I've been GMing for a couple sessions now and I'm really starting to wonder why the rules seem to want all the character to seem like idiots.

Lets take my last session. Our Explorator with an int of 39 tries to use Tech Use to open an ordinary(+10) door. So he's got a 50/50 shot at opening a normal locked door. He fails. I put a -10 to the roll for retry and he tries again. Fails. Repeat. Finally puts his tools away and says the door is too tough for him. Looks like an idiot. "But it's a normal door like you've worked on all your life on the ship." "Yep, too tough for me. Just can't do it today."

Next, the rank 1 character with a stat of 35 and demolition skill(Press ganged origin I think) tries to set some explosives so they can open the door to get through. Setting explosives is once again Ordinary(+10) since he's got all the time in the world. He makes his roll(fails it), they retreat to a safe distance and the door doesn't go boom.

So far, with the rank one character all it seems like is a bumbling bunch of idiots and not humanities near best. (astartes are best. )

Thoughts? I'm don't want to just hand out +30's to everything just so the characters seem effective...

Thrantor said:

You don't need to make them tests for simple things. For instance, you don't need a drive test for a character who is routinely driving to his work on an agriworld... But you can ask him one if he is stressed, is chased, there is heavy rain, etc...

Even if the difficulty is routine or ordinary, you do not need to ask a test for something which has no consequences at all, or should be obvious from the beginning. Do you also ask them to make them Endurance checks to see if they remember to breath ?

Thrantor said:

I think I've found your problem - giving a penalty for a retry. When players are in combat and one misses an attack, do you automatically give them a penalty for trying again ?

No, you have them pay the cost of making the attempt (time and maybe ammo), then let them try again with no penalty. Time is the big cost, as it is what allows the enemies a chance to shoot back.

Why should non-combat tests be any different ?

Lets take this example again. The RAW says that a tech-use test takes 1 minute. If he fails, all it means is that he spent a minute of his time for no success. If he had 10 minutes to spend on it, then he would have enough time for 10 tests. His chance of failing them all would be .51^10 (.51 chance of failure, 10 attempts), which works out to him having a 0.1% chance of him not getting it open after 10 minutes of working at it.

There is also the issue of your modifier. Ordinary doesn't refer to how common the door is, it refers to how easy the task is. Opening a door should be trivial (+60) at worst as it is something he does regularly, unless there is something wrong like him needing an access code he doesn't have or damage to the door mechanism.

To be fair, giving negative modifiers for retries is a fairly standard rule in many RPGs. Lambasting him for giving a negative modifier because the player messed up the first time isn't really needed, since it's a perfectly valid thing to do.

Otherwise, yea, you don't use the item you are working with to dictate the difficulty, but the actual difficulty of the task. Plus, why would opening a door require a test? If it's locked and you're trying to break it down, or hack the keypad, or it's a key lock and you're trying to pick it, sure, then it'd be worth taking a test, but for a normal door? No, that's just silly.

MILLANDSON said:

I know it's done in other games, so I can see it continuing through habit. But that doesn't make it a good rule. What makes it a good idea ?

And why is combat an exception ?

To me it has always seemed like a rule that was put in place because of players who, realising that there is no downside to failing, would keep trying until they got the result they wanted combined with gms who couldn't figure out ways to stop it. It doesn't need to apply to combat because combat does come with downsides to failing - The guy you are trying to kill is still alive to try and kill you back.

Interestingly D&D 3.5 deals with this in the opposite way: If you have enough time (the example is 2 minutes for a one round action, a round is 6 seconds), no threats or distractions (the usual things to prevent someone trying until they get the result they want) and there are no penalties for failure, you get to resolve the test as if you rolled a 20* without needing to roll. Which means that this rule produces the same result as a player who keeps trying again, without the frustration of rolling over and over.

*For those not familiar with D&D, a 20 is the best possible roll on a skill test.

Thrantor said:

A. Your Explorator should have a combi-tool that gives him a +10. Comes with the starting character. Plus any skill bonuses or whatever. Also 39 INT for an Explorer is pretty low at start. Did you guys use die roll? You should strongly hint to the PC's to spend their first 500 XP on characteristic advancements, specifically the cheap ones (I know Explorer can get +10 INT for 350 XP easy)

B. With infinite time allowed, your character should succeed at the roll. I think it might have behooved you to make the difficulty modifier a bit easier than simply +0 Ordinary.

