Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[Atgxtg]

Well, the flip side of that is that under traditional RQ, you not infrequently ended up with the rich getting richer (as the people who already had a useful range of skills got more checks than other people; this could be particularly annoying when you had someone with a skill that was really only useful to have one person do (a lot of social skill usage, picking locks, and so on). I know you're not going to see this quite the same way I do given our past disagreement of what is easy to focus group activity on and what isn't, but it worked out that way in practice for a lot of people. You also had a tendency (irrational though it mostly was) for people to "skill hunt", that is to say, come up with excuses to find a reason to roll skills they didn't really need to use just to get a check.

I never ran into the rich getting richer. Probably because I tried to make everyone roll stuff, even they guys who didn't want to.

As for skill check hunting. With a good GM it isn't an issue. Only significant skill tests should award a check. If someone wants to switch out 5 weapons in a battle, he derserves everything that he is going to get.

One thing I saw, and liked, and similar to what RMS did was the idea of awarding checks for failures. The idea being that you learn from your mistakes more than from your successes. In fact it makes more sense than rolling for successes and will really slow down the Rune Lords.

I've also seen some games that require multiple checks for improvement. So as your skill gets higher it takes more to go up. Something like 1 check per 25% or skill or fraction thereof.

But assigned skill rolls leads to "pyamidding".

One method that another RPG did that I liked was to assign 10XP at a time, but assaign the award as

1st ability: 4 xp

2nd-3xp

3rd-2xp

4th-1xp

That helps to spread the wealth, but would need to increase the costs of checks or go with the mulitcheck option to work.

For instance a guy with 80% sword, needed 4 checks to improve could either spend his first place slot on it and improve, or a lesser slot and take multiple sessions to go up.

[Shaira]

To be honest I've always thought the BRP experience check system to be the best experience system of any RPG I've come across. Whatever your feelings about the "Skill Check on Success" mechanic, it leads to characters who are relatively specialised in things they're good at, which feels very realistic. I've never felt the need to go for "Skill Check on Failure" - this feels very counterintuitive, and would lead, I'd imagine (I've never tried it), to characters with less specialisation and a greater spread of average to middling skills - not what we find in reality or heroic fantasy ;-)

Just my two'penn'orth.

[Pete Nash]

You could combine both methods. You get ticks for failing skills in stressful situations; and at the end of the scenario the GM could give out a number of skill improvements, which the player can choose to place anywhere.

This would model both real-life processes of learning-by-failure and focussed training.

[RMS]

Sometimes I'll give out a free check after long adventures, with the idea that their character's did some other things that warrant a chance at improvement. This is where they build up those Singing, Cooking, etc. skills.

Other than that, I tend to give out those kinds of checks for downtime activities or training. I could never be bothered with the whole training accounting system as written. I just give a check after some reasonable training time. I do the same for side-jobs during downtime. So a character wants to train sword, after a couple of weeks of intense training they get a skill check, or after a season of training-in-the-evenings, etc. If the work at the blacksmith's for a season between adventures, I give them a skill check in a relevant skill (Craft: blacksmithing is the obvious one, but I listen to reasonable arguments for some sort of business skill too, or even for a chance at STR gain.)

[threedeesix]

You could combine both methods. You get ticks for failing skills in stressful situations; and at the end of the scenario the GM could give out a number of skill improvements, which the player can choose to place anywhere.

This would model both real-life processes of learning-by-failure and focussed training.

My players are happy with the skill check system combined with the "Training" rules from RQ3. This allows them to spend a couple hours each day practicing with weapons or skills they wouldnt dare to use in combat situations as they may not be all that good yet, and still improve their normal skills "on the job" so to speak.

Rod

[Nightshade]

This is part of the reason I started allowing skill checks for any attempt at a skill in stressful situation, regardless of success. It helped level the playing field for people trying something that they weren't so good at. Plus, basic logic dictates that you learn as much or more from failure than from success.

That's the approach that Swordbearer took, and it certainly helps, but it doesn't deal with the issue that people often don't even get a chance to _try_ in many skills.

