PDA

View Full Version : The Pilot Problem



Totally Guy
2012-03-11, 05:00 PM
This weekend I saw a game I was unfamiliar with at a convention that had an ace pilot as one of the pregenerated characters.

I was feeling very hopeful as I've tried playing an ace pilot in games in the past and I found it problematic. I've found that you can make a pilot character but their piloting ability very rarely gets tested. The reason for this is that it is inappropriate to the game to have the pilot fail. The game would be effectively over if the ship was to blow up with everyone aboard (or get lost, or break down).

Excitedly I picked the pilot character hoping to find out how this game would handle something I'd had problems with before.

The game was a total failure in my eyes as it committed every sin under the sun including my perceived pilot problem. I played until I was irrevocably frustrated and then I said my good-byes and left the game.

How have you tested a pilot character's skill? Were the stakes high? How was it appropriate to the game?

jackattack
2012-03-11, 05:33 PM
I'm sorry, but pilot of...

A fighter?
An airliner or small spaceship?
A sailing ship or starship?

Part of the trick is to make sure that the system is forgiving enough that everything doesn't come down to one make-or-break roll. This might mean that different elements of piloting (craft position, maneuvering to dodge incoming fire) are separate rolls, or it might mean that the craft is strong enough to withstand a minor collision or a direct hit without exploding in a million pieces.

Worlok
2012-03-11, 05:37 PM
The problem as I see it lies in the fact that piloting's one of those skills that need to have some dedicated plot to really shine. So, basically, if you got a pilot on the party, those who run the game should carefully consider that and build in something that plays to his skills somewhere during the planning phase. Things like an airborne random encounter, a dogfight putting both pilot and plane to the test (or the occasional solo session for sidequests tailored to such). Issue, obviously, being that noone except said pilot would be of much use during such moments - or if they are, they'll still probably have to rely on the pilot to tell them what exactly they should do and much more importantly, to get them out alive, which would in turn strongly suggest you best do as the guy who very literally has to keep you all from dying horribly commands. With the way things sometimes tend to go, this takes a group whose members can take hanging back and letting someone else take charge but for a moment, or otherwise the whole thing being pilot-themed, preferably with all of those present being able to act independently, or something well-done in between, as otherwise someone most likely would find reason to complain. You rocking the Red Baron sometimes means that all the others watch Red Baron, as it were, with the original idea being something like a multiplayer game of Crimson Skies. It can be pulled off, certainly, but it takes some effort, is what I'm saying. But you probably guessed this much already, in which case I apologise.

As for a solution, however, one thing to try is mentioning that you've been thinking about airplane goodness in the game, and depending on how everyone reacts, maybe trying a dedicated pilot-based campaign, or even just a session, to check how it goes. Or to, if you are the one who runs, subtly or not-so-subtly nudge your players into putting something to the effect of piloting skills down when building characters, and then try it out at some point during the game later on. However, everything involving aviation is a high-risk, high-stakes, massive-focus venture when it wants to be interesting in a game, so it takes some daring on the part of those who play, not just the people being played, to make it awesome, and as such a kind of mindset sadly rare, judging from personal experience. For instance, I can still recall the guy who bitched at quite considerable length when he found out that being on another person's plane does not exactly mean you get to set the course, yet on the other hand, I did once watch a World of Darkness game that ended up being essentially "Ace Combat - Soviet Vampire Edition", so I can assure you - if it works, it can be glorious. Rock on. :smallsmile:

Ornithologist
2012-03-11, 05:38 PM
The big Issue I have with pilot type characters relates to, oddly enough, Firefly. If you look at it, Wash spends almost all of his time in the pilots chair, and almost never leaves the ship.

Most players I game with seem to think that their pilot character will never leave the pilots chair ever.

jackattack
2012-03-11, 05:59 PM
I subscribe to the theory that a good ship is one that gives as many characters as possible something to do.

So not only does a good ship need a pilot, it needs a copilot/navigator. Their rolls might be independent of the pilot's, or they might give his rolls a bonus.

A good ship needs a mechanic to keep it going in flight, whether they are patching damage, optimizing engine performance, or redirecting energy to systems that need it. The mechanic doesn't just fix the ship while it's in the hangar/drydock.

A good ship has at least one (auxiliary) gunner's position that can be manned by characters without technical skills. Depending on your game universe, it might also have "point defenses" that need to be manned by someone.

Flying a ship in stressful or combat situations needs to be a collaborative effort that involves as much of the party as possible, so instead of it being something that the DM can only do once in a while to cater to one player's strengths while everyone else gets a snack, it becomes something that everyone looks forward to as a (semi-)regular part of the game.

