Co-Operative Actions

[Mataxes]

[Banjo666]

[Telarus_KSC]

[Banjo666]

[thezombiekat]

The point as I see it is that no system has ever implemented cooperative rules in a truly satisfying manner.

While they work adequately on the party scale, breaking down a door or doing some research. They always break down at several points, the first being situations where assistance doesn’t make sense, every system I had ever seen lets the GM make a call, the second being major projects where it would be normal to have hundreds of assistants (the building of a castle or a large ship). The examples given all resulted in very few people being used on these projects, more than the 1 in the earth dawn RAW but still very few. D&D3.5 and other open ended systems result in the check being made with bonuses far exceeding the possible skill. I have never seen a set of general cooperative skill rules that could adequately deal with these situations

[arma]

[The_Gun_Nut]

It even goes so far as to suggest that large actions (for example, the building and enchanting of an airship) are not one, but many individual rolls to determine success. In that way, multiple characters can help with the work because there are a large number of rolls needed, and thus many hands that can make those rolls.

Enchanting, IMO, works just as intended. With the exception of common magic items and template threaded items (which are so simple that no further adjucation is needed), magic items are each so unique and varied that cooperation between the GM and the player is required in order to make a unique and interesting history for the item. It's this level of cooperation that makes the enchanting system so much more fun than the overly simplified "plug and play" style that other game systems use.

[Telarus_KSC]

Right, you have to go up one "abstraction" level in the system.

The downside of this is that players don't have a sense of consistency provided by the other detailed rules situations, like combat (unless the GM works to provide one, and hey, we're all human). Without that repeatability/explicit-mechanics, the player's risk assessment gets difficult (some-times game-breakingly frustratingly hard... I've seen it happen with other systems). So that's a fair observation about the ED system, but I disagree that we've been antagonistic, Banjo. Many players and GMs which have been playing for close to 2 decades have simply adapted, and rely on their GM to cover those situations. That's the way they house-ruled the situation.

But nobody's saying it's the "best way". I'd like to see some mechanics, too (I like toying with the Step System, tho).

We NEED example situations tho.


How's this one. I (say, a 5th circle Merchant character) want to convince Queen Alachia (who has found me trading with the elven troops stationed @ Eidolon) to publicly open Blood-wood trade through Fort Eidolon (to get me off the hook and as a possible business deal).

Let's say that as part of this the GM has me as a "guest of the court" with an assigned Blood Warder, but otherwise free reign to make connections. The GM runs me through some social scenes, maybe some combat sparring challenges, etc to win favor and supporters.

Queen Alacia is a 12th Circle Troubadour and also multi disciplined into Illusionist and Elementalist. Her CHA is Step 11, Social Defense 19 (because of the Discipline bonuses, +4 for a 12th Circle Troubadour). Even socially sparring with her at court is a Very Hard task for a Journeyman-status character (Difficulty Number Table, GM Guide, p.89). So I definitely want the assistance from members of the Court.

But wait, it don't stop there. This is a Large Favor I'm asking, so checking the Favor table I see that my Result Level that I actually need is based on the Relationship between Alachia and my Merchant. If Unfriendly, I need an Extraordinary success (37+), if Neutral, an Excellent success(33+), and if Friendly, a Good success(28+).


As a GM, I now know that I can shift the Result Level needed if the character changes how Alachia feels about him directly (or offers to trade favors, as the social rules lay out). I can also give bonuses as a Modifier if he acquires support from the Court. Let's say the GM allows a Trading Roll (CHA 6 + rank 5 = Step 11) to convince Alacia, and the character has already rolled a Good success on Assess Community (+1 bonus on negotiations per result level).

So the character is currently rolling Step 11 + d6 Karma + 2 (which is roughly Step 17).

And now we're in to unknown territory. We can default "up" one level again, and run the scenes asking for support as mini-Favors... but what does that do to the final Test to see if Alachia is open to the idea?

It's entirely in the GM's hands.

What kind of rules would you like to see in that situation?

Can you think of other concrete examples that we can try to find a pattern between?

[Oooh, Ninja'd by The_Gun_Nut... Enchanting is another great example.]

[Banjo666]

I would like to apologise for the tone of my reply yesterday, just a bit of frustration showing through

[Banjo666]