Return to “REKT”

Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#826
Dinosawer wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:30 am
Cha0zz, your post seems to imply you misunderstood slightly - it's not a boost to charisma, it's a boost to charisma rolls in some specific circumstances. (Just like parkour was a boost to maneuv, but only when doing parkour)
(if I misunderstood, disregard this :ghost: )
I know but the example that talvieno used seems to be a large part of the charisma rolls (ie all charisma rolls against hostiles + against friendlies that don't really like you), on top of that the debuf I propose to counter it when having a bad dice roll would also only apply on the same specific circumstances.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#827
Dinosawer wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:39 pm
I like this :D well, except maybe that -1, 0 or 1 GK doesn't matter for the amount of things you can try to learn...butt I like the rest :)
The stats are actually based on a probabilistic curve relating to how many skill points you spend on General Knowledge and how early you're theoretically able to reach each level if you were to never level anything but that - which is a curve that naturally accelerates things as you get higher into skills/stats. It may look like you "don't gain any benefit" from leveling to +1 from 0, but in reality, it makes you significantly more likely to succeed. Skill levels -1, 0, and +1 are all fairly easy to get right from the beginning and only really represent, in most cases, you choosing to get that stat to start with. Naturally things begin to increase rapidly past +2, because it shows you invested a good deal of time in it (which is also why +2 is a larger increase: it shows that you cared to invest significantly in GK right at the start of the game, or that you actually took the time to level it that far).

Dinosawer wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:39 pm
Anyway - rolls done with updated stats, I assume (since it is done after the mission)?
Yes. Updating your stats before you roll for GK is 100% permitted - and strongly encouraged!

Dinosawer wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:39 pm
Edit: also, if you arrange the rolls from high to low, is that taking into account the bonuses?
Say I want to learn A, B, and C. You determine I have +1, -1 and 0 bonus to learn those, respectively.
Say I roll a 6, 4, and 1.
If you arrange them from high to low, I get
A = 6 + 1 = 7
B = 4 - 1 = 3
C = 1 + 0 = 1
and I learn only A.
If you arrange them 'smartly' however I get
A = 4 + 1 = 5
B = 6 - 1 = 5
C = 1 + 0 = 1
And I learn A and B.
(yeah I know, farfetched :ghost: And you don't really have to answer it if you don't want to, I just want to point out to you that this is a thing you might want to consider :) )
No. They are arranged from high to low, giving you on average a higher chance to get your "higher priority" thing to succeed. If you think I'm less likely to grant something, you'll have to arrange them that way yourself. :) It makes more sense to do it this way from a GM perspective. You're also learning valuable skills as a player at the same time.

Cha0zz wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:25 am
A couple of points besides what we've already discussed in the IRC.

I think that even a character with a -2 should get at least 1 attempt. Why? Because even the dumbest person can know something, the chance of the roll succeeding is nihil anyway and only partial success is possible iirc but this ties in nicely with the fact that a dumb person probably has incomplete knowledge.
The intent behind -2 GK characters getting 0 rolls is manifold. First, it keeps the curve "even" and makes it so that if a player is a newbie, they don't immediately have to deal with General Knowledge - which, as mentioned, is a skill for more advanced players that understand RPGs a bit better. Second, it helps the curve stay higher and more rewarding for players at an upper end, without it becoming "too overpowered". I may need to tinker with it as time goes on, but we'll see. It doesn't really matter much anyway. If I gave you a 2 GK rolls with -2 GK, you'd only average about 0.36 new roleplay skills per mission, which is really sucky and would probably just serve to frustrate players that got -2 GK. Better to let players that chose -2 GK for their character not deal with it at all.