-----

The key to having a character who can get out of the pilot's chair is to make sure the character has some skill that makes him useful out of the pilot's chair.

Wash had zero skills other than piloting and driving the ATV, so he never left the bridge. Sulu was a pilot and a botanist, and he fenced, so he had some usefulness in situations other than pushing buttons and steering. Han Solo was a gunfighter and a smuggler and a mechanic in his own right, so he had skills enough to be a central character. Sky Captain was also a renaissance adventurer, and thus a central character.

So even if it leaves you a little short on a cockpit skill, put some points into anything that makes the party want you to come along when the gear is down and the engines are cold.

Triaxx
2012-03-11, 06:10 PM
Not forgetting their respective co-pilots. I don't know enough about Firefly to know who that co-pilot was. Just enough to know the little girl is scary and the captain think's he's Kirk.

Sulu had Chekov, who's not quite so talented, but makes up for his short comings with sheer balls. (Chekov, Pavel A. Rank: Admiral)

And Han had Chewie, who was at least as capable, a master mechanic and strong enough to rip your arms off to boot.

---

Depending on the ship a pilot is not necessarily a captain. A captain commands his crew. A pilot commands the ship. A pilot needs to know exactly what the ship can and cannot do, so that if the captain asks something, he can say yes or no. Without that, he's not much of a pilot. And being an Ace Pilot means he can get more out of whatever he's flying than the average joe.

Dark Herald
2012-03-11, 06:21 PM
Luke Skywalker is an ace pilot. He doesn't do much in episode 4 outside of the cockpit, but he later learns some tricks as a Jedi. The important thing is to not make piloting a very expensive skill for people to learn, so that their character doesn't have to specialize in it.

After looking through TvTropes, that's the only really good example I could find.

But then I remembered Paul and Leto from Dune. Really good pilots who also have other good abilities.

Basically piloting isn't something a character should specialize in. Like the Decker problem in cyberpunk, it either needs to be something all the characters can help with or an ancillary skill.

Earthwalker
2012-03-12, 06:33 AM
I would also be interested in hearing what people think can be good solutions to this problem.
I am planning o move my current Pathfinder game onto the high seas. The general idea the players get a ship (powered in someway by magi-tech) They have a captain, first officer, gunners, engineer. Once they are on the way I can have some nautical encounters.
Ship to ship combat, or ship to sea monster combat.
I was thinking the Captain (ace pilot) can get an ability like bard performance, providing a competence bonus to the crew, spend a simple action to start and then maintain it for a number of rounds, all based on Profession(sailor) skill.
Give the engineer something to do with power to shields / guns.
The gunners can operate some of the ships guns.
Not sure how to keep a first officer busy.
Of course the captain may need something else to do once all have a bonus.

I am also having problems with general ship activities, being chanse by a enemy ma’o war. So they may decide to sail close to reefs to lose their persurer. This causes the biggest problem as a failed roll will lead to the ship grounding.

Storm Bringer
2012-03-12, 06:52 PM
I would also be interested in hearing what people think can be good solutions to this problem.
I am planning o move my current Pathfinder game onto the high seas. The general idea the players get a ship (powered in someway by magi-tech) They have a captain, first officer, gunners, engineer. Once they are on the way I can have some nautical encounters.
Ship to ship combat, or ship to sea monster combat.
I was thinking the Captain (ace pilot) can get an ability like bard performance, providing a competence bonus to the crew, spend a simple action to start and then maintain it for a number of rounds, all based on Profession(sailor) skill.
Give the engineer something to do with power to shields / guns.
The gunners can operate some of the ships guns.
Not sure how to keep a first officer busy.
Of course the captain may need something else to do once all have a bonus.

I am also having problems with general ship activities, being chanse by a enemy ma’o war. So they may decide to sail close to reefs to lose their persurer. This causes the biggest problem as a failed roll will lead to the ship grounding.


problem the first (crew positions): my suggestion is that the captian can grant a constant, low bonus to all crew using a full round action (him stood on the quaterdeck, shouting orders and co-ordinating the ship as a whole), while the XO can grant a larger bonus to one activity at a time, but needs to spend a turn moving to affect a new system (the XO running around the ship, being all dynamic and leading his skills as needed). It suits the "big pcture/little picture" spilt that real CO/XOs often have. The XO deals with the smaller things, to leave the captian free to woory about the big things ("Number One, get to the foreward battery and show them how to aim a damm gun! Helm, hard a starboard! lay us alongside at pistol-shot. Engineering, all power to starboard screens!" you get the idea).