In theory, I know of skill hunting, but I've never actually seen it in play. If nothing else, much of BRP/RQ is deadly enough that the economies of using substandard skills in such situations is pretty poor....and if the consequences aren't dire than no skill checks are possible for success or failure. For example, I've read of people going for 2nd or 3rd weapons just to get skill checks, but I've never seen it not can I image why someone would do that with death so likely for a failed roll.

As I commented, its fundamentally irrational; among other things, it means you're trying to force checks on skills you don't actually need to use. But many people somehow can't help but feel that if someone else is getting eight checks at the end of a session and they're getting two, they're getting left out; and the mechanical way to force this is to make more rolls, even if it makes no sense to do so.

[Nightshade]

I never ran into the rich getting richer. Probably because I tried to make everyone roll stuff, even they guys who didn't want to.

But that's an acknowledgement of the problem right there; when you have to force process rather than have it occur naturally, that's usually a sign something's wrong in a game.

As for skill check hunting. With a good GM it isn't an issue. Only significant skill tests should award a check. If someone wants to switch out 5 weapons in a battle, he derserves everything that he is going to get.

Having to argue with someone about whether a skill check is legitimate is, in and of itself, tiresome however. As to your last comment, see my other post.

I've also seen some games that require multiple checks for improvement. So as your skill gets higher it takes more to go up. Something like 1 check per 25% or skill or fraction thereof.

But assigned skill rolls leads to "pyamidding".

Well, what we did in the last game was combine the two; assigned rolls but only applicable to skills you rolled (I don't remember if I went over to "check on attempt" or not; I might have). If you didn't have enough checks, you could carry it over (we also had Easy/Medium/Hard skills, which used a half a roll/a roll/two rolls respectively, but that's only got a minor impact on the issue).

[drohem]

We never ran into a problem with skill hunting. I guess this is the RQ version of D&D munchkinism?

[Nightshade]

We never ran into a problem with skill hunting. I guess this is the RQ version of D&D munchkinism?

Not really. Its more like the experience debates you get in some subjective experience games like Storyteller. Munchkinism usually involves hunting for the most power at no effort; typically its RQ equivelent involved cult choice and combination.

[drohem]

Not really. Its more like the experience debates you get in some subjective experience games like Storyteller. Munchkinism usually involves hunting for the most power at no effort; typically its RQ equivelent involved cult choice and combination.

Good point. We didn't use Glorantha as the campaign setting for our RQ; so not all characters had some magic like in Glorantha RQ. Consequently, we only had a handful of characters that made any real use of magic. This was mostly due to the small chance to roll a magic using character on the Occupation charts.

I guess it also has to do with the players and GMs style of play, and how engaging the play is that keeps skill hunting to a minimum.

The experience check and training of skills and characteristic rules were good enough for us to advance our character enough for our tastes.

[Nightshade]

Good point. We didn't use Glorantha as the campaign setting for our RQ; so not all characters had some magic like in Glorantha RQ. Consequently, we only had a handful of characters that made any real use of magic. This was mostly due to the small chance to roll a magic using character on the Occupation charts.

I gather from this that you changed it so only the Shamen/Sorcerer/Priest categories got access to magic? I ask because the default even in vanilla RQ3 was that everyone got some magic; those just got a lot more.

[frogspawner]

In an attempt to limit 'skill hunting', I apply a maximum limit of INT ticks (skill checks) at any one time.

[drohem]

I gather from this that you changed it so only the Shamen/Sorcerer/Priest categories got access to magic? I ask because the default even in vanilla RQ3 was that everyone got some magic; those just got a lot more.

Yes, there were no farmers or beggers with magic spells. Only those of the appropriate occupation had spell access.

Although, after character creation you could learn to use magic if you were farmer (for example), or if you became an Initiative through game play, etc.

