question on consistency

[tgcb]

Probably a strange question...

But, is anyone else thrown off by the fact that for your attributes you want to roll high, but for skill/combat you want to roll low?

Just reading through the rules, for some reason it struck me as inconsistent in the sense that if a high-roll is good for this part of the game, why isn't it good for all parts of the game?

Having not played in years, it's probably a non-issue that will go away once we play (if ever....kids/wives/jobs getting in the way).

[rust]

But, is anyone else thrown off by the fact that for your attributes you want to roll high, but for skill/combat you want to roll low?

I do not see it as a problem. The roll for attributes is a part of the character

generation process, while the skill rolls are a part of the roleplaying process -

they do not get in each other's way.

[vagabond]

Look at it this way, attributes (like skill levels) set the bar - you want

them high. Skill rolls (and attribute rolls) are successful if under the

target, so you want to roll low.

So, it is actually very consistent. Attributes and skill levels are high since

they set the target, and rolls against them are preferred low since success

is determined by rolling under the target.

-V

[tgcb]

But, in almost everything "100%" is better than "1%"...except in the game.

Wilt Chamberlain is famous for, among other things, scoring 100 points in an NBA game. There probably is several people who only scored 1 point (made only 1 freethrow)....but no one is paying them for endorsements.

Your boss wants you to give "110%". I'd rather make $80 and hour than $15 an hour. Etc., etc.

I mean, other than golf where a low score is necessary, higher is normally better.

"I got a 98!" seems more likely to pump someone up instead of "I rolled a 4!".

But again, we haven't even played yet so we have no right to complain at this point. I guess we could invert the rule but we'd have to invert all the tables as well.

Edited June 19, 2009 by tgcb

[DiracSquid]

I'm very sorry to say that I don't understand the problem.

Yes, characteristics are supposed to be high, Skills are supposed to be high, but the roles are supposed to be low. Simply put, that's just the way it is - why does it have to fit the convention of other games?

I imagine it's for the sake of simplicity - it would mean a little extra bit of work and calculation to set up the reverse. Now, this is just me talking, but it feels to me that it would belie the easygoing nature of BRP if you had to figure out that sort of thing. I'm sure it's easier for somebody better at mathematics and the like, but again - that simplicity is what makes BRP great, at least in my eyes.

I don't know, sir. I understand where you're coming from at a basic level - but all in all I can't help but wonder if maybe you aren't over-thinking it. Give it a try and I'm sure you'll have no problems.

[vagabond]

But, in almost everything "100%" is better than "1%"...except in the game.

Wilt Chamberlain is famous for, among other things, scoring 100 points in an NBA game. There probably is several people who only scored 1 point (made only 1 freethrow)....but no one is paying them for endorsements.

Your boss wants you to give "110%". I'd rather make $80 and hour than $15 an hour. Etc., etc.

I mean, other than golf where a low score is necessary, higher is normally better.

"I got a 98!" seems more likely to pump someone up instead of "I rolled a 4!".

But again, we haven't even played yet so we have no right to complain at this point. I guess we could invert the rule but we'd have to invert all the tables as well.

OK, now we're getting into the fundamental issue of higher is better.

Again, the skill levels and stats are "high", those are the targets. You

want to roll under those targets. Like a race really, you want to be the

fastest, so you want the lowest time.

Really, play it as written, it works just fine.

-V

[Barliman]

Probably a strange question...

But, is anyone else thrown off by the fact that for your attributes you want to roll high, but for skill/combat you want to roll low?

I've come across people who are bothered by this (and some who get hysterical over it, thinking of a couple of RPG.net threads), but it's really never bothered me.

[tgcb]

So, this is the most flexible RPG ever....unless you want to change it?

(just kidding)

I'm sure we'll learn to ignore this once we get into the game. If we get into the game that is, non-issue if we never get to play.

Actually, now they are fascinated by the Exalted RPG so who knows?

[The Venomous Pao]

Higher isn't always better. You want a low interest rate on loans. You want low cholesterol. You want low taxes. You want low utility bills. Lower is sometimes quite a bit better than higher.