Problem the second (chases and failed rolls): the simplest solution is to save "running Aground" for a critical failure. Instead, have the player ship loose or gain time on the other ship (think of it as they see the reef, realise they've cut it too close, but have to veer wide to avoid it in time, thus loosing a lot of speed and letting the other guy catch up). on the flip side, thier should be a bonus for exceptionally high rolls (say, +x time per 5 over target number, or somthing).

Historical ship chases were long, drawn out affairs that lasted for days, and settled by speed difference os half a knot. Watch Master and Commander for some ideas. also watch it cos it was a good flim. have them plow on though a storm when it would be safer to slow down. have them hiding in a ba while the enemy sails past. and so on.


in short, if you think that too much is riding on the player passing one roll, then reduce the concquences of failure to a level you are happy with. If the players fluff one roll, then it's not so bad. if they are repeatedly fluffing rolls, then either you've made the challenge too hard, or you'r party has offended Nuffle the Dice God by heretical dice practices, and your all doomed. :smallbiggrin:

NichG
2012-03-12, 08:58 PM
I've got a character that wishes he were a pilot mechanically, because it would have been very useful in many cases. Instead, he muddles through with all sorts of screwups, mishaps, and the like. The reason it falls on my character instead of the rest of the party is that, well, they're not pilots either, and also I built the ship in question.

The key is, the campaign isn't about being on a ship flying somewhere. The ship is like a flying car or shuttlecraft with a max speed of 90mph, a small vehicle that can be useful in situations as a tool but by no means is an everywhere/all the time thing. If the ship gets destroyed, then we're out a useful vehicle (this has happened 1.5 times so far - the 0.5 since we were able to salvage enough to repair it, the 1 from a complete and utter loss of the vessel).

There have been times when I've tried to pick up people from a heist to steal the bell from a monastery inhabited by preternatural monks (fly by in cloaking mode, and flash the antigrav field at just the right time to catch the other PC as they fall - things like that). I've certainly had to make rolls there and, since I didn't build for it, spent a lot of Willpower or just outright failed (leading to complications as the PC drops into the midst of a bunch of monks below, but certainly not a TPK!).

A big portion of it has been minimizing damage done to the craft during these maneuvers. If I succeed, the craft is fine, not a scratch. If I fail, it gets all dinged up and costs resources but more importantly a part of a very finite downtime interval to repair.

That said, usually the only times I have to really roll are when I'm asking for it, trying to use the ship in some way that is beyond normal scheduled flying. It never really happens that randomly 'so you're flying across the river to visit your friend and tornado! Roll piloting or die!', which does make it more of a player-driven thing than a reactive roll (which I prefer, but it could mean you have an ace pilot who never pilots if you don't actively try to do crazy stuff with the vehicle).

As far as 'pilot' with regards to a large starship, I'd say its not really the right skill anymore. Pilot to me is directing a small craft at speed, not 'lets plot a course to avoid the asteroid belt' type things.

Another use of Pilot I've seen (or at least, can come up) is augmented characters. Its not a ship, but if your character's thing is 'I've got a giant robot', or even 'I have a helicopter', 'Pilot' could be used in place of or as a limiting factor on anything from attack rolls to defenses. Yes, it means your character is somewhat tied to their gear, but they can still go places with the party.

TheThan
2012-03-12, 09:02 PM
I made an example character named, “Dirk Solitaire-Ace pilot” for a spirit of the century campaign. He was an ace pilot during the Great War, and afterward has become a bush pilot flying over Africa. He’s a scoundrel through and through, and spends plenty of time out of his plane. While the character is very skilled in piloting, he’s not entirely focused on in. He’s pretty darn good in a brawl and is pretty good at talking to people. One of my players has picked the character and really enjoys using him.

So he was useful outside of his plane. The point is that some skills/character concepts shouldn’t need to be min/maxed to be effective. A specialized pilot shouldn’t be penalized for not being in his plane. Humans can’t fly under their own power, so we have to live on the ground. Therefore a pilot is going to spend most of the time he’s not airborne on the ground.

I learned another idea from DMing Star Wars D20. That is to give every character something to do. If you have four people, that’s very easy. You have your pilot, plus your gunners and your engineer. They should be DOING THINGS like shooting the weapons, redirecting shields, repairing damage etc. if they’re just sitting there while the pilot makes a few skill checks, it’ll get boring fast.

Which brings me to my last point. Make the airborne (space borne whatever), exciting and fun. Go watch a good car chase film, or a war movie centered on air power, or go play some video games focusing on air combat. Then try to re-create the feeling you get in those games. Let the players try to force the enemy car into crashing into the street vender. Encourage them to do cool stunts and generally be awesome.

