Dice Modifiers

[BlueCyberWolf]

Do you have to apply dice modifiers to your roll? A good example of this would be rolling for a skill on a career table, and the roll without DMs would give me the skill I want, but if I have a DM+2 do I have to add it and take that skill instead? I'm asking in context to RAW and not a house rule. or game master's decision.

 

[Limpin Legin]

I would add the DM to the die roll after the roll had been made,

then perform the check.​

​

RAW doesn't say you can perform a check after a die roll, then discard the DM - does it? .

 

[Arkathan]

Need more context, because none of the MgT2e career paths in the Core book have skill tables that go above 6.
Are you looking at mustering out tables?
In any case, any decisions made about optional DM's need to be made prior to rolling the die/dice.

 

[Limpin Legin]

Potentially, skills and characteristics get a bit cloudy whether you are using them in a check or changing them as part of career development. Eg:
END 6+ is a characteristic check of 6+ with END as DM.
END +1 is a characteristic increment of +1 to END.
Streetwise 1 is assign Streetwise skill to level 1.
Streetwise appears to be increment Streetwise skill.

 

[BlueCyberWolf]

@Limpmin Legin - No, RAW does not state whether you can discard the DM (if it is positive; I would say you could not discard the DM for a negative).

@Arkathan - No, I was talking about the "Skills and Training" tables. I've gone back and looked at the tables for the careers and they are either 1 through 6 or 2 through 12, so then under the subtitle Career it states DMs are not used through the career paths. The only exception to the dice roll is the "Mustering Out Benefits" (1 through 7), as you stated. I think the method you described, announcing if you do not intend to use DMs on the table before rolling, is a valid method to use.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Anstett]

Very much not RAW but we use Luck (from the Companion) and I allow my players to spend a point during character discovery to move up or down on the mustering out tables if they want.

 

[BlueCyberWolf]

Nice. Well worth noting. Thank you @Anstett

 

[CordwainerFish]

Very much not RAW but we use Luck (from the Companion) and I allow my players to spend a point during character discovery to move up or down on the mustering out tables if they want.

I've mulled the idea of "one point for a mulligan, two points to call a die" myself.

 

[J. L. Brown]

I do not believe that favorable DMs are mandatory, but I cannot cite a specific reference right now.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Other than Rule Zero, I didn't realize that any DMs were really optional, outside of using optional rules and such.

 

[Arkathan]

Skilled at gaming.
Your adversary is a notoriously bad sport.
You are advised to let the wookie win.
Do you voluntarily neglect to use your positive DM's for skill and Intelligence?

 

[Limpin Legin]

Skilled at gaming.
Your adversary is a notoriously bad sport.
You are advised to let the wookie win.
Do you voluntarily neglect to use your positive DM's for skill and Intelligence?

"Letting your opponent win" shouldn't require a skill check. From the CRB:

Most actions undertaken by Travellers do not require a skill check. A Traveller does not have to make an Athletics check to run through a forest or Electronics (computers) to access information from their ship’s library. Some actions will require the Traveller to have a particular skill but will still not require a check. A Traveller with Flyer 0, for example, can fly an air/raft under normal conditions without having to make a check.

The referee should only call for checks when:

• The Travellers are in danger.
• The task is especially difficult or hazardous.
• The Travellers are under the pressure of time.
• Success or failure is especially important or interesting.

Under those rules, "letting your opponent win" unequivocally points to "success is unimportant". Hence, not even a die roll is necessary.

 

[Condottiere]

Favourable outcomes.

If letting the Wookie win is a (more) favourable outcome for you, than that could count as a success.

 

[Limpin Legin]

Letting the Wookie win would only be an informal rendition of the rules. The actual formal rule consulted is Task Check (skill-based or characteristic-based). In a Task Check, "success" is defined as performing the task well. So, formally rendering the rules, letting the Wookie win would be equivalent to failing the Task Check (ie., not succeeding in performing the Task Check well) .

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you can ignore +DMs to get what you want can you do the same with -DM?

I would say DMs once generated have to apply to the roll, for good or ill.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Letting the Wookie win would only be an informal rendition of the rules. The actual formal rule consulted is Task Check (skill-based or characteristic-based). In a Task Check, "success" is defined as performing the task well. So, formally rendering the rules, letting the Wookie win would be equivalent to failing the Task Check (ie., not succeeding in performing the Task Check well) .

By this logic all a character has to do to beat a chess grandmaster at chess, is strive to lose and then fail the roll. That makes no sense. That means that in the future if I want to complete an Impossible Difficulty task, all I have to do is state My intention to fail, and then roll to fail. Once I have failed to fail, I win. Not a good precedent for a rules system.

If you aim to lose, then "performing your task well", would be losing the game. Or succeeding by failing upwards.

 

[Limpin Legin]

By this logic all a character has to do to beat a chess grandmaster at chess, is strive to lose and then fail the roll. That makes no sense. That means that in the future if I want to complete an Impossible Difficulty task, all I have to do is state My intention to fail, and then roll to fail. Once I have failed to fail, I win. Not a good precedent for a rules system.

If you aim to lose, then "performing your task well", would be losing the game. Or succeeding by failing upwards.

Thanks for your reply. However, it wasn't me who suggested "failure implies success" (or words to that effect). I was merely refuting that suggestion from the quote. Read again if you can.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Thanks for your reply. However, it wasn't me who suggested "failure implies success" (or words to that effect). I was merely refuting that suggestion from the quote. Read again if you can.

If succeeding at a task check is "performing the task well" and your "task" is to lose the game of dejarik, then success on your roll means losing the dejarik game. Yes?

 

[Limpin Legin]

Hmmm. That would be an interesting informal interpretation. However, I imagine that the formal rules of dejarik would say the "task/aim" is to win. But maybe it doesn't. However CRB says a task check is "performing the task well" like "performing the task in the spirit/aim of winning ... dejarik (or whatever the task.)"

If there is a hidden agenda to subvert (or deliberately fumble) that from happening, that is another sub-task. But you couldn't achieve that without initiating a game of dejarik first. Unless you fake absence through injury, I suppose. But "absence" implies missing from "the right thing to do" - doesn't it?

 

[Arkathan]

Letting the Wookie win would only be an informal rendition of the rules. The actual formal rule consulted is Task Check (skill-based or characteristic-based). In a Task Check, "success" is defined as performing the task well. So, formally rendering the rules, letting the Wookie win would be equivalent to failing the Task Check (ie., not succeeding in performing the Task Check well) .

That would depend on the wookie not caring that you let it win. If you had to appear to play the game well, the roll is necessary.
Edit. Didn't see MG's post before writing.