Venture-Agent, Netherlands
|
I like the chart for multi-table specials. Makes it a lot easier to manage skill checks and save DCs.
Regarding scenarios, I think I rather it was not so fixed: I like the varying levels of difficulty (especially between using different skills). I prefer in-line to chart.
I agree with Joe, charts for multi tables are amazing!
I also like the varying levels of difficulty...however if a scenario has a lot of skill checks, I would prefer a chart...I guess the difficulty tjen becomes...deciding what "a lot" of skill checks is as a quantity?
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
In effect, both are the same for me. Whether something says DC 26, or Easy DC, they're both equally difficult to find in a page of text. I highlight DCs to make them easier to find, so both are equally hard to find (I usually have a table of DCs on a Post-it on my screen).
That said, the Easy/Normal/Hard method works really well for multitable specials, and for skill-intensive scenarios as well. Having three distinct numbers is very easy to remember. I don't think I would want every scenario to have these rigid numbers, but some of them would really benefit from them. Then again, separate numbers do really allow for fine-tuning. In my experience, players boost Perception so much (and so often) that Hard DCs are still easily obtained, so a deviating number from that (or Hard +5, which kind of defeats the purpose of having the chart) would be better. And vice-versa, you can really lowball DCs for the rarer skills (Nobility, craft: Basketweaving, Appraise), some of which would be difficult to make even on an Easy DC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In line. I prefer the DC be where the obstacle/object is in the scenario.
It is important to have rules based DCs as well not artificially inflated DCs to make a "challenge." If I pump my level 8 rogue cat burglar to a +18 Climb skill, most routine walls should be trivial no matter what the rest of the scenario's difficulty. The cave walls don't need to be 'magically' smooth as glass with no hanholds (or worse, described as rough and full of cracks and yet have a DC set at 32 to climb).
The chart for multi-table specials with the 3-DCs-fits all works for multi-tables because you've got a ton more to prepare, are moving at a faster pace, and makes it easy on the GM, but I wouldn't want to see that in regular scenarios.
It is also important to keep the DCs in the description of the specific location. I've seen a few scenarios where there is a summary of the building and lists the Perception DC to find a secret door in Room B, but in the description of Room B, there's no mention of the secret door let alone the Perception DC.
I highlight the DCs as I go through or make my own quick reference list.
Furthermore, there's just no way to include all the possible DCs in the scenario for everything a PC might want to do, a single chart sumarizing the DCs might lead some GMs to the wrong conclusion about what is or is not possible in a scenario.
But that's just me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I'm putting this in a separate thread because it's not specific to the question.
Authors/editors shouldn't be adjusting skill DCs based on what they think players have invested in their PCs. That devalues characters built for niche specialties or cheats players who have pumped a common skill. The latter becomes a war of attrition.
If you want a scenario to be harder, make the circumstances harder. Shrewder or more perceptive guards who increase Wisdom and ranks in Perception/Sense Motive at the cost of other things, not just artificially more perceptive guards. Hide your hidden treasure behind a bookcase in a level 1 scenario and behind an illusion in level 10. Use a poor quality lock in a level 1 scenario and a masterwork lock with a trap in a level 10 scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a strong preference between chart vs. in-line, but I would like more variation in DCs as opposed to everything being derived from the magic formula. I remember one scenario where it seemed every single DC was 17--that's probably hyperbole, but that's the way I remember it :)
I also think lower DCs should be associated with skills that are less often taken--someone with Profession (Vidgamer) should have a lower DC to reprogram an arcade game than someone just using Computers, which is one of the most commmon skills to max out.
I'd like to see more attention paid to less common skills in general: Disguise, Sleight of Hand, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, etc., instead of Computers & Engineering being the "do everything" skills.
Last, I agree that DCs need to have some relation to the "reality" of the scenario. It's okay to have some low Athletics DCs to climb something even in a high-tier scenario, as some characters may be pleasantly surprised when they succeed.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
In a scenario where there are 'less' skill checks or the checks are where they should be, In line is fine.
