[2d20] Dune 2d20

P26 of Agents of Dune complicates matters further.

It says each successful test adds two points towards the requirement, unless a complication is rolled making it 1pt. A point of momentum can also be spent to add another point towards the requirement.

The way it’s phrased suggests only a single point of momentum can be spent.

It then further muddies the waters by saying the GM can spend a point of threat to increase the requirement by 1.
 
It’s not at Mongoose Traveller 1e levels, as you can gloss over elements like this in play (rulings, not rules) but I think that it could have done with someone who didn’t know the system going through it.

There are bits that I am grokking more easily because I know other parts of the 2d20 SRD but there are changes that can catch you out. For example, rather than having a D1 target number for extended tests as the default there is effectively a D0 target as you just count successes. It actually makes more sense that what’s presented in A!C from a simplicity perspective though.

Part of the issue is you can go at this different ways; Skill Tests and Extended Tests could be against a fixed target number for difficulty. But either could become a contest. Some contests are conflicts (which is effectively the same as moving into combat in a traditional 2d20 game but broadened to cover espionage, intrigue and mass battle) which all have slight overlays of difference. Conflicts have extended tests vs certain levels of opponent and a simple skill test vs. Minor characters.

My feeling is that the designers have been using the game in a very fluid way and that it’s very hard to express it. It also feels like they are quite loose but the rules are partly crunchy so odd bits haven’t been fleshed out.

I am very close to feeling like I can run this very confidently. Even if there aren’t official answers to the gaps, I can rule that easily enough.
 
Found it! On page 166 (Taking Action) it says:

Therefore I pasted together the info on p159 and p166 to conclude you can spend 1 Momentum per extra "hit point/requirement point" whittled off the person you clobbered.

I've directly asked about this (and the other extended task questions that I had) on the forums. I will share any response (especially if official).
 
Not sure I remember MgT1e as problematic but I rarely read ship design rules and I know they drove you mad.
 
Yeah, especially when they really messed up High Guard. Then again, I’m pretty clear from that as they managed to credit me on Scouts instead by mistake, which kind of summed it all up…
 
So, this is what I asked:

Looking for clarification on Extended Tasks… can you help?
——————————————————————————————-
I’ve been trying to get a clear understanding of the game system as I’m really tempted to run Dune AITI having recently read the ‘Fall of the Imperium’ book.

I’ve got some questions on Extended Tasks having read the Core Book, the FAQ/Errata, Agents of Dune and the threads on the official forums. I did ask this on the forum, but there’s not a lot of traffic there and so far I’ve no luck in getting an answer, so I thought I’d ask here.

#1 Core book p159 (Extended tasks) says:
“As a rule of thumb, each passed skill test should score 2 points towards the requirement, which can be reduced by complications and increased by spending Momentum. If an extended task is based on overcoming something set in place by an opponent, then using one of their skill ratings is a good basis for the task’s requirement. In either case, appropriate traits may increase these scores further. If an asset has a Quality rating of 1 or above, this also adds to the points scored towards the requirement.”

#2 Core book p166 (Use an Asset) says:
“Some outcomes may not be possible to achieve in a single action. These turn into extended tasks, where the character makes progress toward their goal bit by bit over several actions. The requirement for the extended test is usually based on the defender’s skill. The number of points made toward the requirement of the extended task is equal to 2 plus the Quality of the asset used: more potent assets make progress faster.”

#3 Agents of Dune p26 [sidebar] says:
“When the gamemaster decides that a situation is an extended task, they choose how big the extended task will be. This is called the requirement. Each passed test made towards completing an extended task scores one or more points, and when a total number of points have been scored equal to the requirement, then the extended task is complete, and whatever event or activity the task represented is resolved. As a rule of thumb, each passed test should score two successes towards the requirement, which can be reduced by complications and increased by spending Momentum.”

#4 Agents of Dune p26 [main body]says:
“In an extended test, just beating the Difficulty once is not enough. To succeed in the test you must collect points towards a ’Requirement’ over several consecutive tests. Time will also play a factor, limiting how many tests you can make. Each successful test adds 2 points towards the requirement, unless a Complication is rolled, in which case it adds only 1 point. A point of Momentum can also be spent to add another point towards the requirement. However, the gamemaster can spend a point of Threat to increase the requirement by one.”

I wanted to check that I am understanding this right and seek some clarification if that’s okay:

My understanding is that the requirement number is set by the GM. It will often (especially in conflicts) be the skill rating of the opponent.

Ref #4 suggests that the GM can spend a point of threat to increase the requirement as things progress - is this correct? If this is correct, can the GM spend multiple threat to boost the requirement on the fly?
Typically, a successful test will add 2 points to the target as a baseline. This is increased by the quality of the asset being used.

Ref #4 suggests that a complication being rolled will reduce the base points to 1. What is the impact of multiple complications being rolled? Does the points reduction stack until you can get 0 points? Can it reduce posts already scored? Or is it just 1 point off no matter how many complications you roll.
You can spend momentum to increase the number of points that you score towards the requirement.

Ref #1, Ref #2 and Ref #3 are silent on how much the momentum spend is.
Ref #4 says a point on momentum can be spent to add another point towards the requirement. Is this a single point of momentum or is it stackable (eg 3 momentum gives you 3 points towards the objective)?
Ref #1 says ‘In either case, appropriate traits may increase these scores further.’ The two cases immediate before this talk about setting the requirement number and scoring points against it.