Cha0zz wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:25 am
Are things learned with GK still permanent knowledge? because then I'm not sure that I like stuff that gives a permanent increase for another skill like you example with charisma unless there is also the possibility of a drawback (eg. a bad roll for negotiation tactics results in a -1 for charisma with persons that don't like you because you accidentally studied the book "how to make your enemies hate you" instead of the book "how to make your enemies love you" an easy mistake, I know.)
Actually now that I think of it I really like the idea of a negative outcome for GK since that's also a possibility with all the other stat/skill rolls
Hapchazzard wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:58 am
While I don't think that you should be able to get an actual -1 to a skill because of a bad GK roll, I agree that it would be cool if there were some kind of consequences for failing a GK roll badly. If nothing, it would at least probably be cool for RP purposes if you actually got fed misinformation after failing a roll badly enough ("Oh yeah, squids can totally mind control you, but wearing a tinfoil hat lessens the effect!")
Cha0zz wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:24 am
I'm not sure, I think a -1 would be warranted for a critical fail but maybe with a time limit, it only applies for a certain amount of missions?
Dinosawer wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:30 am
Cha0zz, your post seems to imply you misunderstood slightly - it's not a boost to charisma, it's a boost to charisma rolls in some specific circumstances. (Just like parkour was a boost to maneuv, but only when doing parkour)
(if I misunderstood, disregard this )
Cha0zz wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:32 am
I know but the example that talvieno used seems to be a large part of the charisma rolls (ie all charisma rolls against hostiles + against friendlies that don't really like you), on top of that the debuf I propose to counter it when having a bad dice roll would also only apply on the same specific circumstances.
You guys seem to be misunderstanding the intent behind General Knowledge. As I stated in my post above, General Knowledge is a roleplay skill. It's not about stats or debuffs - it's about opening up new avenues of roleplay. It's not about boosts at all. Dino's parkour skill is actually something I would put a penalty on to succeed, because it gives stat boosts, would only see use in combat, and is difficult to roleplay: you can only "roleplay" it as actions, which means your character would probably rarely speak about it. I could see a clever, skilled player using it to roleplay - they could take up a whole Kung Fu Master attitude and start saying "wise-sounding" things such as "You must let your body flow like water" and things like that. If it's a ditz character and they say things that only seem to make sense at first glance, that's a huge bonus! I'd be more likely to accept a skill if I knew for certain it would be used in such a manner.

Now, addressing the forced penalty:
If I put a forced penalty on failure of a GK roll, I'm essentially putting a penalty on wanting to roleplay. This is something I'm extremely strongly against, as it goes against the entire purpose of an RPG. It's just not a good idea. However, I wouldn't be against telling the player that their character rolled a critical fail. If the player wanted, the player could choose to roleplay something related to the fail - or they could choose not to. This keeps General Knowledge as a roleplay stat.

Finally:
You guys mention my (perhaps poorly chosen) example of the diplomacy boost. It would have to be someone that was an enemy but was willing to negotiate. Those don't show up very often. :) An actual +1 to charisma would let you have a boost against any enemy, and any ally or neutral character as well. Furthermore, on granting this skill there's a fair chance I would introduce some kind of penalty to it for it to succeed (especially if your character doesn't act very diplomatic to begin with) - but it is something I would grant, which is the point of the list.


Finally finally:
Though it was asked elsewhere, I'll answer here: I would permit players to put one or two "soft skills" into their bio at character creation - or say they knew those things already, within reason. For instance, Ishmael probably knows how to cook pasta. That's a fairly common skill that's easy to learn, and matches his character perfectly. It could be fun to roleplay, too, and he would've learned it well before REKT ever started. It also doesn't give him any sort of advantage or ability outside RP. If players added "too many" of these "soft skills" for my tastes, though, or tried to push the limits, I would certainly rule zero it and tell them to make an entirely new character instead - the point of the "new character" being that they couldn't simply say, "But what if I just removed this one skill here, would that make it okay?" - which just leads to an endless cycle of debate.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#828
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:20 am
No. They are arranged from high to low, giving you on average a higher chance to get your "higher priority" thing to succeed. If you think I'm less likely to grant something, you'll have to arrange them that way yourself. :) It makes more sense to do it this way from a GM perspective. You're also learning valuable skills as a player at the same time.
But that feels like metagaming :ghost:
*runs*
(but sure, fair enough)
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:20 am
Dino's parkour skill is actually something I would put a penalty on to succeed, because it gives stat boosts, would only see use in combat, and is difficult to roleplay: you can only "roleplay" it as actions, which means your character would probably rarely speak about it.
I don't really agree with this - not with you putting a penalty on it, you do you, but with that it's not RP'y. RP is not just what you say, but what you do as well, and the character that storms in, jumps on a counter and wallkicks an enemy before shooting is a distinctly different (and more unique) character than one that shoots from the cover of the door opening, without having to speak a word.
(I also totally want to actually RP it in a somewhat similar way to what you said...but that's for later ;) )
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:20 am
Finally finally:
Though it was asked elsewhere, I'll answer here: I would permit players to put one or two "soft skills" into their bio at character creation - or say they knew those things already, within reason. For instance, Ishmael probably knows how to cook pasta. That's a fairly common skill that's easy to learn, and matches his character perfectly. It could be fun to roleplay, too, and he would've learned it well before REKT ever started. It also doesn't give him any sort of advantage or ability outside RP. If players added "too many" of these "soft skills" for my tastes, though, or tried to push the limits, I would certainly rule zero it and tell them to make an entirely new character instead - the point of the "new character" being that they couldn't simply say, "But what if I just removed this one skill here, would that make it okay?" - which just leads to an endless cycle of debate.
Oops, I think I have like 4 :think:
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#829
Dinosawer wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:46 pm
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:20 am
No. They are arranged from high to low, giving you on average a higher chance to get your "higher priority" thing to succeed. If you think I'm less likely to grant something, you'll have to arrange them that way yourself. :) It makes more sense to do it this way from a GM perspective. You're also learning valuable skills as a player at the same time.
But that feels like metagaming :ghost:
*runs*
(but sure, fair enough)
Metagaming is using OOC knowledge about events in the game to manipulate what your character does ingame (specifically actions, stats, and equipment - the game side of things --- meta + gaming --- metagaming). This is different: it's using player knowledge to make choices about what you want to roleplay your character. If this is metagaming, so is writing your character bio out in the first place. :D