Now, to the point at hand...

It sounds to me like the problem/disconnect comes from wanting to roll high at one point (during character creation) but wanting to roll low at other times (combat, etc.). I suggest not rolling for stats at all. Use the point-buy option (BRP p. 19) instead. Then you take the roll out of it and you're set.

For what it's worth there are a number of other games that go this route, notably Hero and GURPS. You want high stats, but when you roll for task resolution you want to roll low. The difference is that those two games moved away from rolling (high) for stats. Take my suggestion above and you're in the same situation as those two games.

Then you can "buy high, roll low" and be done with it.

I hope that helped.

[vagabond]

So, this is the most flexible RPG ever....unless you want to change it?

(just kidding)

I'm sure we'll learn to ignore this once we get into the game. If we get into the game that is, non-issue if we never get to play.

Actually, now they are fascinated by the Exalted RPG so who knows?

If you really wanted to, you could do [ skill or stat*5 ] + roll % and have to roll

above a certain target for success, say 75 or so. Or, divide skills by 5, and roll

[skill/5 or stat] + roll d20 to beat target number (hmm, where have I seen that

before ). Nobody says you cannot change it, but really, try it as written and

see ... it really is pretty straightforward.

-V

[cjbowser]

I'm sure you've seen some of the *impassioned* threads around here on whether or not rolling higher or lower is more desirable as a mechanic. A quick scan will tell you all you need to know about the merits of one version the other when it comes to skill checks.

That being said, and with the caveat that I'm not trying to re-open that can of worms and the post-script that "no, I don't run my game this way," there's no reason you can't use the blackjack methodology in your own games. Just like Wilt Chamberlin shot for 100 points, a character with 90% in his skill wants to roll as close to 90 without going over. You'd want to invert the Critical/Special/Standard/Failure/Fumble metrics, and sure that'd involve some math, but feel free.

YBRPMV. :thumb:

BTW, to toss out the obligatory "how's this for inconsistency in a game," look no further than AD&D. You want your stats to be high, but the best armor class is -10?

[vagabond]

BTW, to toss out the obligatory "how's this for inconsistency in a game," look no further than AD&D. You want your stats to be high, but the best armor class is -10?

Not to mention all thief skill are roll under % and system shock/resurrection is

roll under %. I believe there are others ...

-V

[threedeesix]

But, in almost everything "100%" is better than "1%"...except in the game.

Wilt Chamberlain is famous for, among other things, scoring 100 points in an NBA game. There probably is several people who only scored 1 point (made only 1 freethrow)....but no one is paying them for endorsements.

I don't follow how this has anything to do with game mechanics. I would rather kill 100 kobolds than 5.

Your boss wants you to give "110%". I'd rather make $80 and hour than $15 an hour. Etc., etc.

Hmm. This works just like in BRP. I would rather have a 110% Profession skill too, its easier to roll under. In BRP, I want my character to make $80.00 an hour just like I would want to in real life as well.

"I got a 98!" seems more likely to pump someone up instead of "I rolled a 4!".

But saying I have a 98% Golf skill is a real world figure that just makes sense. Not "I have Golf +5". When the weatherman says there is a 75% chance of rain, everyone knows to bring an umbrella. If the weatherman said the chance of rain is a 15 or better, a lot of people are gonna get wet.

But again, we haven't even played yet so we have no right to complain at this point. I guess we could invert the rule but we'd have to invert all the tables as well.

Play a few games and see if the confusion smooths out, unless your group is just looking for an excuse to play something else, it should all jive.

Rod

[NickMiddleton]

But, in almost everything "100%" is better than "1%"...except in the game.

You are confusing quantities (a strength score, an amount of damage, a skill score) with a randomiser threshold value.

The roll on the dice for skill checks is a randomiser, providing a threshold value that decides something about the world - given something rated on BRP's standard percentile scale (a skill, ability roll, resistance table target - all of which are also "higher is better" like stats and damage), what happened? Does the outcome fall in the percentage range covered by the skill (rolling under the target, generally "a success")? Is it an exceptional success, represented by a small subset of successes hence rolling under a fraction of the full value? Or does it fall outside the defined range for success (roll over) and is thus a failure?

