Star Trek Adventures: Now that the full rules are out, what do you think?

oneshot

Explorer
You are refuting his point. I think Aramis knows what he's talking about since I know he's done quite a bit of play testing with the system. with his group. I've read several of his posts on it.

Right, yes, I know what I was doing. Refuting his point was exactly what I was doing. Aramis and I have been discussing and debating the game, both here and over on the Modiphius boards, since the playtest started. If you read his posts, did you read the thread where he first made the claim of this snowball effect? If not, check a couple of threads down on this page. If you're really interested in the specifics of this (something I sincerely doubt), our more specific debate in that thread will be right up your alley.

What I didn't know, and still don't, is what the point of your post was. Nothing in there supported anything Aramis said or addressed anything I actually said. I do know you have a reputation for popping into any threads about Modiphius's games to state that you dislike 2d20 with the heat of a 1,000 suns. So I guess I should assume this is just more of that?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Water Bob

Adventurer
What I didn't know, and still don't, is what the point of your post was.

To say that I think you are incorrect in refuting what he says.


I do know you have a reputation for popping into any threads about Modiphius's games to state that you dislike 2d20 with the heat of a 1,000 suns. So I guess I should assume this is just more of that?

The 2d20 system does suck blue donkey balls, but you can assume whatever you wish.
 

oneshot

Explorer
To say that I think you are incorrect in refuting what he says.

Except that, the fact that the chance of rolling a complication can vary based upon the number of dice in your pool (a) wasn't in dispute, (b) wasn't raised by anyone until you, and (c) has nothing to do with Aramis's points or mine. You didn't address my argument or bolster Aramis's point; you just attacked some theoretical argument I never made and wouldn't have had anything to do with Aramis's claim in the first place.
 

Water Bob

Adventurer
Except that, the fact that the chance of rolling a complication can vary based upon the number of dice in your pool (a) wasn't in dispute, (b) wasn't raised by anyone until you, and (c) has nothing to do with Aramis's points or mine. You didn't address my argument or bolster Aramis's point; you just attacked some theoretical argument I never made and wouldn't have had anything to do with Aramis's claim in the first place.

OK, then. Bye, bye.
 

aramis erak

Legend
How did you come up with that percentage chance, when tasks can roll 2d20 or 3d20 or 4d20?

Complications would increase with the number of dice thrown. If, on average, you throw 3d20 rather than 2d20, then your chance at complications will be lower than for someone who routinely rolls 4d20.



Second, assuming the number is correct, 7.5% is actually pretty often. For easy figuring, round it up to 10%. That's an average of a complication every 10 task rolls.

How many task rolls happen in a game session? My impression is that this game is dice roll heavy.

I think Aramis may be understanding more than what you give him credit to understand.

Oneshot is vehemently pro-2d20. It has a huge major flaw, and he seems totally blind to it, despite having been shown (repeatedly) the math in support and the actual play experience where I've had it become an issue multiple times. Plus, his numbers are bogus - he's not done the math, and it's BLOODY F*ING OBVIOUS to anyone who has taken a stats class and remembered the interaction of 2 dice...

I've had sessions where the rolls were bad. Very bad. The complications opening the threat range being story appropriate, resulting in 2-3 more complications generated per roll. I had a session, with 2p, end with 20 threat, the players both with threat ranges of 16-20, and 3 complications each as trait penalties... there was, at that point, not much more to do to them other than kill them outright. I've had multiple sessions end with 10+ threat, and a mission failure, and no shortage of complications imposed.

Most rolls I've seen are NOT on 2d20; typical is about 3. Yes, even if it means spending threat, my experience is players are going to roll at least as many d20's as the difficulty most of the time. Also, the adjustment for increasing threat range for extra help is retained... which prevents "Dogpile on the task" but also puts hard tasks more likely to generate massive piles of threat.

Also "7.5%" is wrong. It's 9.5% for base 2d20 rolls of 1 complication and 0.25% for 2 complications.

Running the numbers...
Code:
Base Complication range
	2d		3d		4d		5d	
0 c	361 = 90.25%	6859 = 85.74%	130321 = 81.45%	2476099 = 77.38%
1 c	 38 =  9.50%	1083 = 13.54%	 27436 = 17.15%	 651605 = 20.36%
2 c	  1 =  0.25%	  57 =  0.71%	  2166 =  1.35%	  68590 =  2.14%
3 c	  0 =  0.00%	   1 =  0.01%	    76 =  0.05%	   3610 =  0.11%
4 c	  0 =  0.00%	   0 =  0.00%	     1 =  0.00%	     95 =  0.00%
5 c	  0 =  0.00%	   0 =  0.00%	     0 =  0.00%	      1 =  0.00%

+1 Complication range
	____2d___	_____3d_____	_______4d______	_______5d_______	
0 c	324 = 81%	5832 = 72.9%	104976 = 65.61%	1889568 = 59.05
1 c	 72 = 18%	1944 = 24.3%	 46656 = 29.16%	1049760 = 32.81
2 c	  4 =  1%	 216 =  2.7%	  7776 =  4.86%	 233280 =  7.29
3 c	  0 =  0%	   8 =  0.1%	   576 =  0.36%	  25920 =  0.81
4 c	  0 =  0%	   0 =  0.00%	    16 =  0.01%	   1440 =  0.05
5 c	  0 =  0%	   0 =  0.00%	     0 =  0.00%      32 =  0.00   