C. If your group is new, they may not be fully aware of all the awesome ways they can assist each other. Did anyone else have Skill: Tech-Use? They can assist the Explorator for +10. The Rogue Trader has Exceptional Leader. Anyone who can hear/see him can get a +10 on their roll for that turn. So those two + combi-tool bumps his +10 to a +40

D: Presumably, Demolitions should be used for controlled explosions. A simple melta bomb strapped to the door should get it open if it's not a ridiculously powerful security door. It's messy, but it would do the job.

Hehe... Sorry, I didn't specify. A locked door. Trying to break into some quarters that had had it's door controls banged up.

(Out of combat for rest of discussion. Yeah, combat has it's own penalties for "retries".)

And the idea of no penalties for retries isn't a bad thing but when do you throw up your hands and say "FINE! You did the thing even though it's a 5% chance and you've been taking all day." Might as well skip the dice rolling and just let them succeed instead of watching them roll and roll and roll. When do you say "Ok, you can't crack the door. Go get a las cutter."? To me, the penalty to retry helps to stop people from trying and trying and trying and basically says "Ok, you've mucked with it enough that you've screwed something up. Move on to another tactic." Course, you could just say "ok, third time you broke the thing. try something else."

True, I left out the combi tool because he had one but the bonus was secondary to the discussion of a target # of 49 for "ordinary" tests.

I might just be stuck on semantics though... Maybe "ordinary" should be easy or really easy.

So far it just seems like most of the PC's are seeing more like bumbling clods than real explorers.

But I'm still exploring the system and so are they. I'm going to allow a full character rebuild at the end of the intro area so that people can redo stats and skills if they want to. That way they can take what they've learned and create a character they like better or fits the role better.

Such as the Explorator having a higher int.

Edit: Thanks fortinbras. Those are definitely things to think about. I'll bring them up next game. There is very little overlap between characters right now. Astropath, Navigator and Explorator. Nobody else has tech use. But a good idea and something for the future.

Although, not sure I agree with infinite rerolls they should succeed. Eventually, I'd say they should move on and try another tactic. Las cutter, melta bomb(they sadly aren't that well equiped right now), acid, going in through the vents... etc.

That's an incredibly imbalanced party. They at least need a Rogue Trader NPC captain helping them out with some direction, if not actually being there himself. Also a Seneschal NPC.

Also: Why would a Astropath Transcendent/Navigator have Demolitions skill?

Finally: There should always be a narrative "out" for the players in the back of the GM's mind. This is not only because creative players tend to do things that aren't written into the script of a pre-made adventure (blow open a hole in the building's side instead of fighting your way out, suddenly the GM is ummming and scrambling for his papers), but also because sometimes really bad luck occurs. This can be anything from exacting a heavier price from the players for success (I.E. - Melta Bomb, but unwanted attention is attracted), or something similar (your Psyker blows open the door with his mind but a lesser daemon appears).

>>And the idea of no penalties for retries isn't a bad thing but when do you throw up your hands and say "FINE! You did the thing even though it's a 5% chance and you've been taking all day."

Keep them rolling till they succeed.

>>Might as well skip the dice rolling and just let them succeed instead of watching them roll and roll and roll. When do you say "Ok, you can't crack the door. Go get a las cutter."?

That would be for the other players to decide. Make sure they know how much time each attempt takes and have them roleplay getting impatient.

>>To me, the penalty to retry helps to stop people from trying and trying and trying and basically says "Ok, you've mucked with it enough that you've screwed something up. Move on to another tactic." Course, you could just say "ok, third time you broke the thing. try something else."

Or you could wait until they roll badly (4+ degrees of failure) and say that their bad roll caused them to break something. Or a bad roll could make the character think that it is beyond them.

>>I might just be stuck on semantics though... Maybe "ordinary" should be easy or really easy.

The text beside the modifier refers to the difficulty of the task, not how common the item being worked on is.

>>So far it just seems like most of the PC's are seeing more like bumbling clods than real explorers.

That would be an issue if you don't allow them to try again.

Well I do think that the OP got a good point. My crew got some tedious problems. They have to often test for skills they don't have. Because some pretty basic skills only come at high levels.