I love the chart in multi tables, and scenarios that are a sandbox. Because then the scenario gives you handholds how to rule the shenanigans your players get up to.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I don't have a strong preference between chart vs. in-line, but I would like more variation in DCs as opposed to everything being derived from the magic formula.
Last, I agree that DCs need to have some relation to the "reality" of the scenario. It's okay to have some low Athletics DCs to climb something even in a high-tier scenario, as some characters may be pleasantly surprised when they succeed.
Yeah, this. Like in Starfinder, enemies should not be built to the same standard as PCs, and DCs should not always be static. Yeah, it's nice to have a go-to DC for regular stuff, but writers should not be beholden to that. As skill level increase, so should the challenges. Scaling a wall at level 6 should be less of an issue, with Fly, Spider Climb, and so on readily available. By that point, the DC 20 wall shouldn't be an issue, especially when knotted ropes trivialise things so much. Only one person needs to make the check (or spend a resource), the rest can go easy mode.
Last, I agree that DCs need to have some relation to the "reality" of the scenario. It's okay to have some low Athletics DCs to climb something even in a high-tier scenario, as some characters may be pleasantly surprised when they succeed.
I'm not entirely sure. Rolling stupid low-DC checks just for the hell of it just slows the game down. IMHO, you want to challenge players, when you tell them the DC is 10 at level 10, they just feel insulted. Earlier seasons of PFS had the same problem, where a Knowledge DC 18 was needed. With a Wizard in the party, I just assumed those as a given and gave them, as asking for the roll and having them calculate the result just eats into game time.
The only time I'd say low-DC skill checks are okay is when there's a real consequence to failure. Ideally when PCs are rushed or chased or something. Asking an Acrobatics from everyone to squeeze through a passageway is not a problem when they have all the time, but when they're chased by enemies, that's a problem. The new Chase rules are the best way to incorporate those.
|
|
I also think lower DCs should be associated with skills that are less often taken--someone with Profession (Vidgamer) should have a lower DC to reprogram an arcade game than someone just using Computers, which is one of the most commmon skills to max out.
This is one of two things that I feel is precisely wrong (with added insult to main skill users): lower DCs for a task because the specific skill might be rare.
Profession (vidgamer) should not trump Computers in hacking or reprogramming.
Let's say a scenario provides the opportunity to reptogram a vidgame in an upcoming e-sport tournament to ensure aspecific party loses. Let's say a vidgame console is Tier 1. Gaining root accesss in order to rewrite a module is Computers 37.
My 5th level exocortex mechanic with remote hack and wireless hack who is spevialized in hacking can't even hit that (+14, could only get to +17 with Skill Focus, Intelligence upgrade, and a high-density datajack). But you want to solarian with a Charisma-based Profession (vidgamer) to do it at DC... 27? Much easier to hit with 5 ranks + class bonus + 2 charisma. The no-Computers-skill solarian makes my maximized hacker look like a chump rolling his +10 vs. DC 27 compared to my +14 vs. DC 37.
Even if we just need to hack into a vidgame to access it's data, that's my hacker at +14 vs. DC 17, an appropriately trivial challenge, compared to the solarian's... +1 Computers (1 rank so he can actually use computers) vs. DC 17 is going to be a real challenge for him. Maybe having Profession (vidgamer) in addition to a Computers check adds a circumstance bonus of +2. So a hacker who is also a vidgamer is +16 vs. my non-vidgamer hacker's +14.
But Profession skills should not replace key skills.
That vidgamer should be able to make checks using his profession skill to recognize bigwigs in the field of competative e-sports where my hacker is clueless and should certainly be able to compete in a vidgame tournament better than my hacker (without previously cheating) but he shouldn't hack better.
Rolling stupid low-DC checks just for the hell of it just slows the game down.
This sentiment is the second thing that I feel is precisely wrong.