Jay R
2012-03-13, 09:26 AM
One of the problems with the mechanics of most RPGs is the simplistic notion that you either succeed completely or fail completely. Since failing completely for a pilot could mean crashing the plane, this causes a grossly unrealistic result.

Planes do not, in fact, crash 5% of the time.

Consider this approach to a dogfight.
GM: An enemy plane is seen coming out of the cloud above you. Pilot, what do you do?
Pilot: Immediate evasive maneuver. (She rolls d20.) I got a 12, 4 above my ability
DM. OK. the enemy has a -4 on any shot. He misses, but there is flak in front of you.
Pilot. I avoid the flak, and maneuver to attack him. (She rolls d20.) I missed by 6.
DM: OK. 6/2 is 3. Gunner, you can now attack, but you are at -3.
etc.

Later:
DM: OK, you return to the aircraft carrier. Seas are kind of choppy, so -3 to your landing.
Pilot: (She rolls a d20) Missed by 4.
DM: The plane lands with a bump, and the other pilots laugh at you at dinner that night.

The pilot can "fail" repeatedly, causing difficulties, not death. And they do. In the U.S. Navy, at least, each take-off, landing, etc. are graded and kept posted on a big chart.

It's also the kind of skill where I'd use a 4d6 or 5d6, making the worst roll (which still wouldn't cause a crash except in exceptionally difficult times) much less likely.

And by the way, the pilot skill should get tested pretty rarely, just like any other skill. A full-time fighter pilot doesn't get into dogfights every day.

PersonMan
2012-03-13, 09:39 AM
One of the problems with the mechanics of most RPGs is the simplistic notion that you either succeed completely or fail completely. Since failing completely for a pilot could mean crashing the plane, this causes a grossly unrealistic result.

Planes do not, in fact, crash 5% of the time.

Which games are you talking about?

IIRC, d20 Modern has the same 'take 10' clause as DnD (you mention 5%, which seems to be referencing the natural 1 thing). I don't know about GURPS or other systems, though.

some guy
2012-03-13, 09:40 AM
I'm currently DM'ing a island-hopping campaign. If my pc's fail their Sailor-check during rough weather something bad can happen to the ship (ripped sails, falling beams, being swept overboard, ship hits carcass; leaves blood trail which attracts sharks and mermaids*). They have hired a captain, he can make those checks easier for them to make. One time the captain went down by a sahaugin bolt. Because no-one had ranks in Sailor, and they were in a storm but they rolled well they came upon the wrong island.

Like others have said, you don't need to succed or fail completely. And what I like to do is that failed checks create problems. Fail a check and something interesting happens that needs solving.


*In my campaign mermaids are attracted by blood.

Need_A_Life
2012-03-13, 10:01 AM
I don't see it as (too much) of a problem, assuming you remember:
1) If failing a roll won't be as interesting as making it, then the GM should not ask for the roll.
2) The character is not just a pilot and nothing else.

I'd like to point to Babylon 5 as a place where we've got plenty of skilled combat pilots running around and plenty of them are quite skilled, but they still spend most of their time talking to people around the station.
Wash in Firefly, great character though he was, was an NPC. Practically never leaves his chair, seen off the ship only a few times and mostly providing Zoe's player an opportunity to get some dramatic moments (Serenity illustrated that quite well, I think).

When GMing a game where I don't see piloting skills to be all that relevant, I make it clear to the player that he might get to use the skill, but that it won't come up often.

emeraldemon
2012-03-13, 10:29 AM
IMO if you are looking for a historical/modern fighter pilot campaign, it would make the most sense to have all the PCs be pilots.

Take the famous Red Baron: he commanded a squadron of fighters (Jasta), and to quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasta_11)"The Jasta's performance is all the more extraordinary as the unit usually flew in small flights of six or fewer." So a group of 5-6 PC pilots flying missions together would actually be the most historically accurate approach.

Of course not every adventure has to be in the air: maybe a pilot gets shot down over enemy territory and gets captured, and the other pilots land in a field and mount a rescue mission or some such. Maybe intrigue/backstabbing at home, a jealous pilot tries to sabotage one of your squad's planes, you have to figure out who. But I don't think the "every PC is a different class" style really makes sense for pilots in a war.

Reaper_Monkey
2012-03-13, 10:34 AM
How have you tested a pilot character's skill? Were the stakes high? How was it appropriate to the game?