[badcat]

Funny, one of the few things I liked as far as changes go in MRQ was the way the rules handle base skills. I was even doing it that way myself before MRQ was published...like Dodge default being DEX x2%, and so on. My homebrew list is pretty different, though. The big advantage over the RQ3 way (for instance) is that you never have to worry about adjusting bonuses during play, if you consider the base derived percentages to be 'fixed'.

[Atgxtg]

Funny, one of the few things I liked as far as changes go in MRQ was the way the rules handle base skills. I was even doing it that way myself before MRQ was published...like Dodge default being DEX x2%, and so on. My homebrew list is pretty different, though. The big advantage over the RQ3 way (for instance) is that you never have to worry about adjusting bonuses during play, if you consider the base derived percentages to be 'fixed'.

Maybe, but then it makes stat improvement pretty pointless. What it the advantage up upping your DEX? What I liked about RQ3 was that each point of stat meant something.

One thing I don't like about CoC and most of Chaosium stuff based off of it is that except for hit points and damage bonus, you stats are meaningless. The statx5% rolls rarely came up, as there was usually a skill that replaced the stat roll. So if a character had a 13 or 17 Strength tended to make little difference.

[badcat]

It doesn't make the stat pointless. But I don't feel like arguing, so as in the thread about firearms, believe whatever you wish.

[Atgxtg]

It doesn't make the stat pointless. But I don't feel like arguing, so as in the thread about firearms, believe whatever you wish.

So what. Instead of discussing the matter you get into a huff?

[Nightshade]

Maybe, but then it makes stat improvement pretty pointless. What it the advantage up upping your DEX? What I liked about RQ3 was that each point of stat meant something.

One thing I don't like about CoC and most of Chaosium stuff based off of it is that except for hit points and damage bonus, you stats are meaningless. The statx5% rolls rarely came up, as there was usually a skill that replaced the stat roll. So if a character had a 13 or 17 Strength tended to make little difference.

I had some of the same reaction, especially when dealing with stats like Int and Pow in those games. Unless you were demanding a lot of attribute rolls (and again, most of those look like they should be skill rolls to me) they seemed sort of pointless.

[Atgxtg]

I had some of the same reaction, especially when dealing with stats like Int and Pow in those games. Unless you were demanding a lot of attribute rolls (and again, most of those look like they should be skill rolls to me) they seemed sort of pointless.

Yeah, D&D keeps the stat mods separate, so they are always a factor. Most other games do something similar. In CoC or worse SB5, INT is pretty much a throw away stat, unless you are a sorcerer. And APP simply is a throwaway stat.

Speaking of APP, I think they should either do something more with it, or dump the stat entirely, and let players describe their characters appearance.

One thing that might work would be to average stat rolls with skills. the old Star Trek RPG did that with combat skills. So you would average your 40 sword skill with your 60 DEX to get a 50% Attack rating. It's nice but too much math.

[Kloster]

Maybe, but then it makes stat improvement pretty pointless. What it the advantage up upping your DEX? What I liked about RQ3 was that each point of stat meant something.

One thing I don't like about CoC and most of Chaosium stuff based off of it is that except for hit points and damage bonus, you stats are meaningless. The statx5% rolls rarely came up, as there was usually a skill that replaced the stat roll. So if a character had a 13 or 17 Strength tended to make little difference.

That's why I will use the new BRP with the optional skill categories.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Enpeze]

I liked always both methods. Call me a fanboy

Without modifiers if I am in a lazy mood and with modifiers if I am not. I like even the RQ2 modifiers of 5% steps.

I cannot see the problem, some people have with the stats and the "unusefulness" in their eyes. In my games we have the following extremely important uses for stats:

-description of the character varies, so its a BIG difference if I play a APP9 character or a APP14 character

-reaction rolls of NPCs according to APP, INT etc. checks of a character

-damage bonus/STR - I dont know many games where STR is that important for additional melee damage than in BRP

-STR/DEX melee weapon requirements - not many games have such harsh restrictions on wielding certain weapons

-Luck rolls. I use them the whole time - at least 5 times per session

-idea rolls. The same as above.

