Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[Trifletraxor]

It simplifies the base chances, and I like that. The improvement rolls get more complicated though. :cool:

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

It simplifies the base chances, and I like that. The improvement rolls get more complicated though. :cool:

SGL.

You could just add the entire skill category (34%) to the roll but then change the improvement roll from 1D6 to 1D4. You get the same rate of advancement because while you make more rolls, you get less per roll.

[badcat]

I like the Stormbringer 1 way, warts and all. The only modification is to remove POW from the physical bonus formulae to prevent 'super-mages'. It remains in COM and PER bonuses, and I use the Luck roll quite a bit.

[Trifletraxor]

You could just add the entire skill category (34%) to the roll but then change the improvement roll from 1D6 to 1D4. You get the same rate of advancement because while you make more rolls, you get less per roll.

Hmm... Not bad. That's an idea I have to consider.

SGL.

[Kloster]

It simplifies the base chances, and I like that. The improvement rolls get more complicated though. :cool:

SGL.

Not by much, RQ rule was that you add your category mod to the roll before comparing to the value.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[McBard]

MCBard,

I Disagree. I've seen too many people who are good at one thing, and yet don't have a phenomenal stat to back it up.

That's cool. I think at this point we're just having different interpretations of the various adjectives such as "good", "master", "phenomenal" et al and how these adjectives should be reflected using BRP percentiles! To me "good" translates as about 50%, and thus a "phenomenal" stat of 16 or more would not be required to achieve this level...in fact, merely a non-phenomenal stat of 10 could attain 50% using my houserule...

Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen).

In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

[RMS]

Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen).

I completely agree with your concept, but come to a different conclusion. In BRP/RQ it's very common to have characters with well over 100% skills, so Einstein is not a 99%, per the rules, but rather is a 200 or 300% Physics skill. Since great INT is necessary to exceed 100% easily (either in the old way of +3% skill check bonus per point over 12, or in the newer way of just adding skill category bonus of +1% for each point over 10), only someone with a very high INT can get those kinds of skill levels.

In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

We can. My only issue is it seems like you're trying to do the classic "trying to fix something that ain't broken" deal and I'm completely failing to see what you hope to gain from it. High stats already give huge bonuses to the ability to have high skills, in the rules as written, and they do it organically without the need for artificial caps.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to see if I'm missing something about your approach.

[Trifletraxor]

Not by much, RQ rule was that you add your category mod to the roll before comparing to the value.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

The rule suggestion I was commenting was:

When rolling to see if such skills improve at one-fifth of the skill category to the improvement chance. So a 34% Manipulation Skill Category is worth 34/5= +7% to the improvement chance.

Which includes lots of horrible math! :eek:

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

That's cool. I think at this point we're just having different interpretations of the various adjectives such as "good", "master", "phenomenal" et al and how these adjectives should be reflected using BRP percentiles! To me "good" translates as about 50%, and thus a "phenomenal" stat of 16 or more would not be required to achieve this level...in fact, merely a non-phenomenal stat of 10 could attain 50% using my houserule...

But everyone in BRP doesn't have a 10 in the controlling stat. So 37.5% of people can't do thier job professionally.

Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen).

I'd have rated hjim with a rating higher than 99%. Part of the problem is that the % skill rating do't really repsrent the % of the field known. Someone with 25% skill isn't really failing 3/4th of the time, just that his work isn't of as high a quality.

Part of the problem I see with your houserule is that it applies to all skills. For cutting edge sciences and such where a high INT is needed, I could see average skill with the Idea roll, as it is more that just the skill needed, but the ability to look at things in a new way. But you system would mean that anyone with a high score in evaluate, shiphandling, or first aid must be highly intelligent.

Nor do I think that Caruso was a genius simply because he had a high singing ability.

In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

You can say it, but we don't agree on it. I think the beauty of BRP is that it does what it does well. Where or not it is flexible or adaptable is really secondary to me. If it sucked, I wouldn't care how flexible it was. TO me, it's not about how many different ways different people can use it, but how well it does what it was designed to do.

[Nightshade]

I think you can use the stat based base chances and still involve the stats later. Either by having them affect your improvement rolls, or just by calling for stat rolls fairly frequently (whcih I always did, so no issue there)

I want the attributes to be relevant to the _skills_ though, not just as standalones, the first is a solution but not the second. I've also never been a really big fan of the attribute rolls; in almost all cases (the exception being luck rolls for the most part) I tend to think an attribute roll is just standing in for a skill, sometimes a skill the game doesn't recognize.