I've never had need to yet, but there are a few key things I would do. To start with, I'd be sure to expand the list of things that a pilot does, they don't just fly the ship there's lots more that they can and could do... which leads me onto...


If you look at it, Wash spends almost all of his time in the pilots chair, and almost never leaves the ship.

Most players I game with seem to think that their pilot character will never leave the pilots chair ever.

This isn't true actually, well yes he does sit in his chair most of the time, but he does get out of it and does do more. He plots courses, either to avoid patrols or to get to places quickly. He clearly fixes and modifies the controls of the ship (the cockpit at anyrate). He scans for other ships and handles communications seemingly, and okay this might not be any more fun than "driving" but it can be made more fun when its solving problems or making things more optimised as so to get a better result when needed (boosting signals, longer ranged sensors against one type of craft etc). He also, of cause, flies the ship - but only note worthily so when its to avoid things... which leads me onto...


Make the airborne (space borne whatever), exciting and fun. Go watch a good car chase film, or a war movie centered on air power, or go play some video games focusing on air combat. Then try to re-create the feeling you get in those games. Let the players try to force the enemy car into crashing into the street vender. Encourage them to do cool stunts and generally be awesome.

Emphasis mine. This I totally agree with, driving from point A to point B is boring. But avoiding extra damage by weaving between rocks or other cars when being fired upon, or out manoeuvring a foe and escaping so that you don't have to engage them are all key things where its not just a succeed/'fail and die' check and are generally more interesting for the player to do. Allow them to change the parameters of a situation using their skills, not simply overcome problems thrown in their way.

Don't have the get-a-way driver just roll to avoid crashing into an oncoming car, give them the option to drive into oncoming traffic to better lose their pursuers (and then make them roll) or to drive up onto the street to maintain speed during an escape, or cut across the park despite it being harder to drive across because they're good at driving so the penalty hardly matters to them but will give them the edge to cover more ground.

Basically, make the pilots job more than just moving and avoiding certain failure, make it to do with optimising towards chosen goals whilst avoiding unnecessary penalties, make it to do with allowing them to pull off crazy cool things which directly improve the teams situation.

It's still a niche roll so it helps to have other related skills, but watch enough actions films and you soon realise that the cool things to drivers/pilots do has nothing to do with the everyday run of the mill stuff of just getting about, and very very rarely does anything happen that would cause all out destruction/failure unless the character has chosen to put themselves in those situations.

It's important to note that choosing to take on a risk for a bigger pay off is all part and parcel of standard gaming and is fun, rolling dice to avoid bad things you couldn't have otherwise avoided is boring and unfun. So maximise the choices available with a whole spread of risk to reward payoffs and avoid "quick time events".

DropsonExistanc
2012-03-13, 07:20 PM
A pilot's experience may seem very specialized, and in modern times it definitely is, but that doesn't mean that the pilot's skills can't be useful in similar areas outside the ship. Mechanics, aim, and reflexes are all things important to piloting (I'm fairly certain) that are just as useful in other circumstances.

A piloting system that relies at least as much on raw talent as training would mean that the character could use that raw talent (aka ability scores, whatever) in other circumstances. Specialized skills could also provide circumstance/training bonuses to related skills, like mechanics ("well this looks a lot like a thruster, maybe I can just...").

Oracle_Hunter
2012-03-14, 08:39 AM
I was feeling very hopeful as I've tried playing an ace pilot in games in the past and I found it problematic. I've found that you can make a pilot character but their piloting ability very rarely gets tested. The reason for this is that it is inappropriate to the game to have the pilot fail. The game would be effectively over if the ship was to blow up with everyone aboard (or get lost, or break down).
So, this is specifically a "Pilot as Party Transport" problem? Presumably this is not a problem if the Pilot Character is, say, a fighter pilot and the game takes place on an aircraft carrier.

Amusingly, I like the not-system of Bliss Stage when it comes to modeling Fighter Pilot-style games. Unless you're running a Wargame, actual flying combat is probably too complicated to model in a Pen & Paper RPG.

NichG
2012-03-14, 02:10 PM
So, this is specifically a "Pilot as Party Transport" problem? Presumably this is not a problem if the Pilot Character is, say, a fighter pilot and the game takes place on an aircraft carrier.

Amusingly, I like the not-system of Bliss Stage when it comes to modeling Fighter Pilot-style games. Unless you're running a Wargame, actual flying combat is probably too complicated to model in a Pen & Paper RPG.

Out of curiousity I read up a bit on World War I piloting and the tactics used by the Red Baron and other famous pilots. Basically, I think you could take those tactics and turn them into a pretty simple battle system with some degree of richness.