-DEX initiative, each point counts and decide between life and death

-CON checks if one players looses half his HP. Additional used for general health and endurance checks all the time...VERY important

-etc, etc.

So I would really like to know how those who say that they have not much use for stats, play their games? I dont really understand this. For our games the stats have the same important place than skills and attribute skill modifiers and sometimes are even more used.

I can get along easily without one of those +7% attribute bonus in a skill group, which are nice to have but not really essential for gaming. but I can never get along without using stats. NO WAY.

I also think that the reason why BRP has such a bad reputation is the fact that the GMs/players dont get much support from the rulebook HOW to use the BRP tools (ATT rolls, resistance table etc.) during their games.

The tools are genius if properly used and not broken. But there a too few examples in the handbook how to use them and GMs and players are left alone to find it out for themselves. I hope the new BRP book helps to eliminate this problem.

[Atgxtg]

people have with the stats and the "unusefulness" in their eyes. In my games we have the following extremely important uses for stats:

Okay, I'll try to point out what I mean by the stat values becoming "meaniningless".

-description of the character varies, so its a BIG difference if I play a APP9 character or a APP14 character

-reaction rolls of NPCs according to APP, INT etc. checks of a character

Nut there is no difference mechanically. I play an elf, duck, or dragon differently, and have the NPCs react differently. But I don't track a "DUC" stat for it.

-damage bonus/STR - I dont know many games where STR is that important for additional melee damage than in BRP

I do. Nearly all of them. The STR/SIZ Db formula is so wide that you either catch the D4 or not.

Very few character catch the D6. SO it all boils down to having the D4 or not. If you have a 13, 14 or 16STR matter little. It is do you get the D4 or not.

-STR/DEX melee weapon requirements - not many games have such harsh restrictions on wielding certain weapons

Few games have a DEX requirement at all. How "harsh" that requirement is depends on what version of the BRP rules you are using. Some prohibit use of weapons for those lacking the STR/DEX. Others just give a penalty. And not all version of BRP even use the min STR/DEX.

As to how harsh the actual values are in game terms. Not very. Somone with average stats can wield most weapons.

But what happens after you got the weapon? The STR and DEX don't matter. Does either stat get used much in play. No. Skills are.

-Luck rolls. I use them the whole time - at least 5 times per session

I doubt I've used them five times.

-idea rolls. The same as above.

Also the same as above. Generally skills cover most of this. In fact, in BRP games that are not of the CoC/SB5 mold stat rolls are rarely metnioned at the Idea, roll, and Luck roll and the like are not tracked or given much attention.

Counts. yes. Decides no. But do we really need to track a stat that just restricts weapon use and determines initiative. What else does it do? Does it help to pick a lock, climb a tree, or with anything outside of combat?

This also varies from version of BRP to the next. I'd say the SHOCK roll isn't such a big thing, but the Poison Table would be,.

WIthout any sort of modifier I can get by without stats. They are NOT essential to gaming, and there are RPGs that have eliminated them or made them Perks. There really is little to no difference.

Agreed. One reason why I never used stat rolls much is because there are other mechanics in the game that cover much of the same ground. Idea rolls really get replaced with the player using his own brain and skills. DEX rolls and STR rolls get replaced with skills. Once you have run, jump, swim, climb, throw, juggle, sleight and balance as skills you take a big chunk out of the stat rolls. What skills don't cover, the resistance table probably does. And the Luck roll generally get mentioned in the game for those things that are not covered by something else.

It would be nice if a character could use his Agility roll to for Agility skills. MAybe with reduced results.

[Enpeze]

atg,

so it comes down again to the point of "playing style". Your style is to replace the use of ATT rolls by skill rolls. My style is to use both ATT and skill rolls. Up to this I dont have any problem. Everybody should use the style he likes most.

But in your previous post, you seem to explicitely make a statement (see below) which implies that there is something broken with the system because ATT are not important. And this generalizing statement I think is wrong. As I see it now after reading your answer, ATTs are only not important if someone plays BRP according to your playing style.

