I know you're thinking about the TARGET thing, but I would like to know this cause I might wanna use it this mission
Low-Pass muffling and then fullrange amplification. muffled and louder at the same time
I also imagined a GK roll between missions like that - it would represent time spent actually researching about a topic or learning some new skill/craft/whatever. Meanwhile, on-mission GK rolls should be more about random blurbs of knowledge and minor abilities you may or may not know for whatever reason. As you said, I don't really think that major skills like kung fu should simply be conjurable out of nowhere mid-mission. At the very least, you should have some sort of justification for possibly knowing the skill ("my bio says that I'm from a world where everyone has to learn kung-fu at school" should, for example, be a valid reason IMO) and even then the GK roll should have a penalty, the magnitude of the penalty depending on how major the skill/knowledge/expertise is (saying "Check if I know some basic newtonian physics" should incur a far smaller penalty than "Check if I know the how to build a ship from scratch."). The penalty could be modified(increased or decreased) or possibly even removed altogether depending on how well it fits with your bio (if your bio states that you were a quantum physicist for 30 years, it would actually make sense for you to have knowledge of quantum physics even though it's a relatively hard and unusual skill. On the other, some petty criminal from a backwater mining world should have a huge penalty to knowing the skill, basically making it nigh-impossible to actually succeed the GK roll unless your GK is really high and you get really lucky). This kind of 'background' skill modifier shouldn't be applied when between missions, since you're simply learning a skill, rather than checking whether your background makes it likely for you to have the skill and so it would be inherently easier to succeed GK rolls when off-mission than when on-mission. Hence, you could have both on-mission and off-mission GK rolls, and they would be relatively balanced (on-mission GK rolls would be more flexible and useful to the situation immediately at hand, but harder, while off-mission GK rolls would be easier, but you can't really know for certain how useful the skill is going to end up being)Talvieno wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:06 amYes, you can do intuition rolls for things like that. I try to answer those between turns already, provided I catch them. I don't always. Sometimes they can be hard to pick out in a sea of text unless I'm alerted to it.
I'm also of the opinion that GK rolls should be doable between turns. However, I've been debating on whether or not they should be doable in-between missions. In-between missions sounds like it makes much more sense from a story standpoint - doing it that way, it's things that you learn, or don't learn, while you're not on call, so to speak. You'd get a set number of GK rolls between missions, something like 3-6, not sure exactly how many, and then (after leveling) you could use them trying to learn things.
As I recall, though, there was some opposition to this idea because people wanted to be able to "learn things" "in the moment" rather than "naturally"- like the REKT in-joke "Oh yeah, I forgot, I know kung-fu!"
I like the idea that you can try to learn something but fail at it. It means you're more likely to save cool things for much later. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the possibility of penalty from failure is necessary, and GK will not work at all unless there is a chance you can get some sort of penalty from failed GK rolls. HOWEVER, I also think you ought to be able to make later attempts to learn things. In real life, if you can't pick something up right away, you can go back to it later and try to learn it again. How much later? I'm thinking, after a failure, 1d3 missions later.Dinosawer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:59 amChiming in to say I do quite like the idea of being able to learn things between missions.
(Disclaimer: partly because I would like to be able to use parkour again because it was mighty fun, and I don't like whether or not that is possible depending on 1 dice roll )
Yeah, I can't see anyone giving up leveling in REKT. Doing so would put you at a disadvantage almost certainly. Even an ability such as "You succeed with all ranged infantry attacks made while your target is out of cover", while overpowered in itself, would probably not be enough for someone to give up leveling. And even if they did, it's almost too overpowered to have in the game.Dinosawer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:59 amVaguely relatedly, DnD has a similar thing - instead of levelling stats, you can choose to pick a so called feat, which grants you abilities or benefits (things like no disadvantage when attacking at very long range, being better at dual wielding, etc.)
Though, in DnD a stat increase doesn't happen a lot and is not as important as in REKT, so I wouldn't just adopt that system - an ability in REKT would have to be really good for someone to be willing to give up levelling, so Tal's idea seems better.
No. No, that won't work for a variety of reasons. However, what you could do is say:Dinosawer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:59 amMaybe it could be done in such a way that you do the rolls before we pick what we learn, and the result of the roll then determines how may things we can learn and how well we could learn them - say you tell me I got a 2, a 4 and a 5.
I then choose to learn nothing (2, failure), some basic Hiltorel (4, partial success), and parkour (5, success).
That way GK would mean being able to learn more things on average, without what you learn being completely random, which makes developing a character better, I think...
Just thinking out loud