[Nightshade]

That's the way I did it in my previous posted variant. I kept the skill categories, but used them for the base chances. So Manipulation would be INT+DEX+(STR/2), Knowledge would be INTx2, and so on.

It simiplied skills greatly, since you only had to track those skills that were higher than the starting percentage (the skill category).

THen I used 1/5th of that for improvement rolls.

That's a workable approach, though I think I'd want additional multipliers or adders for some skills that are supposed to be particularly easy (read: high base) by nature.

[Nightshade]

Well, I think that the skill cap of characteristic x 5% is reasonable only at character creation.

However, I disagree with the skill cap after character creation. This is severely limiting on character development; especially for average or slightly below average characters.

I wouldn't necessarily be averse to a starting cap, either (at least with the quasi-freeform previous experience methods the new BRP uses) but I agree that a permanent cap is both excessive at that level, and probably undesireable at almost any level; maximums were one of the elements in the somewhat BRP-like Swordbearer that caused long term problems there as characters could dead-end relatively early.

[Atgxtg]

That's a workable approach, though I think I'd want additional multipliers or adders for some skills that are supposed to be particularly easy (read: high base) by nature.

I was uses a Easy/Normal/Hard approach to skills.

Easy were x2, Hard x 1/2.

[Nightshade]

I was uses a Easy/Normal/Hard approach to skills.

Easy were x2, Hard x 1/2.

I wasn't thinking so much of advancement but as untrained starting base.

[McBard]

You can say it, but we don't agree on it. I think the beauty of BRP is that it does what it does well. Where or not it is flexible or adaptable is really secondary to me. If it sucked, I wouldn't care how flexible it was. TO me, it's not about how many different ways different people can use it, but how well it does what it was designed to do.

Uh, no. This thread is about BRP's skill system and which system—as written in several sources or used in home brew—we prefer to use, as the initial post states:

What do you prefer for a BRP game or inspired homebrew ?...

Or something else altogether ?

I've simply shared some home brew ideas, just as you did in your own first post in the thread:

I've been leaning towards a hybrid.

What I'd like to do it take the old category modfiers, but instead of baseing them around zero, have then use to full stat vale.

Clearly, you do care how flexible the system, as you've just tweaked it yourself.

Look, you don't like the ATT cap idea. Fine. But pay attention to what the thread is about: discussing different approaches ("core" and homebrew) to stat chances.

[McBard]

My only issue is it seems like you're trying to do the classic "trying to fix something that ain't broken" deal and I'm completely failing to see what you hope to gain from it....I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to see if I'm missing something about your approach.

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it.

I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

[Atgxtg]

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it.

I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

I think there is a difference between theoretically "attainable" and what you will see in play, though. For instance, a character with an 11 INT, can still get those improvement rolls over 100%, but someone with an 18 INT is going to make the roll much more often and thus improve much faster. In RQ3 terms, 8 times faster. So while the guy with an 18 might go from 100 to 150% in ten years, the guy with an 11 INT might take another 80 years, if he lives that long.

[RMS]

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it.

Ironically, one of the things I've aways enjoyed about RQII/III is that their skill/attribute relationship is as realistic as I've seen. You don't get the hyper stats, like in GURPS for example, and yet there's a pretty large advantage of a superior stat to a weaker stat. An 18 vs. 10 stat in a primary stats has a 8 or 10% advantage in both current ability and ability to improve, which is substantial. So for the same amount of work, the superior natural ability has a very real advantage. Then, that person gets skill checks more often, per attempt at a skill, and most likely attempts the skill more often due to the higher total skill. At higher level, the natural ability will result in far more frequent skill check successes, so the difference in the skills will actually increase after hitting the ~90% range. As mentioned before, as skills approach 100%, the more able character will have either an 8% (RQIII) or 18% (RQII) superior chance to increase intellectual skills over someone with an average INT. (Due the particulars of RQII vs RQIII advancement, this changes a little depending on which skill set we're talking about, but the difference is similar.)