"atgxtg - One thing I don't like about CoC and most of Chaosium stuff based off of it is that except for hit points and damage bonus, you stats are meaningless. The statx5% rolls rarely came up, as there was usually a skill that replaced the stat roll. So if a character had a 13 or 17 Strength tended to make little difference. "

[Atgxtg]

atg,

so it comes down again to the point of "playing style". Your style is to replace the use of ATT rolls by skill rolls. My style is to use both ATT and skill rolls. Up to this I dont have any problem. Everybody should use the style he likes most.

Somewhat. I also think it comes down to which derivative of BRP you are running and due to the lack of support from the rulebook about stat rolls that you mentioned.

FOr instance, in RQ and Stormbringer stat rolls were not used much in the examples, and most of not all of their functions were replaced with skills. I don't see rolling Agility and Balance skill. Luck rolls never prop up in RQ adventures. Maybe they show up in CoC adventures.

But in your previous post, you seem to explicitely make a statement (see below) which implies that there is something broken with the system because ATT are not important. And this generalizing statement I think is wrong. As I see it now after reading your answer, ATTs are only not important if someone plays BRP according to your playing style.

I saty there is something explicity wrong with the system when you eliminate category modfiers becuase stats have little meaning. Yes.

I wouldn't sday that is becuase of my playing style so much as that was the style suggested by the way the rules were written. Remember idea rolls and the rest were something, perhaps the only thing that got added to RQ when RQ got stripped down for BRP. If you look at the rules for RQ and Stormbringer 1st edtion they don't exist. You may occasionally see some Statx5% or x3% or whatever rolls, but no specific Idea or Luck rolls.

I think the differences are that the rules for RQ and SB1 go in one direction (make everything a skill) while the rules for CoC go in another (use stat rolls). So I think it breaks down to a difference between two similar systems.

"atgxtg - One thing I don't like about CoC and most of Chaosium stuff based off of it is that except for hit points and damage bonus, you stats are meaningless. The statx5% rolls rarely came up, as there was usually a skill that replaced the stat roll. So if a character had a 13 or 17 Strength tended to make little difference. "

[RMS]

FOr instance, in RQ and Stormbringer stat rolls were not used much in the examples, and most of not all of their functions were replaced with skills. I don't see rolling Agility and Balance skill. Luck rolls never prop up in RQ adventures. Maybe they show up in CoC adventures.

You have me confused here. I assume you are only talking about rolling against stat x X% here. That shows up in the RQII appendices. (Have I mentioned before just how much of the goodness that is early RQ, and so innovative, is contained in those appendices! ) It figures prominently in early RQ in my experience, so I don't actually buy the above premise. It also figured prominently in our early SB play, but we already had RQ so I could accept (too lazy to look it up) that SB does have the idea in the rules.

Certainly by RQIII, CONxX%, POWxX%, INTxX%, etc. rolls are very common throughout the rolls and adventures.

However, what is constantly in play for stats in early RQ and early SB are opposed stat rolls, via the resistance table. STR v. SIZ, CON v. POT, SIZ v. SQUEEZE, etc. are all over the place (too much maybe) in early RQ adventures.

I saty there is something explicity wrong with the system when you eliminate category modfiers becuase stats have little meaning. Yes.

I disagree with your above assessment, but do agree with this. I don't know about making the stats worthless, but I do know that RQ and early SB had the best, most "realistic", match of stats to skill level that I've seen in an RPG to this day.

I wouldn't sday that is becuase of my playing style so much as that was the style suggested by the way the rules were written. Remember idea rolls and the rest were something, perhaps the only thing that got added to RQ when RQ got stripped down for BRP. If you look at the rules for RQ and Stormbringer 1st edtion they don't exist. You may occasionally see some Statx5% or x3% or whatever rolls, but no specific Idea or Luck rolls.

Check the appendices. They're in there in original RQ. They aren't called Idea rolls (though I think Luck may be used), but they're right in the original RQ rules and as mentioned above, used frequently in my experience.