You and your players will have you own views - mine has always been (in nearly thirty years of running and playing BRP related games) that because the key threshold makes sense to most people new to the game ("If x is my skill, I want the randomiser to come up equal to or less that that"), they find the extension ("if I roll a LONG way under the target it's better") makes sense for them. So I'd recommend trying it in play for a few sessions before changing it: but if at that point it's still not sitting right with the group, I can't see any issue with changing it as, for example cjbowser suggests - in your games you can do what you like.

Nick

Edited June 20, 2009 by NickMiddleton

[tgcb]

What's funny is I know people who still "complain" that attributes are 3-18 but skills are 1-100....they wonder why attributes can't be on a 100 scale.

I think this is how the metric system started - people not being able to handle different numerical ranges.

[MrJealousy]

What's funny is I know people who still "complain" that attributes are 3-18 but skills are 1-100....they wonder why attributes can't be on a 100 scale.

Ah! But you see attributes aren't just 3-18, thats just the human range. Other critters can effectively have any value in the attributes. What's the strength for Cthulhu? 140!

[sdavies2720]

It's too bad that the precendent was for the human range to be 3-18...it makes it really hard to stat anything that is less than human -- there are only a couple of values one can choose.

Now, if we'd started with something like humans having stats of 40+3d6, things would be a little easier. Lots of room to grow, and enough room below to differentiate bacteria, slime,slugs, armadillos, racoons, monkeys, and the like.

Steve

[Al.]

Now, if we'd started with something like humans having stats of 40+3d6,

Yeah and we wouldn't need characteristic rolls (and my SBIII characters wouldn't have ruptured themselves lifting rocks using the bastard 'roll under characteristic on d100' rule) and we could get rid of those pesky, fiddly different base chances for every skill.

Why didn't you raise this when Jason was writing BRP?!

Al

[Atgxtg]

What's funny is I know people who still "complain" that attributes are 3-18 but skills are 1-100....they wonder why attributes can't be on a 100 scale.

They can. There are a couple of BRP relased systems and supplments that do just that. The old FASA Star Trek RPG comes to mind. Fairly similar to BRP, but with stats on a percentile scale.

You can do the same with BRP, by using the STATx5% rolls (Ieea roll, Agility roll etc) as the attributes. You could then divide the stat by 5 to work out things like hipt points, or simply multiply armor and weapon damages by 5 to get the same result.

Of coruse the % rating idea doesn't quite hold up for every case, nor is high always better.

With a D100 the average roll is about half the max, but depending on what you are measuring the "average" rating might not be the same as the statstical mean. In order words, the strongest human might not be twice as strong as an average human. In real life a 100% rating is abosolute. Something that works 100% of the time, just works. In BRP, is is a relative rating.

For things like reaction speed, lower would be better. The reason why you see high % numbers advertised as "better" is because the desirable trait is the one being advertised.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Atgxtg

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Maybe it's just me, but I've never had any problems like that with any type of system (hm, well, Secret Arts for Weapons of the Gods still fries my brain, but that's down to the way it's written, not the system itself), and I've never played with anyone who has in 30+ years of RPGing. If we did play with someone who couldn't cope with rolling high/low, 3d6, 1d100, 5d4+2d6, working out percentages etc,etc I think we'd probably give them some very strange looks! If they were rabid complainers about it I don't think they would last very long. It seems to me to be a more online theoretical complaint than a real one. TBH sometimes I feel that a completely unified system would be less interesting, as every roll would feel the same - I certainly found that with HeroQuest anyway.

WFRP scales everything to 1d100, but that then causes problems for large creatures - if a human can (even theoretically) get 100 STR, what do you do for bigger things?

If the 3d6 range is too near to zero at the bottom, you could always use 2d6+6 for humans, as per INT and SIZ.

cheers,

Mark