I'm sorry, I don't understand what boons and banes have to do with this at all. They aren't mentioned in this section of the book... I think I did a poor job of asking my question and tried to reword it and edited my original post.
How is Working Together supposed to work?
- Thread starter amjxt9
- Start date
Yes that definitely helps! Is there somewhere in the book that specifies this? Because the section I quoted does not say that.thanks!
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
They ARE mentioned in that section of the book, Skills and Tasks. Having an assistant, who actually helps (competent aid), is a boon.
Pg 61 vs pg 63.
The example of the door is one better suited to a boon for a standard or moderately difficult check, although if you want or need a bonus to reach the target, then the task chain is a way of achieving that. And as Rinku pointed out, the helper in the task is rolling against an 8.
Yeah it talks about boons and ban a bit not within task chains section. Yes I greatly appreciate Rinkus input about the TN 8, but where does it say that in the book? Or is it just implied?
8+ (average diffiuculty) is always the default target unless otherwise mentioned.
The mention of boons and banes was a bit of a side issue. They might always apply, but always at the discretion of the Referee. GENERALLY they should not be used instead of other modifiers, but are always there as a tool for Referee if the situation warrants it. For example, if adding further penalties would make a target number impossible to roll, but you want to leave the character some small chance of success.
Conversely, the Referee might prefer the Task Chain option for the group task because it IS more likely to succeed.
And... you can use both. Task chain to give a higher success chance and a Bane because the ship they're in has the gravity off and is trying to avoid enemy fire...
The mention of boons and banes was a bit of a side issue. They might always apply, but always at the discretion of the Referee. GENERALLY they should not be used instead of other modifiers, but are always there as a tool for Referee if the situation warrants it. For example, if adding further penalties would make a target number impossible to roll, but you want to leave the character some small chance of success.
Conversely, the Referee might prefer the Task Chain option for the group task because it IS more likely to succeed.
And... you can use both. Task chain to give a higher success chance and a Bane because the ship they're in has the gravity off and is trying to avoid enemy fire...
Last edited:
Yes but that is a general roll, I mean does the book specifically say that when a character is rolling to assist another character, the assist roll is made at a TN 8 instead of the TN assigned to the original task?
Yeah I guess, I'm just overthinking it
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
Yes. Because it is a Check without an otherwise stated target.
Yep I guess I was just overthinking it. Thanks for your input!
The key benefit would be flattening the probability curve. A single character making the roll either passes or fails. With more than one a marginal success by one can be turned into a complete success by another. If everyone has less than evens chance of achieving the task then everyone pitching in is more likely to slew the result to the expected outcome per the probability and the group would tend to fail. In this case you might prefer to have only one sucky person try as they might fluke it, but all of them are not going to fluke it. If the group you are involving each have a better than evens chance then the reverse is true. One person might bunt it, but not everyone will and the others will drag the result up.
Where it goes wrong is where players with no appropriate skill insist on having a go, even with their -3 and muck up the outcome for the rest (because... players).
Whether it is a good idea in any particular situation is a stats question and you'll need to do the maths based on the chance of each individual succeeding and aggregating the probabilities together. You may not feel it is worth the trouble, but the rule of thumb above will work in general.
This is quite realistic. If you consider 5 people who all attempt a particular knotty problem. Three of them think the answer is "yes" and two think it is "no". With nothing else to go on, the group answer will likely be the answer is "yes" as that was the conclusion of the majority. If the three people happen to be the ones who understood the problem then the overall answer will be the right answer. If the three people happen to be the ones who misunderstood the problem then the group answer will be wrong.
Sensible characters will refuse the help of characters who don't know what they are talking about as they will only cloud the issue and as reality shows tell us can sway the group in completely the wrong direction through misplaced confidence.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
It depends if the result is physical or theoretical.
If theoretical, you can have everyone keep throwing stuff at the wall, until something sticks, without consequence, except in terms of time spent.
If it's physical, you might break something.
If theoretical, you can have everyone keep throwing stuff at the wall, until something sticks, without consequence, except in terms of time spent.
If it's physical, you might break something.
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
If it is theoretical, you might get communication breakdown which in turn might mean differing factions are established. Each faction would have different idea about how working together should happen.
If it theoretical you may never discover if you were right or not. If you thought you were right, you wouldn't keep trying.
With some things you will know you got it wrong (when it breaks for example) so in some ways that might be better. You know when you put the car in the wrong gear by the awful crunching noise allowing you to correct. Vote for the wrong politician and you may only find out when you are jailed as a dissident.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
In theory, and practice, there is no democracy onboard a ship.