Swimming in calm water is a DC 10 Athletics check. It should not magically become DC 20 to adjust for characters being level 10. 1. My guess is that several gnome technomancers haven't put many ranks in Athletics beyond what is needed to off-set their Strength penalty and armor check penalty.
GM: "There is a pool of still water before you. The altar lies at the center."
Me: "Great. My Athletics is +5, so I will 'Take 10.'"
GM: Checks DC in scenarion, it says 20, so, "Sorry. You start drowning."
Versus:
GM: "Thete is a pool of still wayer before you. The altar lies at the center."
Me: "Great. My Athletics after armor check penalty is +0, so I will 'Take 10.'"
GM: "You make it across in short order."
No excessive dice rolled. But if it is an 8 Strength alien with a -2 armor check penalty and no ranks in Athletics, suddenly -3 vs. DC 10 isn't a given and the party/player needs to get creative, but that's better than artificially inflating the DC to 20 and now it's a very difficult -3 vs. DC 20.
If you want higher DCs in higher level content, don't just add artificially to established challenge DCs, add to the challenge (e.g. the water is pumped from the center towards drains along the shore creating a current, now it's DC 20 to swim out and DC 15 to swim back, or throw in some predatory eels and nobody can 'Take 10.')
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Oh yeah, definitely, I share that sentiment completely. I just mean that if something is supposed to be a challenge, it should be reflected in its description and its DC. That still water should still be a DC 10, but why is there still water at level 10? Either don't put a DC there (so no rolling/calculating is needed), or change it like you said.
No excessive dice rolled. But if it is an 8 Strength alien with a -2 armor check penalty and no ranks in Athletics, suddenly -3 vs. DC 10 isn't a given and the party/player needs to get creative, but that's better than artificially inflating the DC to 20 and now it's a very difficult -3 vs. DC 20.
As I said, at higher levels, people are expected to have alternate ways of dealing with things. I'm not 100% familiar with Starfinder, but I'm sure by that level you can get stuff/spells that give you a swim speed or such. Then that -3 can easily turn to a +5 at least.
And the thing is, other people can help as well. Assume two people assist in the Swim check, he's already at a +9, nearly enough to take 10 anyway. Still no need to roll dice, but it's still challenging.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but why is there still water at level 10? Either don't put a DC there (so no rolling/calculating is needed), or change it like you said.
For the sake of academics:
The altar was placed in the middle of the pool of water to keep the roaming fire elementals from reaching it... or the primitive natives who have an innate fear of water... or for aesthetics. The pool was never meant to keep well equipped Starfinders away. But it's still either a DC 10 athletics check, a jetpack boost, or a 3rd level fly spell away.
Back to your point:
And, no, you're right, the author/editors shouldn't need to waste time listing the DC because it's described as "still water" or "calm pond" or "pristine pool," so the DC can be extrapolated from the rules written out in the CRB.
The DC should be listed when either 1. the DC deviates from the rules due to some circumstance that would require a GM call (the Engineering check to open a locked door is DC 22 instead of 20 because the entire building has self-repairing nanites), 2. there's no clear basis for the DC (e.g. Mysticism vs. some made up ritual to close a rift), or 3. for quicker reference for the table GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the profession skill doesn't replace key skills at a lower DC on occasion either...
You require the profession, which means theres only one solution to the problem, which is not something you can expect a party to have. There's dozens of professions listed, you can't expect a party to have any: much less the one profession that would work.
There's no point in having profession vid gamer (which might come up twice in a characters career) vs computers (which will come up twice before breakfast) or the more common skill.
If you have a +2 bonus from having the skills then your ranks/total in that skill don't matter at all.
Having the rare skill with a lower DC makes having the oddball skill payoff.
|
|
I liked the approach in 8-99C/D with the Faces that basically meant the PCs could use practically any skill, but the choice of skill/RP set if it were Easy/Normal/Hard. If charts save enough word count to make more challenges like that viable, then I'm in favor of charts. Otherwise in-line.