Dinosawer wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:46 pm
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:20 am
Dino's parkour skill is actually something I would put a penalty on to succeed, because it gives stat boosts, would only see use in combat, and is difficult to roleplay: you can only "roleplay" it as actions, which means your character would probably rarely speak about it.
I don't really agree with this - not with you putting a penalty on it, you do you, but with that it's not RP'y. RP is not just what you say, but what you do as well, and the character that storms in, jumps on a counter and wallkicks an enemy before shooting is a distinctly different (and more unique) character than one that shoots from the cover of the door opening, without having to speak a word.
(I also totally want to actually RP it in a somewhat similar way to what you said...but that's for later ;) )
We talked this over in IRC and parkour is a bad example because Dino RP'd the parkour well, using it even if it was a bad situation for it. Not everyone would though. Someone that I knew would use parkour "properly" (i.e. RP it) would get less of a penalty, or maybe even a bonus. Someone that wouldn't be as likely to use it "properly" (i.e. use it just to give themselves an advantage) would get a penalty. This is part of why I don't tell people what stats/bonuses they get. No bruised egos or hurt feelings, and no time wasted on debates.

Dinosawer wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:46 pm
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:20 am
Finally finally:
Though it was asked elsewhere, I'll answer here: I would permit players to put one or two "soft skills" into their bio at character creation - or say they knew those things already, within reason. For instance, Ishmael probably knows how to cook pasta. That's a fairly common skill that's easy to learn, and matches his character perfectly. It could be fun to roleplay, too, and he would've learned it well before REKT ever started. It also doesn't give him any sort of advantage or ability outside RP. If players added "too many" of these "soft skills" for my tastes, though, or tried to push the limits, I would certainly rule zero it and tell them to make an entirely new character instead - the point of the "new character" being that they couldn't simply say, "But what if I just removed this one skill here, would that make it okay?" - which just leads to an endless cycle of debate.
Oops, I think I have like 4 :think:
((We talked it over in IRC and he has at most one, if that. Most of his knowledge is stuff that won't come into play during the campaign or is stuff pretty much anybody would learn in standard school anyway, OR relates directly to stat choices.))
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#830
The intent behind -2 GK characters getting 0 rolls is manifold. First, it keeps the curve "even" and makes it so that if a player is a newbie, they don't immediately have to deal with General Knowledge - which, as mentioned, is a skill for more advanced players that understand RPGs a bit better. Second, it helps the curve stay higher and more rewarding for players at an upper end, without it becoming "too overpowered". I may need to tinker with it as time goes on, but we'll see. It doesn't really matter much anyway. If I gave you a 2 GK rolls with -2 GK, you'd only average about 0.36 new roleplay skills per mission, which is really sucky and would probably just serve to frustrate players that got -2 GK. Better to let players that chose -2 GK for their character not deal with it at all.
I'm not sure I'm following the stuff about players that are newbies; a lot of players have GK even in their first time characters so they do have to deal immediately with GK, unless you're going to force all players to make characters with -2 GK this argument does not make any sense to me or I'm misunderstanding it.
I disagree also with your second point, the amount of rolls indeed increases the chance of learning something but a higher skill level also increases the chance of successful rolls, I'm asking for a single GK roll for -2 GK characters, a roll that they can't even have a critical succes on but only partial successes, so I think that balances out fairly with characters with higher skill levels since they get more rolls, have higher succes chances and can have results that the -2 GK character won't ever be able to obtain.