It sounds like you're only going to be happy with a hard cap. I just don't think that it's necessary because the math of the current system does a much better job of acheiving your goal than a hard cap will do (as I read it), and does it far more elegantly - hey, I'm a math guy, so I really like math that works out elegantly...and slapping hard caps on things isn't the way to do that.

I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

Which is exactly the way the system has worked since day 1, and is actively supported by RQII/III/SB1-4/RW/etc. as written. (Btw, this is why I'm not as big of fan of any of the later BRP games that lack the stat/skill link.) It still sounds like you are trying to work around a "problem" that the system already addresses extremely well (best I'm aware of in any rpg). Talented characters in RQ/etc. have a huge advantage over people with less natural talent, and the difference increases as skills increase.

The nice thing is it does all of that and still retains the ability to let grizzled, average stat, veterans be superior to inexperience, talented people (like the real world). (No default weapon skill taking out a veteran, like GURPS for example.) A veteran with years of experience and straight 10s should be able to crush a newbie with all the talent in the world, but that same newbie should be superior to other newbies with less talent and the same experience, and should excel with experience to a greater deal than those same rivals. This already works extremely well in the system, as written, straight out of the box.

OK, now I'm being a little argumentative, but just because you've hit on one of the things that I think RQ/BRP does extremely well by default: realistic stat/skill links.

[RMS]

I think there is a difference between theoretically "attainable" and what you will see in play, though. For instance, a character with an 11 INT, can still get those improvement rolls over 100%, but someone with an 18 INT is going to make the roll much more often and thus improve much faster. In RQ3 terms, 8 times faster. So while the guy with an 18 might go from 100 to 150% in ten years, the guy with an 11 INT might take another 80 years, if he lives that long.

Exactly. This doesn't even cover all of the other advantages that superior stats give a character. For INT, it's extra points of magic available, meaning the character can do more in the game (cast more spells, cast bigger spells, etc.) and thus is more powerful even with identical skills. For STR, it's extra damage and the ability to carry more, all the time, regardless of skill. For DEX, the iniatitive advantages and ability to more/round give the character a far better chance of simply suriving to even get that next skill roll, a better chance of earning the skill roll (better chance of hitting), and then a better chance of succeeding at the skill roll.

[Atgxtg]

Exactly. This doesn't even cover all of the other advantages that superior stats give a character. For INT, it's extra points of magic available, meaning the character can do more in the game (cast more spells, cast bigger spells, etc.) and thus is more powerful even with identical skills. For STR, it's extra damage and the ability to carry more, all the time, regardless of skill. For DEX, the iniatitive advantages and ability to more/round give the character a far better chance of simply suriving to even get that next skill roll, a better chance of earning the skill roll (better chance of hitting), and then a better chance of succeeding at the skill roll.

Yeah, we're in agreement here. Not surprisingly though. We seem to have a lot of overlap.

I'm don't believe in a hard cap. No matter how good someone is, there is always something new to learn. For instance, if Einstein had a 99% skill, how come Einsteinian physics don't work? Ditto with Quantum Mechanics. I tend to look at skills over 100 as being able to look a bit ahead of current science.

I do like soft caps though. In any well run RQ-based RPG. Guys like Einstein probably don't get to make too many improvement rolls, so that 150%, or whatever, is pretty solid.

[RMS]

Yeah, we're in agreement here. Not surprisingly though. We seem to have a lot of overlap.

True. Too bad you don't live around here. I need a local game!

I'm don't believe in a hard cap. No matter how good someone is, there is always something new to learn. For instance, if Einstein had a 99% skill, how come Einsteinian physics don't work? Ditto with Quantum Mechanics. I tend to look at skills over 100 as being able to look a bit ahead of current science.

Tangent: what do you mean by "Einsteinian physics" not working?

Back to topic, there definitely is more to know all the time. Einstein is a great example here. He was obviously brilliant, but failed to recognize one of the greatest contributions his work made. We could argue about whether other people had higher skills or whether they just got lucky with their rolls, or whatever...or more accurately admit that no set of RPG mechanics is going to accurately cover an outlier like breakthrough scientific discoveries. (Also, I'd argue that in a general physics roll, for anything day-to-day, Einstein probably didn't have much, if any, advantage over the typical theoretical physics prof.)

I do like soft caps though. In any well run RQ-based RPG. Guys like Einstein probably don't get to make too many improvement rolls, so that 150%, or whatever, is pretty solid.