+2 Complication range
	____2d______	_____3d_____	_______4d______	_______5d_______	
0 c	289 = 72.25%	4913 = 61.41%	83521 = 52.20%	1419857 = 44.37%
1 c	102 = 25.50%	2601 = 32.51%	58956 = 36.85%	1252815 = 39.15%
2 c	  9 =  2.25%	 459 =  5.74%	15606 =  9.75%	 442170 = 13.82%
3 c	  0 =  0.00%	  27 =  0.34%	 1836 =  1.15%	  78030 =  2.44%
4 c	  0 =  0.00%	   0 =  0.00%	   81 =  0.05%	   6885 =  0.22%
5 c	  0 =  0.00%	   0 =  0.00%	    0 =  0.00%	    243 =  0.01%  

+3 Complication range
	____2d______	_____3d______	______4d______	_______5d_______	
0 c	256 = 64.00%	4096 = 51.20%	65536 = 40.96%	1048576 = 32.77%
1 c	128 = 32.00%	3072 = 38.40%	65536 = 40.96%	1310720 = 40.96%
2 c	 16 =  4.00%	 768 =  9.60%	24576 = 15.36%	 655360 = 20.48%
3 c	  0 =  0.00%	  64 =  0.80%	 4096 =  2.56%	 163840 =  5.12%
4 c	  0 =  0.00%	   0 =  0.00%	  256 =  0.16%	  20480 =  0.64%
5 c	  0 =  0.00%	   0 =  0.00%	    0 =  0.00%	   1024 =  0.03%
Numbers worked out with a python script, percentages found by spreadsheet.
Code:
__author__ = 'wfh'

Die = [0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0, 0,1,1,1,1]
nDie = [0]
res = [0,0,0,0,0,0]
t = 0
print "a"
for a in Die:
    for b in Die:
        for c in nDie:
            for d in nDie:
                for e in nDie:
                    t = a+b+c+d+e
                    res[t] += 1
count = 0
for x in res:
    print x
(Yes, a brute force approach. But simple to code, and doesn't require one to understand the multi-dimensional formulae for figuring it out abstractly. The version up is set for 2d at +3 complication range.)

I've carefully reread the rules - the changes do not eliminate the issue at all; they don't address it at all. It's a stock issue with 2d20 as a system.

It's part of the issue WaterBob has with the 2d20 mechanics as well. It was self-evident to him (and me) from the Conan preview on.

Expanding the threat range to +3 gives more than 1/3 of rolls an additional complication.

From an "Angry DM" mode, it's a great way to discourage players quickly.

It's obvious to me that those who don't see it as an issue are not terribly perceptive - because the way the adding hazards works, it only takes 5 threat to kill off a PC in fairly short order... if you have more than that left, you have OBVIOUSLY not used the threat to it's maximum, and have thus given any success straight over the table... and for the perceptive and mathematically competent, that's clearly "I didn't actually accomplish it." It makes it ring hollow.

Might be accurate to the show that way, but it's not good gaming.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Except that, the fact that the chance of rolling a complication can vary based upon the number of dice in your pool (a) wasn't in dispute, (b) wasn't raised by anyone until you, and (c) has nothing to do with Aramis's points or mine. You didn't address my argument or bolster Aramis's point; you just attacked some theoretical argument I never made and wouldn't have had anything to do with Aramis's claim in the first place.

You didn't get the math right. It appears you don't know HOW to do the math.
 

I love Complications.
I like that you can both succeed on a task AND have something bad happen and that task resolution isn't binary. It's not just absolute success or absolute failure. I also like that about the FFG Star Wars games. (I've houseruled that into my D&D games as well.)

Complications can be as big or small as the situation warrants. They can prevent Tasks or just increase the difficulty. Or just cancel out some advantage.
 

The 2d20 system does suck blue donkey balls, but you can assume whatever you wish.
Cool story, bro.
Do you have anything RELEVANT to post?

Yeah, *you* don't like the system. That's nice. So don't play it. Easy.
But coming in here and crapping on the system is just edition warring and negative, and is completely and totally unnecessary. And unacceptable. It heads literally nothing to the discussion at hand, and just makes people angry and defensive. Plus, you didn't have to post your comments, so you literally went out of your way to come here and be negative.

Yeah, this is the "review thread asking for thoughts" but saying
is incredibly poor and not very useful feedback, offering no critcal analysis or discussion of the pros and cons.
 

(2) Rolling a complication is fairly rare, occurring only about 7.5% of the time on normal task. Rolling complications (or the GM having more threat) DOES NOT increase the chances of you rolling a complication in the future.
Anydice.com puts it at 9.75% for 2d20, 14.26% for 3d20, and 18.55% for 4d20.

So, pretty often. However, early in the game the GM is as likely to buy off the complication with Threat, letting that grow for later in the game and added tension.

While the GM can increase the range at which a complication is rolled, it doesn't require a complication or threat to do so and is, rules as written, designed to cover circumstances that make a situation more uncertain rather than more likely to fail, so it shouldn't be an overly common thing to do. "Snowball" used a verb implies that once you roll one complication, the PCs tend to roll more and more complications. That is quite simply not the case.
Agreed.
Threat builds, but it does so steadily over the session, not increasing exponentially as "snowballing" implies.
Multiple complications might increase the chance of failure (by increasing difficulty or removing advantages) but the rate complications and Threat is gained doesn't change.

Plus, the GM really is expected to be spending threat as the session goes on. That's how they "trigger" story events and cause moments of drama.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top