Your battle mat would be separated into 'engagement zones', maybe no more than a 8x8 grid of them like a chess board. Within an engagement zone, each plane has a facing and an altitude. Each plane must move a square in the direction of its facing and can change facing by 45 degrees [90 for Maneuverable craft] after the move (with special 'maneuvers' allowing changes before move, 135-180 degree changes, changes during move to get knight's move type things, etc), and can move an additional square by sacrificing Altitude. Planes can attack only into the square immediately ahead of them (or behind them if they have a rear gun mount). Attacks on planes moving across their line of fire (deflection shots) are highly penalized compared to attacks on planes moving directly towards or away.

Each plane would also have an Altitude, which would be used to resolve attempts to break off from an engaged craft and could be gained by sacrificing movement elsewhere.

The complicated part of the system would be that stealth is highly important. Planes in the rear cone of the facing would be hard to detect, as would planes coming from higher altitude. From accounts, it seems like altitude was mostly an initiative and escape thing. If you attacked from higher, you could position the sun between you and your opponent, so they didn't notice you until you had taken a shot at them. Most dogfights were won or lost in this first strafe. If you had altitude, you could keep it more easily than other planes could gain it, allowing you a chance to escape from a faster plane.

Jay R
2012-03-14, 02:13 PM
Planes do not, in fact, crash 5% of the time.Which games are you talking about?

IIRC, d20 Modern has the same 'take 10' clause as DnD (you mention 5%, which seems to be referencing the natural 1 thing). I don't know about GURPS or other systems, though.

Sigh. Red herring duly noted.

OK, planes do not, in fact, crash 5% of the time when a real roll is required.

kyoryu
2012-03-14, 02:58 PM
I think people are looking at the "Shadowrun Decker" problem - a character whose specialty is in a totally separate mini-game, and is useless outside of it. While that's a valid issue, I don't think it's what the OP is talking about.

I think the OP is talking about the fact that if a pilot fails, that means the craft crashes, and everyone dies.

Due to this, the pilot is never put in a situation where he can fail. Meaning that any investment in that space is completely irrelevant.

Really, this is a sub-case of the general statement that every "group" of die rolls should indicate a possible branch in the game. Typically, there's no branching involved for the situations where a pilot would be called to test his skills. It's very similar to having a locked door that must be picked to advance the game - of *course* the thief is going to be able to pick it. If not, the game stalls.

TheThan
2012-03-14, 03:26 PM
Sigh. Red herring duly noted.

OK, planes do not, in fact, crash 5% of the time when a real roll is required.


But people fail die rolls 5% of the time, so if a single die roll determines whether a plane will crash or not, then is safe to assume that planes fall out of the air 5% of the time. Its simply the mechanics of the game.



I think the OP is talking about the fact that if a pilot fails, that means the craft crashes, and everyone dies.

Due to this, the pilot is never put in a situation where he can fail. Meaning that any investment in that space is completely irrelevant.

Really, this is a sub-case of the general statement that every "group" of die rolls should indicate a possible branch in the game. Typically, there's no branching involved for the situations where a pilot would be called to test his skills. It's very similar to having a locked door that must be picked to advance the game - of *course* the thief is going to be able to pick it. If not, the game stalls.
Well then that’s all on the Dm’s head. It’s the dm’s job to provide interesting encounters. If the only possible outcome of the pilot’s failure is crashing and death, then the DM needs to change the parameters of the outcomes. For example, failure may mean the enemies tail the pcs plane to their hideout. Or it could mean that the plane takes damage, not enough to destroy the plane (look at the B17 flying fortress for examples of what I mean), but enough to cause problems later on. It could mean the pcs do crash, but that crash could lead them onto another adventure. There are tons of plot hooks just waiting to be used, many of which the PCs will actually create for themselves.

I agree, any encounter should branch into many different encounters. Some times I’ve spend the majority of my time actually planning and writing contingencies in case the pcs take that obvious left turn. A lot of the times most of those contingencies won’t be used. But its useful to have them planned out anyway.

eggs
2012-03-14, 03:27 PM
Reaper_Monkey basically hit the point I was going to:

It sounds like you're treating the pilot's skill as maintenance of the status quo, rather than a domain with its own chances of success.

Our Daring Flying Ace might need to race the Villainous Mustachioed Archaviatrix to the MacGuffin amid the flak clouds of a bombing raid. There's a margin for success (the DFA beats the VMA to the prize and the plot continues with the players at an advantage); there's a margin for failure (the DFA's trusty biplane careens toward the ocean, giving the PCs inside a chance to try to escape the consequences); there's room for a strategic gameplay element, if the system permits. Overall, this is hardly a bad situation for the game.