However, and I want to use the astrogation example of having all the untrained, unoccupied, crew members having a go at calculating the jump.
Separately, the results are compared individually, and the ship's master gets the to decide whether to go by the majority result, or use his gut instinct to figure out which one is most likely correct.
If it's done as a collective task, you might want more post graduate degree holders doing it.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
It would depend on the task.
And, let's call him the final decider, has to look at the results, and with a mixture of intuition and past experience, guess which answer is most likely correct.
Or, more correct.
While I agree they should be used liberally, A situation like in the original post really is the perfect time to use them. I had a group trying to lift a ruined vehicle that had somehow ended up on top of an NPC. I set the task at difficult, but allowed an extra die (ie. multiple boon dice) per person helping out. Only catch is keeping track of when you use them to keep consistency.
A task such as solving a riddle is probably best resolved as all the characters making individual attempts at it until one succeeds. That example is also a repeatable task.
The group task chain mechanic should probably be reserved for tasks where there is a clear person-performing-the-task-with-assistance situation. Forcing a door probably isn't ideal as the example - I would suggest a surgeon who has theatre assistants might be a better example.
There are several ways for characters to work together. Which one is appropriate defends on the nature of the task, but also affects time taken.
1) Any success completes the task, such as trying to hit a bullseye, or winning a foot race. All characters make individual task rolls, which might be simultaneous or sequential (if simultaneous, fastest success wins). Failure usually has no effect. May be done as opposed rolls if the characters are in opposition. Time taken is that of the winner.
2) Every check adds a result but do not combine, such as gathering rumours. Again, every character makes individual task checks - may need secret rolls. Failures may result in false information or the illusion that the job was successful. Time taken is that of the slowest.
3) Task Chains. Each character must complete their job before the next one starts, such as calculating an Astrogation plot for the Engineer to use in the Jump task. May or may not require absolute success before the next task can be done. For example, failure of Deception to forge a document would result in a dubious document that would hinder a subsequent Admin task to use it, but would at least allow the Admin task to be done. Time taken is the sum of all task times.
4) Group tasks with a leader and helpers, such as a Head Engineer repairing a Jump Drive with assistance from their subordinates. Task chain rule is used to work out the assistants' modifiers to the Head Engineer roll. Time taken is just rolled once for the group.
I could have sworn there was a fifth way to do it, where the Referee assigns a target number and you use the effect of each check towards that total, such as moving cargo under time pressure. That's not strictly speaking a group task as an individual can do it, but may be suitable for a group to participate in. I can't find it anywhere, but I may be thinking of a rule from a previous edition... but I also can't see why that mechanic wouldn't be a good way to model those sorts of tasks. I guess combat is sort of this kind of task, but without a simple task completion target.
The group task chain mechanic should probably be reserved for tasks where there is a clear person-performing-the-task-with-assistance situation. Forcing a door probably isn't ideal as the example - I would suggest a surgeon who has theatre assistants might be a better example.
There are several ways for characters to work together. Which one is appropriate defends on the nature of the task, but also affects time taken.
1) Any success completes the task, such as trying to hit a bullseye, or winning a foot race. All characters make individual task rolls, which might be simultaneous or sequential (if simultaneous, fastest success wins). Failure usually has no effect. May be done as opposed rolls if the characters are in opposition. Time taken is that of the winner.
2) Every check adds a result but do not combine, such as gathering rumours. Again, every character makes individual task checks - may need secret rolls. Failures may result in false information or the illusion that the job was successful. Time taken is that of the slowest.
3) Task Chains. Each character must complete their job before the next one starts, such as calculating an Astrogation plot for the Engineer to use in the Jump task. May or may not require absolute success before the next task can be done. For example, failure of Deception to forge a document would result in a dubious document that would hinder a subsequent Admin task to use it, but would at least allow the Admin task to be done. Time taken is the sum of all task times.
4) Group tasks with a leader and helpers, such as a Head Engineer repairing a Jump Drive with assistance from their subordinates. Task chain rule is used to work out the assistants' modifiers to the Head Engineer roll. Time taken is just rolled once for the group.
I could have sworn there was a fifth way to do it, where the Referee assigns a target number and you use the effect of each check towards that total, such as moving cargo under time pressure. That's not strictly speaking a group task as an individual can do it, but may be suitable for a group to participate in. I can't find it anywhere, but I may be thinking of a rule from a previous edition... but I also can't see why that mechanic wouldn't be a good way to model those sorts of tasks. I guess combat is sort of this kind of task, but without a simple task completion target.
Similar threads