Do appropriate traits (for example in a zone in a conflict) increase the requirement number?
Do appropriate traits that benefit the person succeeding at the task increase the number of points scored towards the requirement?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give on this!

And this is the reply:

IMG_6145.jpeg

You can add threat as the task goes on, but that is pretty harsh, so the GM should have a good reason. It would represent unforeseen disasters happening during the test. Generally threat is spent at the start.

"Usually this would have a requirement of 6, but (spending threat) because more Romulans have arrived it will be 8".

A successful test gives you 2 points to the requirement. If it earns momentum you can spend that to further reduce the requirement. 1 for 1 off the top of my head, I'll have to check. Rolling a complication is a separate problem that will usually make the difficulty on further tests harder.

Traits can absolutely help, but only in the way traits usually work. They either allow a test when one isn't usually possible or reduce the difficulty by 1. Assets can do the same. Basically, traits and assets do the same thing, as do complications which do the same thing negatively.
 
Follow on from Andrew Peregrine:

Fair question, it's 1 for 1 I believe. It is in there somewhere I think but I can't find it. I'd add that a kind GM will allow the Momentum spend before the remaining momentum adds to the pool. So if the momentum pool is at 4 and you score 5 successes on a 2 difficulty (4 more than you need). Instead of adding 2 to the pool and then asking how many you want to spend, the GM can say add 2 at least to the requirement and then the remaining 2 go into the pool, from which you can spend more for the requirement. Not all Dune GMS are that kind though 🙂

I’m actually pretty certain it doesn’t quite say the 1:1 thing explicitly in the rules as written but you can read between the lines like @Stronty Girl has.
 
Just as an outsider looking in.. this is shambolic, isn't it?
The absolute state of these rules, and the fact that so many 'reviewers' have gushed over them uncritically, says a lot about the nature of the rpg industry.

I'm convinced that most people buying rpg books are not really playing them - certainly not as written, and they are being designed accordingly.
 
I would recommend taking the setting and adventure material that you like and converting it to a system that actually works, be that Traveller, Savage Worlds, Fate, GURPS, whatever suits your play style.

Or in fact Genesys has some similarities to 2d20 but is very well designed as a game, in the sense that the rules are consistent and clearly explained. I was ground down by the dice and task resolution, but that's a separate issue. If you like coming up with narrative and situational interpretations of metacurrencies, you might well enjoy it!
 
I’m actually pretty certain it doesn’t quite say the 1:1 thing explicitly in the rules as written but you can read between the lines like @Stronty Girl has.
Is it a massive clue that Andrew Peregrine used an example from Star Trek Adventures to explain the rules in Dune? I suspect the guys who wrote Dune had most of the rules in their heads from earlier iterations of the system, and didn't get a non 2d20 player to sense check it!
 
The absolute state of these rules, and the fact that so many 'reviewers' have gushed over them uncritically, says a lot about the nature of the rpg industry.

I'm convinced that most people buying rpg books are not really playing them - certainly not as written, and they are being designed accordingly.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that many, many, many reviewers only READ the rules before they write their review, not PLAY the damn thing. I guess they want to get their review out now, now, now and don't want to wait a month to cat-herd their mates into character gen and a playtest session.
These days if I review something, I state at the top what the review is based on, such as only reading it, or reading + creating characters + combat playtest.
 
Over the years I have come to the conclusion that many, many, many reviewers only READ the rules before they write their review, not PLAY the damn thing. I guess they want to get their review out now, now, now and don't want to wait a month to cat-herd their mates into character gen and a playtest session.
These days if I review something, I state at the top what the review is based on, such as only reading it, or reading + creating characters + combat playtest.
Indeed.

I guess RPGs are unique in that it's never very clear what a reviewer is reviewing.

Everyone experiences RPGs uniquely (apart from the book or pdf itself). I know you can say that about books/films/songs/theatre (because they affects us individually), but the same RPG can vary so wildly from table to table, that who knows what a reviewer is actually reviewing.

Like you, I try and make it clear if I'm reviewing something from a read-through or an actual play. And what normally happens is the read-through review happens first, and the actual play review happens much later. And my actual play review needs to make clear whether I am running it or playing in it, as my experience will be different.

Frankly, I find that many RPG reviews are little more than descriptions of the game or adventure.
 
Getting a group together for a session to review a game is difficult, but I don't think that's even necessary. I'd expect a reviewer to make a couple of characters and run them through a combat or two. If that's not straightforward, or there are any difficulties, don't just give the game a pass. That's a serious negative for the game, and it would pick up most of the issues being discussed here.
 
I like 2d20, I can grok it in most iterations.
STA was tough at first but is easy in play and easy to understand from the Digest edition.

Dune seems to be, well, shagged?
 
No, it’s not shagged. It’s just a lot more abstract and there are some elements that are clearly in the designer’s heads rather than on the page.
 
No, it’s not shagged. It’s just a lot more abstract and there are some elements that are clearly in the designer’s heads rather than on the page.

Although that may be the case, the baffled scrabbling for sense, from GMs on here that I trust, has done more than enough to put me off bothering with GMing the game.
 
Back
Top