The Hacker problem is still there for pilots and drivers though, and is something I've had trouble with in my games.
Secondary flight/ship/driving tasks can usually be thrown in to keep the other players occupied/involved, but after too many, they start to feel like secondary tasks only thrown in to keep the other players occupied.

Bogardan_Mage
2012-03-15, 06:47 AM
Sigh. Red herring duly noted.

OK, planes do not, in fact, crash 5% of the time when a real roll is required.
Indeed they do not. The automatic fail on a natural 1 thing (as it applies to skills) is an optional rule. Skills do not, RAW, fail 5% of the time in any game with which I am familiar. It's basically just attacks and saving throws that do that.

It would be very helpful if a specific system were specified here. D20 Modern, for example, does not require a single check to fly a vehicle (as Reaper_Monkey suggests). In fact, "typical piloting tasks don't require checks". The Pilot skill (and the Drive skill, which is pretty much the same but in two dimensions instead of three) is primarily used for stunts, or for extreme conditions (combat, for example).

Prime32
2012-03-15, 02:33 PM
But people fail die rolls 5% of the time, so if a single die roll determines whether a plane will crash or not, then is safe to assume that planes fall out of the air 5% of the time. Its simply the mechanics of the game.That's the mechanics of D&D and related systems. In some games the roll does not determine whether you succeed or fail, just how cool you look doing it. In some games you never roll dice at all.

kyoryu
2012-03-15, 04:30 PM
I agree, any encounter should branch into many different encounters. Some times I’ve spend the majority of my time actually planning and writing contingencies in case the pcs take that obvious left turn. A lot of the times most of those contingencies won’t be used. But its useful to have them planned out anyway.

You can either do that, or run a game that is more reactive to the players (prep scenarios, not plots, basically).

But that's not what happens in the vast majority of games I've seen, where there really is a linear A-B-C path. Even using a contingency scenario, like yours above, is IMHO unsustainable in the long run due to the amount of planning effort required.

So I *sort of* agree with you. I'd probably rephrase it more as "for a Pilot skill to make sense, the game has to be of a non-linear type where the DM is willing to go 'off the rails' in response to player actions'. This is both a system and player/DM issue, as both some systems, and some groups, either promote or discourage this type of play.

Stubbazubba
2012-03-15, 11:25 PM
That's the mechanics of D&D

Actually, not even this. D&D's nat 1 rule only applies to attacks and saves, not skills.

Make Piloting skills something that someone can pick up on the side, and encourage players to pick up secondary skills somehow. This is hard to do when the same character creation/advancement resources are used to increase numbers in all mini-games, and then the difficulty of encounters assumes that all PCs are optimized for a single given mini-game, but this can be alleviated, either by having levels and classes, or by putting in restrictions to how much you can increase abilities past a certain point, either absolutely or per level. This will make Pilot characters more flexible.

As far as making Piloting stuff interesting, pretty much, yeah, as others have said, first only roll to do cool stuff, and then make failure move the plot forward, never let it just bring everything to a grinding halt or worse, a TPK. The dice should determine how the plot moves, not if the plot moves. Naturally, this can be really difficult to come up with on the fly. Maybe you want to save super high-stakes Piloting for the end of sessions, so that the DM has a chance to come up with something good for the next session which flows from the results of the flight. Avoid making success or failure hinge on a single die roll, and if the PCs are getting weary of repeated failures, you ought to throw them some softballs so they can feel like their plot decisions matter. This is a tricky balance to achieve, and it pretty much just takes experience to find out how much failure is too much for any given group.

Kuma Kode
2012-03-16, 02:09 AM
Whether or not the "Pilot Problem" becomes a problem, and what the solution is, will depend a lot on what system you're using and the style of the campaign. If the issue is that the pilot can't fail because the options are "succeed" or "crash the ship and die," the solution might be to avoid simplified die rolls. Introduce gradients of success, or require rolls and options for different activities involved in the situation. Maybe failure grazes the ship, reducing its HP. If the pilot fails too much, the ship will be destroyed but not in an all-or-nothing way. It will be destroyed for the same reasons a character in combat dies because they fail too many dodge rolls or whatever.

Having the pilot be able to do nothing else depends on the campaign. If it's going to take place on the ship A LOT, having the pilot specialize isn't a problem. If the ship is just transport between adventures and only occasionally an adventure itself, specializing is a bad idea, but in the same way that building a character to be a sniper when you're going to be raiding ships (which are pretty much nothing but enclosed areas) is a bad idea.