About frustrating the -2 GK players, it's not about whether or not their chances are sucky but about giving them the option to do a roll, maybe they really want to try their luck? If they get frustrated it's because they would choose for that since rolling for GK is completely optional and a -2 GK character should know that the chance of succes is very slim.
It's about having an option.
You guys seem to be misunderstanding the intent behind General Knowledge. As I stated in my post above, General Knowledge is a roleplay skill. It's not about stats or debuffs - it's about opening up new avenues of roleplay. It's not about boosts at all. Dino's parkour skill is actually something I would put a penalty on to succeed, because it gives stat boosts, would only see use in combat, and is difficult to roleplay: you can only "roleplay" it as actions, which means your character would probably rarely speak about it. I could see a clever, skilled player using it to roleplay - they could take up a whole Kung Fu Master attitude and start saying "wise-sounding" things such as "You must let your body flow like water" and things like that. If it's a ditz character and they say things that only seem to make sense at first glance, that's a huge bonus! I'd be more likely to accept a skill if I knew for certain it would be used in such a manner.
I most certainly was not misunderstanding it, my problem was mostly with the charisma example you gave, not with the parkour example or any other example.
Now, addressing the forced penalty:
If I put a forced penalty on failure of a GK roll, I'm essentially putting a penalty on wanting to roleplay. This is something I'm extremely strongly against, as it goes against the entire purpose of an RPG. It's just not a good idea. However, I wouldn't be against telling the player that their character rolled a critical fail. If the player wanted, the player could choose to roleplay something related to the fail - or they could choose not to. This keeps General Knowledge as a roleplay stat.
I disagree that it would be a penalty on roleplay. And again I'm not arguing for a penalty possibility on all GK rolls, again I was adressing the charisma example you made.
Finally:
You guys mention my (perhaps poorly chosen) example of the diplomacy boost. It would have to be someone that was an enemy but was willing to negotiate. Those don't show up very often. :) An actual +1 to charisma would let you have a boost against any enemy, and any ally or neutral character as well. Furthermore, on granting this skill there's a fair chance I would introduce some kind of penalty to it for it to succeed (especially if your character doesn't act very diplomatic to begin with) - but it is something I would grant, which is the point of the list.
The way you formulated the example is not the same as what you're explaining here, you said a +1 charisma boost against people who do not like you and you did not pose any more restrictions. So going from your example you would've had a boost for all enemies (not only the ones willing to negotiate, and how are you going to determine willingness to negotiate anyway?) and also for friendly characters who do not like you. This would potentially be a large portion of the NPC's and seemed somewhat overpowered, that's the reason I proposed a possibility to get a penalty, if you want a big reward the risk should also be larger.
However the way you formulate it here does seem to be less powerful and more reasonable and I don't think that the possibility of a penalty would be needed in this case.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#831
Cha0zz wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
I'm not sure I'm following the stuff about players that are newbies; a lot of players have GK even in their first time characters so they do have to deal immediately with GK, unless you're going to force all players to make characters with -2 GK this argument does not make any sense to me or I'm misunderstanding it.
Actually, we have (of the currently active and inactive PC's): 1 person with 1 GK, 9 people with 0, 3 with -1 and 4 with -2.
It's a fairly popular dump stat because it's not super easy to use. And even among those who started with 1 in GK last campaign, most of them rarely, if ever, used it.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#832
Yeah, that addresses the "GK is an advanced skill" thing pretty well. A lot of people use it as a dump stat, and a lot of people will continue to. At the same time, players seem to inherently realize that there must be some advantage to having it, which they're correct about - the trouble is that they don't really know how to use it well. It's something that takes player experience. Players "level" the same way their characters do, you might say.


