Calculated Risk?

[Mark Chance]

The True20 rules include this skill use option:

Calculated Risk
You can take a calculated risk on one check to make a follow-up check easier. You accept a -5 penalty (or +5 DC bonus) to the first check in exchange for a +5 bonus (or -5 DC penalty) to the second check. The two checks must be related and the first, penalized check cannot be a check where you can take 20.

The example provided is this: For example, you could use Disable Device to overcome an initial safeguard to make disarming the whole trap easier.

All of that seemed to make sense at first, but now I just don't get it. Disable Device only takes one skill check. Right? I don't get how and when a player would actually ever use the calculated risk rules.

Help?

 

[ValhallaGH]

It's a bit rare, and requires some actual creative input from the players and Narrator, but it works pretty well.

Crossing a Chasm: Use a calculated risk to use Climb to secure something to help you Jump across.

Disabling a Trap: Use a calculated risk to access the trap's central areas (no easier but much less likely to trigger the trap), giving you access to key features of the trap that make it much easier to disarm.

Driving like a Mad Man: Use a calculated risk to drive into a position where you can ramp off somthing / slide on a slick surface / pass between two semi-trailers / whatever, to make it easier to pass rush hour traffic / suddenly reverse course / lose the chase vehicles / whatever insane stunt furthers your goals.

It's rare, but it can take a scene from meh to WOW by being both creative and daring.

Did that help?

 

[Mark Chance]

I think so. Basically, the idea is to narratively link two separate skill checks in a way that justifies the penalty/bonus combination. So, for example, a character facing a difficult climb could take a -5 penalty on a Search check to look for handholds in exchange for a +5 bonus on the subsequent Climb check (to use an example I found on the True20 forums).

 

[ValhallaGH]

Basically. Though the rules strongly encourage the Narrator to require the first check to have some failure consequences. Partly to keep the calculated risk risky, and partly to keep players from abusing it; also, it's just cooler that way.
For your example, maybe the searcher finds a really crumbly section of rock (making the climb harder), or accidentally cuts themselves on a poisonous plant (go Fortitude saves), or gets eaten by a Grue (you just can't fight those things; should have had a torch lit). Whatever works for the scene.

 

[Mark Chance]

Basically. Though the rules strongly encourage the Narrator to require the first check to have some failure consequences. Partly to keep the calculated risk risky, and partly to keep players from abusing it; also, it's just cooler that way.
For your example, maybe the searcher finds a really crumbly section of rock (making the climb harder), or accidentally cuts themselves on a poisonous plant (go Fortitude saves), or gets eaten by a Grue (you just can't fight those things; should have had a torch lit). Whatever works for the scene.

That makes sense. So, for example, if the Search check failed, the character wouldn't get the bonus. If he failed by, say, the standard 5 or more, there'd be some additional hazard introduced into the Climb. (Probably not a Grue though; I'd hate to be accused of Zorking someone.)

I like that. It helps make things dramatic, but at the same time can be implemented in a way that isn't adversarial. The idea, IWO, isn't to screw the player over, but to make the game more exciting, cinematic, et cetera.

 

[ValhallaGH]

The idea, IWO, isn't to screw the player over, but make the game more exciting, cinematic, et cetera.

You've grokked it.

Enjoy, and good luck.

P.S. If you have lots of True 20 questions, there is a very friendly and active Official True 20 forum that will not only help you answer your questions but will also give you so many crazily wonderful ideas that your brain will melt. Getting started can be a bit of a pain (too many spammers popping up to sell stupid crap) but after that it's generally great.

 

[Ketjak]

You've grokked it.

Enjoy, and good luck.

P.S. If you have lots of True 20 questions, there is a very friendly and active Official True 20 forum that will not only help you answer your questions but will also give you so many crazily wonderful ideas that your brain will melt. Getting started can be a bit of a pain (too many spammers popping up to sell stupid crap) but after that it's generally great.

Happy New Year!

I agree wholeheartedly with ValhallaGH - if you're a player of or interested in True20, their forum is a must-visit.

I miss visiting there regularly, and the only reason I do not is that I spend my free time reading about the game I'm GMing so I can stay fresh (I need all the help I can get). But I do miss the forum and the people there... excellent folk, designers and 3PP visit all the time, and there are the best game brains I have seen among the player base (Valhalla included).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Basically. Though the rules strongly encourage the Narrator to require the first check to have some failure consequences. Partly to keep the calculated risk risky, and partly to keep players from abusing it; also, it's just cooler that way.
For your example, maybe the searcher finds a really crumbly section of rock (making the climb harder), or accidentally cuts themselves on a poisonous plant (go Fortitude saves), or gets eaten by a Grue (you just can't fight those things; should have had a torch lit). Whatever works for the scene.

Worse, you find a Groo, and he wants to help you!

Actually, this does not seem like a bad system, and I think that I will adopt it for other games as well.

The Auld Grump

 

[ValhallaGH]

Worse, you find a Groo, and he wants to help you!

Oh dear gods, eat me now!

I'm glad they appealed. I hope it works out well.