Doing science

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I think I may have cracked it! So this version has the following features:

1) Player choice. The player generates two potential solutions, and may abort either and start new ones at any time.
2) Properties. Certain keywords have properties attached which are triggered automatically or cause complications on a failed check.
3) Customization. A generic engineering and a generic medical matrix are included, but you can create any matrices you want, as specific or as thematic as you want. A door-opening matrix, a brain surgery matrix, an alchemical concocting matrix, a hacking matrix, and so on.

What I like about this is that players can look at the potential risks and benefits of each solution. Do I continue with this one, knowing that if I fail the next check it'll cause an explosion, or should I stop and start a new solution? I like that this medical solution contains a breakthrough which reduces the time it takes, but it has a potential of a nasty side-effect, too.

[h=4]Doing Science[/h]
Any character can attempt to do science in order to solve a problem. Science includes engineering and medicine, along with various other disciplines; it also includes fantasy processes like herbalism, alchemy, and the like. Doing science involves making a sequence of attribute checks which, when complete, forms the solution to a problem in the form of a sentence.

Some in-game situations automatically require that characters do science. For example, when a starship breaks down (such as when being thrown out of FTL travel), or an alechemical concoction is being created, a major science is required.

Minor science. Three attribute checks are required (alpha, gamma, and delta), and each takes one hour.

Major science. Four attribute checks are required (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta), and each takes one hour.

Complex science.
Four attribute checks are required (alpha, beta gamma, and delta), and each takes one day.

Some careers, such as the scientist and the herbalist, offer exploits which allow a character to spend LUCK dice to reduce a science from major to minor, or complex to major. Additional abilities may allow characters to generate further initial potential solutions.

[h=4]PROCESS[/h]
Follow the following process.

1. The GM sets the difficulty. For example, escaping a locked duranium cell might be a Demanding [21] task.
2. The character generates two potential solutions by rolling d66 on the appropriate matrix.
3. Each stage of a solution requires an attribute check to resolve.
4. When all the attribute checks to any one of the solutions are made, the science is complete.
5. Characters may abort a solution at any time and commence a new solution in its place.

[h=4]ATTRIBUTE CHECKS[/h]
Each stage of the process requires one attribute check. The alpha check is an AGI or INT check (character's choice). The remaining checks are LOG checks.

Applicable skills depend on the situation. Botany will be unlikely to help a character escape a cell, but engineering might. Similarly, robotics won't help cure a disease, but medicine will.

[h=4]FAILED CHECKS[/h]
A failed check can be retried, but the time is wasted.

[h=4]PROPERTIES[/h]
Some stages have properties which apply when they are attempted. In some cases, the property is triggered automatically, and in others (complications, which are marked with an asterisk) the property is only triggered on a failed attribute check. Not all keywords have properties; those that do have the property noted in square brackets - for example, amplify [explosion].

Some of the below properties are engineering properties, some are medical properties, and some are both.

*Alarm. You set off a loud alert system.

*Allergic reaction. The patient reacts badly to the procedure, taking 1d6 damage.

*Bleeding. The patient starts haemorrhaging. You have 2d6 rounds to succeed in a minor science or the patient will die.

Breakthrough. This solution is easier than anticipated. Decrease it by one complexity level (complex – major – minor) to a minimum of minor.

Complex. This solution is more complex than anticipated. Increase it by one complexity level (minor – major – complex) to a maximum of complex.

*Convulsions. The patient starts spasming. All checks in this solution from now on suffer a -1d6 penalty.

*Dead end. This potential solution leads nowhere, and must be aborted.

*Delirium. The patient suffers mental complications. A minor science is needed to cure it.

Discovery. During this process you make a brand new scientific discovery. This procedure is forever named after you and you gain a permanent +1 REP.

*Electrocution. You take 2d6 electrical damage.

*Explosion. Everybody within 10' takes 1d6 heat damage.

*Gas leak. Everybody within 30' takes 1d6 poison damage per round for 1d6 rounds.

*Infection. The process causes an infection which requires a minor science to cure.

*Paradoxical reaction. The exact opposite effect of the intended science takes place.

*Radiation leak. Everybody within 30' takes 1d6 radiation damage and has a 1-in-6 chance of contracting radiation sickness.

Random. Randomly choose a property from this list.

*Short circuit. The entire apparatus goes dead. It will take a minor science to repair before you can continue.

Side effect. The patient gains +1d6 to one type of attribute check for the next 24 hours.

[h=4]WHAT CAN BE ACHIEVED?[/h]
A character may attempt any action, however unlikely, by doing science. The GM is responsible for setting the difficulty of the task, and is within her rights to set the difficulty prohibitively high. For example, if a character decides he wants to blow up a planet, the GM might set that at a benchmark in the region of 100 or more.

[h=4]COMBINED EFFORTS[/h]
Different characters may attempt to solve different parts of the solution simultaneously. The constituent parts can still be combined by the group to form the complete solution.

[h=4]SCIENCE MATRICES[/h]
On the next two pages are two science matrices. The first matrix is a generic engineering matrix, and the second is a generic medical matrix. GMs are encouraged to devise their own matrices for various situations. For example, a GM might devise a commonly used matrix for opening electronic doors, doing brain surgery, or repairing a starship engine.