What I really had trouble with in my d20 Future campaign was that, like has been said, the pilot is playing a different mini-game than everyone else. We had some great scenes for the pilot, controlling a damaged ship on reentry so everyone didn't die, but it ended up losing a lot of... well, everything, because it ended up being everyone else watching the pilot do something. Inclusion is one of the more difficult things to work with for a pilot, which ultimately made me rewrite the entire ship combat rules. It's not perfect, but everyone ends up with more to do and the pilot gets to shine, so my group is fairly happy with it.

TheThan
2012-03-16, 03:01 PM
That's the mechanics of D&D and related systems. In some games the roll does not determine whether you succeed or fail, just how cool you look doing it. In some games you never roll dice at all.
True, but since this is a dnd forum its fairly safe to assume the OP is talking about a dnd related system. Just as the quote I was referencing clearly indicates a dnd system of some sort.

You can either do that, or run a game that is more reactive to the players (prep scenarios, not plots, basically).

But that's not what happens in the vast majority of games I've seen, where there really is a linear A-B-C path. Even using a contingency scenario, like yours above, is IMHO unsustainable in the long run due to the amount of planning effort required.

So I *sort of* agree with you. I'd probably rephrase it more as "for a Pilot skill to make sense, the game has to be of a non-linear type where the DM is willing to go 'off the rails' in response to player actions'. This is both a system and player/DM issue, as both some systems, and some groups, either promote or discourage this type of play.

True also. Ultimately there’s no right or wrong way to Dm. Some methods work better than others for different people. I didn’t mean to suggest there was only one or two ways to Dm. Ad-libbing is as much of a skill as preplanning adventure paths. I didn’t mean to imply there was correct or right way to Dm any given game. Whatever method works for you is the “best” method.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-03-16, 05:42 PM
I had a minor epiphany about this, actually. It involves one of the aspects of piloting that is usually really glossed over by people planning adventures.

In Firefly, one of the main uses of Wash's piloting isn't just to pull crazy stunts like flying over a train to lower Jayne in (The Train Job) or nestling up next to a remote-disposal trashcan (Trash). Piloting is a way to get the players to the right place at the right time.

So do that in your game. The captain names the circumstances he wants to arrive in, and the timing of arrival. The pilot makes a roll. On a success, they get to their location where they want to be, when they want to be there. On a failure, they get there too late, off course, lose the element of surprise, are a tad early (and tip people off before the job is scheduled to go down), or attract the wrong kind of attention.

That moves the pilot into a very visible support role that is crucial to the success of the group.

kyoryu
2012-03-16, 07:27 PM
True also. Ultimately there’s no right or wrong way to Dm. Some methods work better than others for different people. I didn’t mean to suggest there was only one or two ways to Dm. Ad-libbing is as much of a skill as preplanning adventure paths. I didn’t mean to imply there was correct or right way to Dm any given game. Whatever method works for you is the “best” method.

Oh, trust me, I'm very much an ad-libber. I find that it adds to player agency, and I greatly prefer that style of game to massive pre-planning, for many reasons including the reason described here.

I just recognize that there are game styles that aren't like that, and that are fun, and that kind of "derailment" doesn't really work in them.



So do that in your game. The captain names the circumstances he wants to arrive in, and the timing of arrival. The pilot makes a roll. On a success, they get to their location where they want to be, when they want to be there. On a failure, they get there too late, off course, lose the element of surprise, are a tad early (and tip people off before the job is scheduled to go down), or attract the wrong kind of attention.

That moves the pilot into a very visible support role that is crucial to the success of the group.

Very Burning Wheel-esque, where "failure" doesn't typically mean "YOU LOSE!" but rather "okay, this adds a complication..."

nedz
2012-03-17, 02:22 PM
One solution is to make the pilot an NPC. This means that they can be one dimensional and everyone is happy. This is applicable to any game where an expert is required. Bonus points if they have another dimension which is revealed a lot later in the story, this can even be retconned seemlessly.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2012-03-19, 08:42 PM
I handled it in one campaign by letting the airship pilot's job not be pass/fail. Instead, the pilot's job was to reduce the amount of damage to their ship took during the mission. Pilot fails three checks in a row? Yeah, you might make it home, but you'll probably be in the market for a new ship.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-19, 10:48 PM
The big Issue I have with pilot type characters relates to, oddly enough, Firefly. If you look at it, Wash spends almost all of his time in the pilots chair, and almost never leaves the ship.

Most players I game with seem to think that their pilot character will never leave the pilots chair ever.

Or, worse, will when they're needed elsewhere.