Now for a game like DH, this is not a problem. At lower levels they are just muppets and you do not have great expectations of them. A RT and his cadre however.You expect them to be reasonably competent in things

Sister Callidia said:

I had this problem with DH and opted to start out my RT group at 14,000 xp (1,000 xp into Rank 4) to make sure that most characters had a broad skill set. This starting point still gives the characters plenty of room to grow within the RT xp range.

It depends on how narrow or broad your group is. A group of 8 players will have most skills covered starting at rank 1. Obviously if you only have 3 players, and they're all combat archetypes you're going to run into problems.

Fortinbras said:

In which case then the GM should probably run a more combat-based game, otherwise the fault is with the GM for running a game not designed for the characters.

Well, it's also an issue of complexity and/or goals. If you're trying to run a pre-made grand adventure module right out of the box at rank 1, you'll probably run into problems. My personal opinion is that the first 6-8 sessions should probably be spent "building up" PF if you start with low PF, or perhaps doing a favor for House Krin or some other important organization in order to purchase a cruiser if you have high PF but low SP. These favors shouldn't be very complex, but they should require some serious application of force or negotiation to solve some problems. Meanwhile the whole time your characters are ascending into rank 2 with their accumulated XP and starting to fill out their characteristics/advancements.

If you are not familiar with running the 40K RPG system handling skill tests can be confusing. Skills in the 40K games are meant to be less restrictive than DnD. A skill test difficulty can range from Trivial + 60 to Hellish – 60, the chart is located on page 232 of the RT core book. An ordinary test, as you stated, is listed as a +10, Challenging tests are at +0. If there are no repercussions for failure (time restricted, under fire, security patrol, etc.), why have the players make a test at all?

The Explorator in your example had a 39 Int, an ordinary +10 test, and a Combi Tool +10 for a target of 59. That 59 should be easy enough to hit, but if it is missed, maybe have the player make Common Lore Tech test to see if he can recognize the pattern of the door lock. If he makes the test give him a retry, for every 2 DoS he gets give him a +10 to the next Tech use test to repair the door, if he bombs the test, he doesn't recognize the pattern of the lock and must retest at a – 10 penalty. If he gains a penalty and still can't bypass the lock, allow a CL Machine Cult test to see if he can remember the proper prayer to appease the machine spirit of the door that he has angered to reduce the penalty. These are all options just for the one character, there are lots of other ways to get around the situation with other characters. Just try to be flexible and things should work themselves out.

I find the simplest way to resolve this is to use the skill check not as a method of resolving whether they succeed at something, but how well they manage it. Any Explorator worth his mechadendrites is going to be able to override a simple electronic lock, but a talented one will manage to do it without activating alarms or causing damage to the door itself whereas a hurried or less-skilled techpriest will be forced to do a bodge-job, cutting through panels and not following the proper rites to appease the machine spirit within the system.

Sister Callidia said:

Just remember that for RT, the players start with a ship that has thousands of crew. Most of the time when the PCs don't have a skill, there will be someone else aboard the ship who does have it. The only question is: Did they remember to bring him/her along ?

To keep it simple, I'd suggest using the crew rating for the characteristic + ranks in skill value.

Bilateralrope said:

Hehe... I'm glad you mention that... They bought the crew quality DOWN a level... So the base crew is only 20s. Yeesh. Anything they had to crew goes badly. Pilot the guncutter through the jagged remains of a hangar door.. CLANG! BANG! Shoot at the nasties running at the guncutter... MISS! FAIL! WIFF!

Errant, I like that idea. Good way to look at it.

ItsUncertainWho: Thanks, that also works. I like the idea of using other skills to provide more flavor to the encounter. Also provides another good reason to have the common lore skills. That's also something I hadn't thought of. Very helpful.

Fortinbras: I'm actually running a homemade intro to the game. They are "trapped" in a single solar system(until the warp storms settle down) and I'm running a series of adventures that will culminate with the warp storms settling and "freeing" the characters to go about what they want. But the series of adventures are basically just ways to get used to the rule systems for all of us. The last session was a combat/Investigation mission. The next one will be a minor endeavor so that we get used to the endeavor rules. Then I'm going to have a ship combat which will be the dramatic opening of the warp storms.