Additionally, GMs are encouraged to create new properties to include in their matrices.

engineering.jpg

medical.jpg
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Henry

Autoexreginated
This could also be fantastic as an option for Kevin's Timewatch, as well, especially because:
-His main science skill is called SCIENCE!
-It's conveniently in a d66 array already
 

Wednesday Boy

The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
I like how the properties give the player a decision point between which solution to try. But it still seems to have the downside that it could be boiled down into fewer rolls, as Umbran pointed out earlier. Maybe you could do one check for all stages that have no properties? So if I'm trying to recalibrate the inverted compression interference [alarm], I roll once for the recalibrate the inverted compression portion since those stages have no properties and once for the interference [alarm] portion because it does.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I like how the properties give the player a decision point between which solution to try. But it still seems to have the downside that it could be boiled down into fewer rolls, as Umbran pointed out earlier. Maybe you could do one check for all stages that have no properties? So if I'm trying to recalibrate the inverted compression interference [alarm], I roll once for the recalibrate the inverted compression portion since those stages have no properties and once for the interference [alarm] portion because it does.

I think of it as the system you use when you want to have longer skill challenges. If you just want one roll, you just make an attribute check and you're done. There's plenty of scope for simple checks. But when you want to have a few checks over a period of time, you can grab this to add some colour to it.

So the idea isn't to make it shorter. There's already mechanisms for short checks in most games. It's to add a little spice to those situations where you want multiple checks. Just make it that little bit more interesting.

Multiple checks has a different effect on difficulty to simply raising a DC. There should be scope in a game for both, I feel.

Plus, one roll takes away the way in which you progress through the solution, and maybe at some point decide to abort that one and try something else. You can't do that if you're just making all the checks at the same time with one quick die roll.
 

Janx

Hero
Seems like you are set then.

I may still mull over my idea for the set-piece style of technical puzzle. I am curious if there is a way to actually model star trek tech problem solving.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I've now created matrices for engineering, medicine, alchemy, herbalism, and computing. All nonsense, of course.

The one I'm currently struggling with is chemistry. With the understanding that it doesn't have to be real chemistry or make sense, what sort of thing can I put in the final column (and of which there are 36 examples of)?

In my alchemy matrix (for fantasy RPGs) I had various containers in that column - so it would be something like "dilute amber in a gold kettle" or "simmer coral in a ruby vial". That doesn't really work for chemistry though. So far I've got some chemistry-sounding processes, two columns of chemical substances, then the word "compound", so we get "sublimate an axine-kryptonite compound...."

Just need to finish that off in the final column!

chem.jpg
 

Janx

Hero
For your chemistry, your 2 examples were verb Chemical X in Container Y.

That seems wrong. Granted your goal is to abstract it down to some random rolls, but hopefully my thinking gives you some ideas for what goes on the table or what would arrange it to make sense most of the time to a layman.

I suspect most chemistry (I do have a chem degree friend and a chem lab working friend to check some stuff maybe) is about mixing A to B (or extracting A from B) in a glass Pyrex container most of the time.

I think the idea is to make a solution from 2 or more chemicals or extract the desired chemical from an existing solution

Though I imagine plating (like electroplating) where the goal is to get X evenly covering Y is valuable (all sorts of modern tech is a sheet of X covered by Y using science to get it there)

I think column Alpha covers these kind of activities reasonably well.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of not making column Gamma be the container, but instead be the secondary chemical.

maybe Delta should refer to a catalyst or 3rd chemical/process

You can't Extract hydrogen from Oxygen from H20 without electricity or a chemical additive (that I don't know what it is because I wasn't a chem major).
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Sure. The container approach works for alchemy (because that's basically magical) but not for chemistry. Someone suggested matter types (liquid, gas, sheet, powder).
 

MarkB

Legend
Hmm, this system rather reminds me of how Star Trek TNG writers would supposedly just write "TECH" into their scripts to substitute for anything involving future-science, and leave the production team to fill in the blanks with the required technobabble. In this case, it's the player saying "okay, I'll solve this by TECH" and leaving the dice to convert that into a workable solution.

Where I think the concept can potentially fall down is if you have a combination of more technically-minded players and more abstract-oriented players at the same table. If one player prefers to come up with what they consider to be a plausible, well-thought-out (if technical or even technobabbly) solution to a problem whilst another isn't concerned with the specifics and just says "I'll do some science until I fix it", should they both have an equal chance of success?
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Hmm, this system rather reminds me of how Star Trek TNG writers would supposedly just write "TECH" into their scripts to substitute for anything involving future-science, and leave the production team to fill in the blanks with the required technobabble. In this case, it's the player saying "okay, I'll solve this by TECH" and leaving the dice to convert that into a workable solution.

Where I think the concept can potentially fall down is if you have a combination of more technically-minded players and more abstract-oriented players at the same table. If one player prefers to come up with what they consider to be a plausible, well-thought-out (if technical or even technobabbly) solution to a problem whilst another isn't concerned with the specifics and just says "I'll do some science until I fix it", should they both have an equal chance of success?

Depends. I don't think letting physically strong players have attack bonuses is very fair, or small players having AC bonuses. Similarly, should scientific players get skill bonuses?

I mean, it's exactly the same as making a skill check in any game. It's just 4 checks instead. That question isn't particular to this. Does an outdoorsy D&D player's character have a better chance of tracking an orc than Stephen Hawking's D&D character? Do Penn and Teller's Pathfinder characters have a better chance of pickpocketing than others?
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top