In general I definitely like more "let the PCs pick their approach" skill checks rather than "X or Y" skills. Of course with suitable penalties/caveats to not let them use a single maximized skill to overcomer everything.
|
|
The Profession skill, lesser selected skills, skill substitution, and low-balling DCs are all different issues, so I'm going to split this post up. These are my opinions on game design. I do apologize for reiterating myself in the first point.
1. Profession
Profession is a skill that all classes have as a class skill (+3 to the check) and you get to pick your best supporting stat (Int, Wis, or Cha).
Profession, in SFS, already provides a specific benefit for having ranks in it: Day Job credits. This reflects the "Earn a Living" function of the Profession skill.
The Profession skill also provides the Recall Knowledge function for things related to the topic of your profession.
However, the text of the Profession skill literally says, "A Profession skill should not overlap with existing skills."
Why would a Witchwarper character with 18 Charisma and 1 rank in Profession (hacker) (+8) and 0 ranks in Computers (cannot even log into an unsecured computer in less than 2 minutes) be a better hacker than a Operative with 14 Intelligence and 2 ranks in Computers (+7)? Plus they get Day Job credits and the operative can't use Computers to earn a living.
A Mystic with a Wisdom-based Profession (pilot)? A Solarian with a Charisma-based Profession (engineer)?
However, an Operative with +7 computers may understand how a computer works but is limited to his +3 Dexterity to play a vidgame or computer simulated combat where a character with Profession (vidgamer) could use their skill to do the thing (play a vidgame).
2. Skill Substitution
It's fun and useful in multi-table specials where different skills can be used to gain influence with NPCs to reflect discussing different topics. There you might randomly end up with 6 Barbarians. However, it should not be the normal as an alternative to Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. Otherwise, the Envoys are going to start feeling short changed as every Mystic, Soldier, and Solarian starts out diplomating them by using their Mysticism or Acrobatics or Athletics skills in social encounters.
In one SFS scenario where you do the multi-table style various skill checks to win favor, you're dealing with people who already like you as Starfinders. You're just trying to appeal to them. You do that with the Improve Attitude task for first contact, and some Wayfinder Envoy with maximized Diplomacy and class features selected to enhance Diplomacy is going to be cranky.
This leads into lesser selected skills: The other skills should provide alternative solutions to the problem rather than replace or duplicate a rules-based skill solution for a particular skill.
3. Lesser Used Skills
Lesser used skills like Disguise, Sleight of Hand, Survival, Profession (x) are taken less often because the are less often useful in overcoming the common problems encountered in an adventure. The solution isn't to allow a character who invested in Sleight of Hand made a Sleight of Hand check to improve the attitude of a thief. The solution is to provide ways that use of those skills either leads to an alternative solution or provides a benefit to the core objective.
Hack an electronic lock vs. lift a key card off of an employee leaving at the end of the day.
Beat up the guards at the door vs. disguise everyone as employees at the company you're infiltrating.
4. Low-balling DCs for Lesser Used Skills
These skills do not need to have artificially low DCs.
For example, the Perception DCs for Disguise do not need to be set artificially low for the CR of the observing NPC just because players don't put many ranks in Disguise. Set the DC at the NPC's 'Take 10' and let it be. A Subtier 1-2 challenge might be to make it past a pair of Azlanti guards. The CR 1/2 guards' 'Take 10' on Perception is 14. Your humans trying to disguise themselves as Azlanti actually have a DC of 9 (minor details altered, -5 to DC), while a shobhad has a DC of 34 (different creature type [monstrous humanoid vs. humanoid] plus different size category [large vs. medium]). If you just artificially set the DC at, let's say 12 (subtier 1-2 "Easy"), because you feel Disguise is probably not going to be trained, then you've unfairly increased the DC for humans and given a serious advantage to non-human aliens.
These skills should be alternative solutions or provide bonuses to the core task.
These skills should never "lock" a critical part of the scenario or success condition because you already know that the chance of you having a character with decent Profession (cook) is going to be low.