So far the players are loving it except for the feeling that they really think their characters feel like mooks. I'm trying to find way to fix that. Tools + assisting other players + figuring out the correct difficulty for tasks. It's a learning experience for us all.

I'm interested to see how or if the players take my offer to redesign their characters now that they know where the points might be better spent.

Remember also to only roll the dice if you want them to possibly fail, or need to determine how good a job they did. If you just wanted them to get through the door you say "Explorer, you skillfuly crack the door combination, the party member sneak inside."

My team is very very good doing things that are part of their job. With all the modifiers due to skills, equipment etc they easily crank up 80%+ on challenging tests. However, they absolutely cannot do things outside of their skillset. Things like Exploring or even Scrutiny. I would have liked them to be less superb in a few skills but more diverse in the rest. From a diverse team of 4 you would expect most of the basics to be covered.

I was thinking of instead of rolling for stats to do a point allocation for them to do starting stats (then adding a few points to the overall mix and then doing a max of 30 instead of 20 per stat.) This way a starting max for a stat would be 55 instead of 45. It's not much, but it does mean that more of their stats will be higher at the start. Then a master skilled roll at the start of the game could be 75. It's a bit of a boost to throw characters right into the mix of things and then as they progress to be able to seem like the larger than life characters that are in the novels.

Sister Callidia said:

I very much agree with this. There are several skills which you'd expect a RT and his retinue to have that are actually quite hard to come by for most classes. Scrutiny is one such skill: a RT only gets it at rank 3, so right up to that rank he has no clue whatsoever whether or not people are lying to him. Unless he knows for a fact that something they're saying is in contradiction with the truth, and even then it's easy enough for a competent lyer to bull your way out of it.

Common Lore (Imperium) is another such skill which you'd expect most of those on the RT senior officer cadre (his pc's in other words) to have. And yet oddly enough there are even classes which can't get it at all (Explorators for example oddly enough can get CL Imperial Guard, but not CL Imperium).

There is of course always the balancing factor of the gm and how difficult he makes things for the party. But even so, i find that there are far to many basic skills that are simply to hard to get until you are rank 4 or higher. In fact: if you make your characters in DH and then convert them to RT they'll have less of the nifty talents like paranoid, but they'll have more basic skills. It always struck me as very odd that you can start with 5k xp and some nice talents, but you can't know your way around a simple cogitator, dodge at a basic level or know when one of the ratings is lying his arse of to your face.

As ItsUncertainWho mentioned, the ease/difficulty modifiers are more or less the solution and dont forget that a lot of skills can be done untrained to some extent. So while Derp the Rating might be BS'ing the Rogue Trader who doesn't have Scrutiny, chances are the RT isn't anyone's mug and can default at half his (Perception) stat level, there's also a pretty good chance Derp doesn't have Decieve skill, so he's also at his (much lower Fellowship) default of half stat. Rolls like that tend to be a bit of pot luck and not just a case of who sucks, but who sucks the most

But it is a problem at the lower levels that PC's essentially dont know jack **** and if you're in a small group, they probably also dont have a lot of overlap of skills so they can Assist (+10!) each other. We've found in the past that a good core group seems to consist of a Rogue Trader, Seneshal and Navis will get you through some of the more complicated aspects of the game, like acquisitions, information gathering, influence and warp travel... the other slightly more dumb aspects like beating the crap out of people you can bog up a little bit by padding things out with hirelings with guns.

Just while I'm here, anyone come up with a relatively sensible skill for using Augers on the ship? Scrutiny is basically only a skill two classes get at lower levels under rank 3? I was thinking either Search or Tech Use, but both of those are also scarce!

Honestly, i don't see why it's not Awareness. It's basically looking at a screen to see if bleeps come up and if they do the ships cogitators should automatically process the feedback the augers get in order to identify it as best as they can. I'd give anyone not used to it a -20, but after a bit of training (and at least four or even five classes could be assumed to be trained at it: RT, Seneschal, Navigator, Tech-Priest, Void-Master) it should make the augers usable.

Badlapje said:

I think of it more like submarine warfare. It's all about being able to predict movement and speed changes based on how the enemy is moving currently and how any records you may have from previous encounters predict they will move.