Now, I'm going to address this first, and go from there:
Cha0zz wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
I most certainly was not misunderstanding it
I still think I may not have gotten this across correctly. So: clear your mind. Let's wipe the slate clean and start fresh.

General Knowledge is 100% about roleplay. It is not for giving boosts to stats in any way. If someone tries to use it for that, I will apply penalties to their GK rolls (scaled to make sense given what they're asking for) and they will fail more frequently (if not always, depending on the severity and their GK). Stat boosts, if any are given out, are small and applied only relative to how much I expect them to try to use it to give them an advantage. Stat bonuses are only applied as an "afterthought", mostly with the purpose of keeping it so someone who acts diplomatic, for instance, doesn't constantly fail their diplomacy rolls. As another example, if someone requested the ability to run faster, it would be much more likely to be granted if they planned to mostly use it to flee combat like a coward, and much less likely if they planned to use it to get close to enemies to melee attack them. (That's a middling example, though, because while it does grant something most characters don't actually have (ability to traverse terrain more quickly - in REKT everyone is just as fast as everyone else) it is also something that would be difficult to learn from studying. Hopefully you get what I mean though.)

To reiterate: General Knowledge is not about giving advantages of any sort to your character. It is about roleplay. It may let your character learn things that may be helpful - usually in non-combat situations, less frequently in combat situations. I may use it to help a player's roleplay style evolve, as I did with Dino's parkour. (If you noticed, Dino (the character) used it even when it was a bad idea (he lost his legs if you remember), because that was his personality: Dinosawer (the player) used his character's parkour skill well. If he had used it only to give himself an advantage, and I had expected as much, I would not have granted it to him.)

Now, following on with this topic: Players that are new to RPGs tend to see the most visible part first: the stats and rolls. This is how RPGs are advertised and how they draw in players. They are not what RPGs are actually about. An RPG is roleplay over stats, not stats over roleplay. Newer players often take some time to understand this and usually see General Knowledge as a method of obtaining unique advantages in combat - which is not how it's meant to be used. They may become puzzled or frustrated when this expectation does not align with reality. They are much more likely to ask for things that I would give penalties to than a seasoned player would be.

And that brings me to this:
Cha0zz wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
Second, it helps the curve stay higher and more rewarding for players at an upper end, without it becoming "too overpowered". I may need to tinker with it as time goes on, but we'll see. It doesn't really matter much anyway. If I gave you a 2 GK rolls with -2 GK, you'd only average about 0.36 new roleplay skills per mission, which is really sucky and would probably just serve to frustrate players that got -2 GK. Better to let players that chose -2 GK for their character not deal with it at all.
I disagree also with your second point, the amount of rolls indeed increases the chance of learning something but a higher skill level also increases the chance of successful rolls, I'm asking for a single GK roll for -2 GK characters, a roll that they can't even have a critical succes on but only partial successes, so I think that balances out fairly with characters with higher skill levels since they get more rolls, have higher succes chances and can have results that the -2 GK character won't ever be able to obtain.
About frustrating the -2 GK players, it's not about whether or not their chances are sucky but about giving them the option to do a roll, maybe they really want to try their luck? If they get frustrated it's because they would choose for that since rolling for GK is completely optional and a -2 GK character should know that the chance of success is very slim.
It's about having an option.
I understand what you're saying here, and why. However, I'm going to point out a few things.

As things are, assuming a player makes reasonable requests with GK, and has -2 GK skill... the player will fail their GK rolls 89-93% of the time*. A single roll would give them, therefore, great frustration, and the frequency of failure for a player that is new and doesn't actually understand GK would be even higher. You say it's "about having options", but could you really call that an option at all? At those rates, they get a successful roll once out of the entire campaign. They might as well just give their character what they want at the start of the game, I think you'd agree, and work it into their bio. The players that really wanted that -2 GK to succeed would grow frustrated that they spent all that time coming up with something "good" only to have me shoot it down (in their mind), which would lead to debates. Debates on rolls waste my time and that of other players. Debates on rolls are bad.

Assuming you want a 50% chance of a successful roll on each mission with GK for GK-2 players, then characters with -2 GK should get 4-6* dice rolls. This however unbalances things for characters with -1 GK, which only learn something after a mission an average of 59-67%* of the time. I would need to give them more rolls to balance things out... and those rolls cause a cascade effect all the way up to the theoretical +6 GK. It's not a good solution. 0 rolls for -2 GK makes the most sense.