If you do lower a DC for a lesser used skill, it should have an in-scenario reason to be lower. The DC for Disguise is lower because the guard on duty has cataracts. The DC for Survival/Follow Tracks inside a building is lower than normal to follow tracks on hard ground (normally DC 20) because "the mark" stepped in gum and is leaving a trail on the tile floor.
(Conversely, the DC to follow a person making no effort to hide his trail across a tile floor shouldn't be higher than DC 20 just because they're 8th level and could conceivably have a +18 Survival bonus.)
|
|
I will acknowledge here that I do recognize that there exists a difference in play style among RPGers. I like the nitty-gritty: counting turns, using a grid, taking actions and basing success on the granular rules with my story. Other players just want to roll dice for combat. Other players just want to tell a story and could do with as little dice rolling as possible. Still others fall all along the wide and diverse spectrum.
|
|
. Profession
Profession is a skill that all classes have as a class skill (+3 to the check) and you get to pick your best supporting stat (Int, Wis, or Cha).
Which is usually how the person picking their skills is going to match up their skills and stats anyway.
A big advantage to profession is the 20 credits for +4 to the skill
Profession, in SFS, already provides a specific benefit for having ranks in it: Day Job credits. This reflects the "Earn a Living" function of the Profession skill.
The money isn't very significant even at low levels and at high levels it's just a rounding error.
However, the text of the Profession skill literally says, "A Profession skill should not overlap with existing skills."
And like most literal readings this one misses the point.
Of course the skills are going to overlap something somewhere. Knowing something about a computer game could be computers or profession vidgamer. You can schmooze the foodie with diplomacy or profession chef.
You can get someone to do their homework with a diplomacy or profession teacher check: the ven diagrams are allowed to overlap a little.
What they can't do is completely obviate a skill (like profession physicist used in place of physical sciences) or worse eclipse two skills (like profession scientist for physical science and life science)
Why would a Witchwarper character with 18 Charisma and 1 rank in Profession (hacker) (+8) and 0 ranks in Computers (cannot even log into an unsecured computer in less than 2 minutes) be a better hacker than a Operative with 14 Intelligence and 2 ranks in Computers (+7)? Plus they get Day Job credits and the operative can't use Computers to earn a living.
Profession hacker is something that eats up a good chunk of computers, and shouldn't be allowed. It's something I've seen and had to talk to a couple of players about already.
|
|
I prefer inline for most situations. The chart helps with the multi table, due to time, but once the PCs figure out what the hard dc is, they know if they can take-10 the rest of the way.
But mostly, I’m not sure how the chart actually saves any space in the scenario. “Make a hard acrobatics check” and “Make a DC25 acrobatics check” take up the same amount of space. I have to find and highlight where all of the skillchecks are whether they are listing the DC or listing a difficulty, so it isn’t saving space or prep time there. And as people have mentioned, there’s a lot more variety in the actual difficulties if you list an inline number. I appreciate scenarios that throw in “impossible” DCs for helpful, but not vital, information, because sometimes the PCs can make them. Like a DC 40 perception in a 3-7.
What would be more useful is a chart by room listing what skillchecks are written into the scenario, so I don’t have to generate something like that on my own (or more likely go to pfsprep to look for one).
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would be more useful is a chart by room listing what skillchecks are written into the scenario, so I don’t have to generate something like that on my own (or more likely go to pfsprep to look for one).
I would prefer to see those in the rooms themselves, but with a bit more explicit layout. For example:
----
"The first thing you notice on entering the example room is this bit of red boxed text. It doesn't require any check or action to notice."
---
In this room all sorts of stuff is going on, and this first paragraph explains what's going on to the GM.
Search Players searching the room can find some extra description by searching it for a minute (no check). If they succeed at a Perception (DC 10/15) check they also find a mysterious box of chocolate.
Creatures There are a bunch of mean schoolgirls here. They taunt the PCs, resorting to violence unless the PCs can placate them with a Diplomacy (DC 10/15) check. In the high tier the check is harder because the head girl is particularly charismatic.
(Statblocks.)
Development If the PCs placate or subdue the schoolgirls they can ask them what happened to the headmaster. They refuse to snitch on the evil gym teacher unless the PCs succeed at a Intimidate (DC 20/25) check, but if the PCs already defeated them in combat the PCs gain a +5 bonus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pre-bolding the checks would be fantastic, and I'd be fine with something like this.
My main point is that I don't see how using the easy/medium/hard chart makes text like what you provided significantly shorter. It becomes:
Search Players searching the room can find some extra description by searching it for a minute (no check). If they succeed at an Easy Perception check they also find a mysterious box of chocolate.
Creatures There are a bunch of mean schoolgirls here. They taunt the PCs, resorting to violence unless the PCs can placate them with an Easy Diplomacy check. In the high tier the check is harder because the head girl is particularly charismatic.
(Statblocks.)
Development If the PCs placate or subdue the schoolgirls they can ask them what happened to the headmaster. They refuse to snitch on the evil gym teacher unless the PCs succeed at a Hard Intimidate check, but if the PCs already defeated them in combat the PCs gain a +5 bonus.
Maybe there are a couple of characters saved (typographical characters), but not enough to justify having to consult a separate table or flip to an earlier section of the scenario. I often run things off my tablet and only print stat blocks. A chart would be an extra page to print, which isn't terrible, but just being able to look at the page I'm already on is easiest.
|
|
Maybe there are a couple of characters saved (typographical characters), but not enough to justify having to consult a separate table or flip to an earlier section of the scenario. I often run things off my tablet and only print stat blocks. A chart would be an extra page to print, which isn't terrible, but just being able to look at the page I'm already on is easiest.
I did an analysis of SFS 1-08, arguing your point, replacing the text as recommended in a different thread. There's more characters saved than you're giving credit for (22 more characters per instance of '(DC XX in subtier Z-Z)'), but the total was 233 characters saved. That's about two sentences. In addition, placing a sidebar with the table in it would take--according to the person debating me--2,000 characters (I have no idea if that's an accurate estimate, either way, there is a cost). So it was actually a net loss of 1767 characters.
I also agree: I want the indicator for the DC, a number or a word (prefer number) in line with the text where it occurs. So I don't see having a table save you anything. Furthermore, my eyes will catch a NUMBER much easier when scanning text than the words "easy check."
|
|
2,000 characters sounds excessive. I'm willing to call it a wash and assume the space saved is equal to the space lost to a chart. Which, to me, isn't worth it, since a chart is harder for me to use as a GM.
And yes, I see the value in the multi table specials. Not necessarily in terms of space saved. More in terms of the number of skill checks that could potentially be involved, combined with the extremely tight schedule. Honestly, while I appreciate the effort to put skill-based challenges (influence mechanics) into the multi table specials, I cringed through Solstice Scar as the overseer watching tables run short on time due to those challenges, and had to cut a few tables off after the success conditions were reached to make sure they were at least attempting the more important sections. In that situation, I don't think the players knowing they can take-10 to speed things up is a bad thing.
|
|
What they can't do is completely obviate a skill (like profession physicist used in place of physical sciences) or worse eclipse two skills (like profession scientist for physical science and life science)
That's what you've been arguing for, possibly unintentionally, though with the vidgamer example.
Worse if they lower the DCs for "rare skills", because that's effectively giving them a +2, +5, or more free bonus on top of obviating the core skill. Not to mention bonuses to Profession are cheap compared to Computers or Engineering or Piloting.
Knowing something about a computer game could be computers or profession vidgamer.
The "Recall Knowledge" task: great! That is actually defined as a use of the Profession skill.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What they can't do is completely obviate a skill (like profession physicist used in place of physical sciences) or worse eclipse two skills (like profession scientist for physical science and life science)That's what you've been arguing for, possibly unintentionally, though with the vidgamer example.
Absolutely not. Total, complete, and utter nonsense. There is no way to get from anything I'm saying to completely obviating a skill. At all. Taking someone's words and turning them into an argument they did not say, did not hint, did not in any way, shape, or form imply, AND specifically denounced is not having a discussion in good faith. Not cool.
There may be one really weird door that can be opened by beating star zork or by hacking the door. That doesn't mean that profession vidgamer now does EVERYTHING that computers does. Profession vidgamer doesn't get you into every unsecured computer. Profession Hacker would do about half to 2/3rds of what PCs will do with the computers skill. Profession physicist would include all of physical science. Profession scientist would include all of physical and life science. That's an enormous difference.
I know we're talking about computers but the options aren't binary. Being used on the same task a few times is not completely obviating something.
|
|
There is no way to get from anything I'm saying to completely obviating a skill. At all. Taking someone's words and turning them into an argument they did not say, did not hint, did not in any way, shape, or form imply, AND specifically denounced is not having a discussion in good faith. Not cool.
Whoa, slow down. That's not what I was doing, and I apologize that I made you think that's what I was doing.
By sticking with the Profession (vidgamer) example, that someone else (not you and not me) had posted, you were--clearly inadventantly--supporting the example of a character with Profession (vidgamer) using the "Hack Computer" and "Disable or Modify a Module" function of the Computers skill in "reprogramming a vidgame," which is 2/3 to 1/2 (if you count "Create Computer") the function of the Computers skill.
Because that seemed contrary to your general sentiments, I pointed that out.
Using Profession (vidgamer) to open the secret door guarded by a Star Zork console is an excellent way to allow the uncommon person with Profession (vidgamer) to shine but leave hacking the console with Computers as a secondary solution. Here having a lower DC could even make sense.
DC 20 Profession (vidgamer) to beat the high score.
DC 22 to hack a tier 2 computer and then DC 22 to disable the module tying the game to the door operation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By sticking with the Profession (vidgamer) example, that someone else (not you and not me) had posted, you were--clearly inadventantly--supporting the example of a character with Profession (vidgamer) using the "Hack Computer" and "Disable or Modify a Module" function of the Computers skill in "reprogramming a vidgame," which is 2/3 to 1/2 (if you count "Create Computer") the function of the Computers skill.
Alright arlight, turning down the growl...
Mechanically, 1/3rd of the things you hack in starfinder aren't computer games. So the ability to [hack a computer game] as opposed to [hack stuff] isn't really intruding on the computer skill all that much.
As to whether it makes sense, cheats have been a thing for computer games since the atari. So while the computer tech is messing with the code or the engineer is setting up his camera and building a literal aimbot to play the game for him, the vidgamer is going to www.3l33taimbots.com and adding a cheat code.* or pressing up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A. : something much easier to do.
Whether that would be viable or not would depend on the scenario/the exact circumstances.
*two things. one, no i don't condone this. 2 my degree is in trees
|
|
We are probably envisioning different things for what the original writer of the "reprogramming a vidgame" example meant.
Now I'm going into a full tangent (and acknowledging that your degree is in trees): Current game technology has come a long way from the Konami Code, and I would expect Starfinder video games to be at least that far along. Aimbots are a thing, but I wouldn't classify downloading an aimbot on a data stick and plugging into the console as "reprogramming a vidgame."
But that's a reasonable alternative solution if the goal was "win the vidgame competition" or "get the high score to open the secret door."
And sticking with the vidgamer example, I'm stretching the situations where it might be critical in a scenario (Profession (junk racer) to Piloting is a more insidious slip), but programming a vidgame console to crash every time "Antagoist" logs in or to 'forget' to log points earned when "Antagonist" is playing is the realm of hacking, not vidgaming.
Sure the WOW UI modifications were written by people who played WOW, but it wasn't their Profession (vidgamer) ranks that did it, it was their Computer ranks.