Btw, I do teach college level physics and I admit that there do seem to be certain levels of natural ability, not to mention a certain level of basic prep work, that is necessary to grasp certain physics principles. My observation is that this is actually a quantizied level: certain concepts tend to be either understand thoroughly or are incomprehensible. However, I believe that this kind of discrete level isn't applicable to most skills in life, and to most skills that are central to RPGs.

[drohem]

I am in agreement that the RQ3 rules on skills are one of the most elegant in any RPG I've seen.

[Atgxtg]

True. Too bad you don't live around here. I need a local game!

I don't know. Where is "here"? Right now I can narrow it down to about 13,000km.

Tangent: what do you mean by "Einsteinian physics" not working?

Just that they don't cover all situations. Basically opening the door for Quantum mechanics. Still, "Newtonian" Physics don't "work" all the time either, but will work nicely for practically any walk of life except for physicists and some electronics specialists.

Personally, I don't think we've figured out just how the universe actually works. Physics is sort of like a very detailed RPG. I models what the real world does very well, but isn't quite what the real world is actually doing.

Back to topic, there definitely is more to know all the time. Einstein is a great example here. He was obviously brilliant, but failed to recognize one of the greatest contributions his work made. We could argue about whether other people had higher skills or whether they just got lucky with their rolls, or whatever...or more accurately admit that no set of RPG mechanics is going to accurately cover an outlier like breakthrough scientific discoveries. (Also, I'd argue that in a general physics roll, for anything day-to-day, Einstein probably didn't have much, if any, advantage over the typical theoretical physics prof.)

Yeah. From what I've seen about Eistien he probably couldn't balance his checkbook. It is really difficult, if not impossible to handle things like leaps on insite in RPG terms. Discovers tend to seem very logical cause & effect, after they are made. Its a lot like knowing who the killer is after you read the book.

Btw, I do teach college level physics and I admit that there do seem to be certain levels of natural ability, not to mention a certain level of basic prep work, that is necessary to grasp certain physics principles. My observation is that this is actually a quantized level: certain concepts tend to be either understand thoroughly or are incomprehensible. However, I believe that this kind of discrete level isn't applicable to most skills in life, and to most skills that are central to RPGs.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I just don't think than one INT stat covers it. INT is such a blanket stat in BRP, covering everything from creativity to perception to general knowledge. Much to broad to limit half the skills on the sheet.

I've got a friend who can do basic math addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) faster and often more accurately than I can. But throw in one algebraic equation or raise something to a power and he's dead in the water. In skill terms he probably has a higher "basic math" skill, but I've better at any intermediate math, and he has no chance with any higher mathematics.

Besides, there is also the player to consider. If we make INT that strict, then we would have to limit players to character with their own INT scores, as people really can't role play different INT scores easily or well. Most tend to "dumb" down the lower INT characters and playing higher INT is practically impossible. About the only way to pull that off is to try an anticipate what is going to come up during an adventure and do a lot of advanced planning-then make it look spontaneous.

On top of that, there is the game ramifications of gaming characters whose skills have capped out at 50 or 65%. It takes a lot of the fun out of characters when there is no room for improvement.

Caps don't work for a lot of setting too. Rune Level characters either become impossible, or need a loophole (like in old RQ, when only Rune Levels went over 100%).

[Kloster]

I am in agreement that the RQ3 rules on skills are one of the most elegant in any RPG I've seen.

You were faster than I am on this one. I perfectly agree.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Enpeze]

The skill system works very good, if you use either the simple one (without modifiers) or the complex version. Of course its not an absolute law per se. You have to do some houseruling from time to time, just to adapt the system to specific situations.

Regarding Einstein, I would say that he had a very high INT and EDU and a math skill of maybe 110% or so. Normally I regard 45%-65% as standard. Only a few extraordinary people ever reach skills above 100%.

One of the factors I am always wondering is, that many GMs dont care what the fact means that a PC or NPC has a very high skill. I think this means that this skill dominates his life and he has probably not much time to do anything else than practice and train this skill. Eg. consider a modern athlet who is able to jump 7m or more. He has to train his jump skill the whole day and would never be able to participate in longer adventures. So high skills may be ok for cinematic games but for realistic ones specialists with over 100% should have a time/motivation problem.