice he can based on weather conditions and an outside appraisal of her approach. He makes a successful Pilot roll, raising Susan's Pilot effective skill from 25% to 35%. She is immensely grateful for this increased chance to land the plane successfully.

[frogspawner]

Many thanks for the examples. I'm happy with the mechanism now.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

The problem I see is that with a lot of tasks that would increase the chance of success to near sure thing proportions. And in many cases it wouldn't make sense. Smomeone couuld conceivable aid you in picking a lock, or applying first aid, but each character rolling would makes two 50% characters the same as one 75% character. Same with someone flying copilot.

I've argued in the past that in any system that makes seperate rolls for perception and stealth skills for each participant, that the chance of successful stealth drops down way too fast when the number of participants increase, for just this reason. Numbers should work for the percieving side and against the stealthing side, but with seperate rolls the process becomes nearly pointless awfully darn quickly; its hard to understand how any group of any real size ever gets successfully ambushed.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I've argued in the past that in any system that makes seperate rolls for perception and stealth skills for each participant, that the chance of successful stealth drops down way too fast when the number of participants increase, for just this reason. Numbers should work for the percieving side and against the stealthing side, but with seperate rolls the process becomes nearly pointless awfully darn quickly; its hard to understand how any group of any real size ever gets successfully ambushed.

Yes. I agree with the point to some extent. That is why some games only have the character with the highest skill roll and assume that if can't notice it, no one with lesser skill will.

Another problem is that you get the same effect with multiple people sneaking. The chances of someone failing thier sneak roll get progressively higher.

So sneak takes a double whammy.

One solution that I liked, translated into BRP terms, was that if the sneaker rolled under half, the "spotter" didn't get a perception roll, but of rolled over half the spotter does. On a failed sneak attempt the sneak is detected automatically.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yes. I agree with the point to some extent. That is why some games only have the character with the highest skill roll and assume that if can't notice it, no one with lesser skill will.

That's more or less what we've tended to do locally (and roll for just the worst sneaker), though we'll compare the result to all involved. This does have the effect that it means you never have the capable sneaker hit the buried bone or the less capable observer just happening to be looking in the right direction, but it seems the lesser of two evils.

I've also personally tended to modifier the rolls based on the number of participants; for each doubling of observers in BRP I've added 5%, for each doubling of stealthers subtract it from their rolls. That represents some of the advantage/disadvantage without having it get crippling quickly.