* depending on how much I like to give 0s, ranging from slightly more likely to give a 0 than a 1 than a 2, to twice as likely to give a 0 than a 1 than a 2


Moving on...
Cha0zz wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
I disagree that it would be a penalty on roleplay. And again I'm not arguing for a penalty possibility on all GK rolls, again I was addressing the charisma example you made.
Remember that I "balance" GK before I even roll for it. When I roll, it is already balanced. If it gives an advantage in combat, and would be used as an advantage, I would certainly apply a penalty.

Next, to make my point a little clearer: Roleplay is the most important part of an RPG. It's the part that actually makes it memorable. If you think over your favorite RPG anecdotes, I think you'll find it to be true. However, making it so you have a penalty to failed GK rolls makes it so that you are MUCH less likely to risk asking for things you want to roleplay, simply because you're worried you'll have a -3 to skills afterwards, which will hurt you quite sorely in the next mission. After all, a -3 is the equivalent of 1-2 large missions. It therefore encourages you to level your stats before you begin trying to roleplay with GK. It brings players to the incorrect conclusion that stats are more important than roleplay - and that's harmful not just to that player's experience, but to everyone at the table.

Failing a GK roll is penalty enough in this case. You lost a roll. It might be because it was a bad idea, or it might be because you were unlucky. You have to wait two missions now to ask for it again. I think that's enough of a penalty. Players can roleplay the fail if they want, and that's good! I love when players put their all into roleplay. That's when things really become amazing and memorable and everyone really shines.

Cha0zz wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
Finally:
You guys mention my (perhaps poorly chosen) example of the diplomacy boost. It would have to be someone that was an enemy but was willing to negotiate. Those don't show up very often. :) An actual +1 to charisma would let you have a boost against any enemy, and any ally or neutral character as well. Furthermore, on granting this skill there's a fair chance I would introduce some kind of penalty to it for it to succeed (especially if your character doesn't act very diplomatic to begin with) - but it is something I would grant, which is the point of the list.
The way you formulated the example is not the same as what you're explaining here,
It's the same, but I didn't explain it well enough. It happens from time to time. That's why it's important that I always answer questions. :)
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#836
He has very low stats in terms of combat. He's a brilliant scientist but when it comes to this sort of thing, he's not incredibly useful. He shot at the enemy a lot, hit one (he has three shots because < 2 energy), hit cover the other two times. He's a decent medic (and better engineer) but it's mostly useless here because he didn't think he'd be on the ground at any point, so didn't bring a medkit along. He could wake up Brom if he could get to him.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#839
Hapchazzard wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:57 am
"The computer told us we'll be usin' some kind o' tool to get the magic fuel, but I think none of us brought it here. Maybe someone should check at our ships? The thing's called a gravity harass, or some shit like that."
Say Tal, how does this actually work? I thought the part doing the hacking also extracted the fuel, but maybe I misunderstood?
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: REKT: Beyond The Edge (Main Thread)

#840
Okay, so, I'll walk through the steps.
  1. The inmates slap the autohack tool onto the stellaplex tower.
  2. The autohack tool begins hacking. It disables failsafes and various other systems. No alarms would've sounded, but Alpha likes being loud. I approve of this.
  3. While the autohacker hacks, it finds and goes through the procedures for extracting the stellaplex: opening the tower and removing obstructions
  4. At this point, with approximately one minute left on the clock (i.e. halfway through the next turn) it will disengage the gravity systems. This will happen a little ways into the next turn.
  5. The autohacker will have the tower lower the stellaplex down to ground level. The autohack tool makes no contact with the stellaplex; it only activates the specific parts of the tower to make the tower naturally give up its loot.
  6. The autohack tool will radio the other autohack tools and they will blast their insides if they have been removed from the CASKETs, to keep them from falling into enemy hands intact.
  7. The inmates will take the stellaplex, lift it onto the hover-stretcher-carry-harness, and move the whole contraption back to a CASKET.
  8. The inmates will attach the harness to the CASKET. This is done easily by simply pushing it into position. It will latch onto the aux slot, secure its contents, and shut off the thrusters.
  9. The inmates will retreat without dying. If they fail at doing so, they die. The stakes are therefore quite high.
  10. The inmates will likely yell at SCAMPS for making them do this in the first place.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron