They usually overshoot.

It also means you can count on your players always succeeding at rolls.

I was going to point out a bunch of counter examples, but on thinking about them, you can just use contested checks.

From my game:
- convincing a world’s population to stop rioting (could have been a contest vs. the people’s Meta+CVs with bonuses for being a mob (which I would probably treat as a temporary CV in “causing chaos!” of about 4, goes away with the mob mentality).
- sneaking nanites into a base (could have been a contested roll vs. base security… I think it even was).
- researching new wormhole tech (hard to make contested, but there are already solid rules for this in the book (which I ignored ‘cause it was a plot driven event, not ability driven)

There are still (possibly) cases where people will try to push themselves (jump on top of a building when they technically don’t have the bio/string), but those could be handled as contested rolls vs. a “theoretical person with the minimum stats to do this sort of thing reliably”.

Personally, I’d still like to have some hard numbers for my own games, for the expedient of simple speed. But your argument that the contested tests system is sufficient has merit.

Do we need it? I'm starting to wonder if it'd be better sticking to the opposed roll mechanics used for conflict resolution and just driving the resolution of any task that way. Not 100% certain on this, and I think I'll wait to play the game next weekend before I decide.

What do you think?

FYI: The odds of getting a result of exactly N on 2dX, pick the highest, is always (N*2-1))/X²

The odds of getting N or below is (N*(N+1))/(2*X²)

(I've run enough dice mechanics that I have these memorized. Or, well, I have the formula for triangular numbers memorized and I know what this looks like).

P.S. You might want to make that die result 1-22, for the +2 CV bonus.

The bit that really adds complexity is the two different base ratings (capability and profession). What I was trying to get was a quick ready reckoner for myself when GMing.

Um, just to clarify your post from a while back, SA uses 10 sided dice (1-10). Not 20. Of course, you can add reserve, so there's a theoretical maximum of 20.

I've been doing more math since the posts above and have re-evaluated optimal re-rolling patterns. Namely, if you want to get the highest possible roll for whatever amount of reserve you're going to spend, and the reserve you're about to spend isn't your last one, you should always re-roll 6s and below. If it's the last reserve you're going to spend, you should re-roll 5s and below. If you're going to spend lots more reserve, you might want to re-roll 7s. It'll (slightly) reduce your average roll, but it'll also increase your variability. As you run out of reserve, re-rolling 7s lowers your average more and more.

|| header1 || header2 || header3 ||
|| stuff1 || stuff2 || stuff3 ||

which produces:

Cheers,

Dom

1: It's a standard. If you have to remember whether a particular modifier goes to dice or skill, it's a pain.
2: It keeps people from wondering if a situational +1 to your Biotech makes you stronger/faster/tougher or not.

If I remember right, the only modifier to a Capability is the Metatech bonus from CVs.

If so, is there any particular reason why? The only one I could think of was that it means that a negative modifier is less likely to reduce a roll to zero (by zeroing a capability or profession rating).

“Low Security” represents simple security measures easily acquirable in the society. This is produced by a character with average capabilities (average of low and high) and ~25% of its life expectancy in the security profession. I assume all reserve spent, a +1 due to a core value, and an average roll.

“High Security” represents the kind of security the military and major corporations would use. It is generated by a character with the highest capabilities and 50% of their life expectancy in the security profession. Again, all reserve is spent, a +1 due to a core value, and an average roll.

“Maximum Security” represents the best defenses the civilization can muster. This would be used on necessary life support, planetary defense, Stored servers, and Replicant data repositories. As with “High Security”, except that the character gets the maximum possible roll. Remember: if something is important enough, a lower-tech civilization can outsource its security.

In the case of the Roamers and Union, I assume a +2 core value bonus at all times.

For most civilizations the profession swamps the capabilities. The exceptions are the mechanicans (who’s abysmal Cog and Bio, coupled with high everything-else means that they default to their capabilities), the Stardwellers (incredible Nano) and the Stored (incredible Cog).

Note that not all weapons have enough range to reach these distances, and some don't do enough damage to destroy the target. Also note that non-near-c weapons (ballistic weapons) are effected by gravity and wind shear, making long distance shots much harder. (While a light speed weapon is effected by gravity, it is effected exactly as much as the visual image you are seeing of the target, so if you line up the target in the cross hairs (and it doesn't move) you will hit it).

Guided weapons shouldn't use this system at all.

I worked these out by assuming that an average soldier (Nano 2, Soldier 2) can shoot a near-c weapon with ~50% accuracy at a non-moving human sized target at a range of 900 feet without spending reserve. Everything else is me applying the inverse square law and sliding up the dice scale (increasing Nano and Soldier).

Jumping up 8 feet or forward 25 feet: 50
Reasoning: These are the Olympic maxima. I’m assuming Bio 3 and Athlete 4, max reserve spent, and still only a slim chance of success.

Running a marathon: 20
Reasoning: I’m assuming either Bio 3 and Athlete 1; or Bio 2, Athlete 2, and lots of reserve spent. Either way gives you a decent chance of success (more experience would guarantee it). Winning the marathon would be a contested roll.

Sending an unmanned spacecraft from Earth to Mars at String 3: 50 / 35
The second number represents the difficulty using a full team of professionals (ignoring “working together” bonus).
Reasoning: Assumes Cog 3 and Profession 4 (various) with max reserve spent. First number assumes a +3 from people working with you. Historically, humanity has about a 60% success rate.

I'm starting this thread in the hopes of reaching some sort of consensus as to how difficult various tasks should be, at least in cannon.

To help, I've done some math.

The following table lists the average roll given a single die and capability, where the player is willing to spend a specific amount of reserve. This table assumes that the player is attempting to achieve the highest average result (so they're re-rolling on a 4 or less and adding 1 on a 5+). It does not take into account modifiers like CVs, using the wrong profession, or having help. It also doesn't take into account the other die being rolled, although that is more relevant when the player isn't spending reserve (or is spending very little).