Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[Atgxtg]

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.

Yes, they are in the APPENDICES. That is just the point. The rolls were really a "core mechanic" of the game the way they are in CoC5 and SB5. They are just chucked in the back with all the other stuff in small print, and get about the same attention as Ga-metal and Ze-metal.

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

CON rolls are for combat. But I don't see many POW and INT rolls. Certainly nothing like a Luck or Idea roll in an adventure. THat is one thing that I like about the fate point option. It is irksome to have a Luck roll that doesn't apply to cobat, just when Luck would make the most difference.

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.

Yeah, it is front and center. I dare say that if a stat is involved for a roll, it is probably going to involve the resistance chart. Outsmarting someone in a game would probably have been handled not with INT rolls but with INT vs. INT on the Resistance Chart.

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.

SB and RQIII certainly. RQ2 less so, since the 5% increments made things like T-Rexes master "chompers".

But I think that eliminating the category mods really weakens the importance of stats in BRP. Basically it doesn't matter how strong or dexterous you are anymore. THere are o "fine grain benefits". The STR/SIZ db has a very wide and rough progression of 1D4/1D6/2D6. FOr most PCs it is basically +1D4 with no finer grades.

One thing I didn't like about Elric! was that we rolled 2D6+6 for stats, but once we wrote them down thety didn't really made a difference. Dump 100 points into a combat skill (per the recommendation) and only HP really mattered anymore.

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.

[RMS]

Yes, they are in the APPENDICES. That is just the point. The rolls were really a "core mechanic" of the game the way they are in CoC5 and SB5. They are just chucked in the back with all the other stuff in small print, and get about the same attention as Ga-metal and Ze-metal.

One thing I've definitely learned over the internet over the last couple of years is that there is a huge disparity between those who thought of those appendices as "core" and those who basically ignored them. My experience is that we used pretty much all of the appendices in RQII and accepted them as being core to RQ, and used some logical ("common sense") extensions of them to the point of accepting them as core that many people never got to either. I guess I'm saying that much of this is playstyle IMO.

Yeah, it is front and center. I dare say that if a stat is involved for a roll, it is probably going to involve the resistance chart. Outsmarting someone in a game would probably have been handled not with INT rolls but with INT vs. INT on the Resistance Chart.

You can use the resistance chart for the exact same thing. Just set the opposition to 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. It doesn't seem like much of a jump to move back-and-forth.

But I think that eliminating the category mods really weakens the importance of stats in BRP. Basically it doesn't matter how strong or dexterous you are anymore. THere are o "fine grain benefits". The STR/SIZ db has a very wide and rough progression of 1D4/1D6/2D6. FOr most PCs it is basically +1D4 with no finer grades.

I agree with you. I like stat bonuses for skills. They can be a little fiddly, but are worth it to me. I wouldn't mind changing them to eliminate some of that, but never got around to it myself.

One thing I didn't like about Elric! was that we rolled 2D6+6 for stats, but once we wrote them down thety didn't really made a difference. Dump 100 points into a combat skill (per the recommendation) and only HP really mattered anymore.

I owned it, have read it, but never played it. I'm in the minority that prefers the older versions of the game, both the general system and the magic system. I loved old SB1/3 and played a lot of it years ago.

I LOVE those appendices. There is a lot of good stuffed there in 4 point type that never made it into anything else. But again, that is hardly supporting the idea that characters are going to be making bunches of stat rolls per game. I've certainly never seen or played in a campaign where people are making five Luck roll a night.

I love them too and IMO they contain much of what was great, innovative, etc. about RQ. I frequently forget that certain innovations of RQ where technically in the appendices rather than the "core" rules due to that. Making that may rolls in a given evening would be rare in most of my games, but it certainly wouldn't be unheard of. Making that many rolls against anything that's noncombat would be rare though.

Personally,I'd love to see stat rolls used as the base for skills. Either averaging them or adding the sill to the base. So someone would get an idea roll to know something about general history or could add their history skill to their idea roll. Nice, but it would mean lowers the rolls or playing with higher numbers.

I like the ideas there, but like above have never been quite motivated enough to change the core system that much.

[Atgxtg]

One thing I've definitely learned over the internet over the last couple of years is that there is a huge disparity between those who thought of those appendices as "core" and those who basically ignored them. My experience is that we used pretty much all of the appendices in RQII and accepted them as being core to RQ, and used some logical ("common sense") extensions of them to the point of accepting them as core that many people never got to either. I guess I'm saying that much of this is playstyle IMO.

Oh, I used the appendix too. But most of what was there was used occasionally rather that perpetually. Never did split SIZ int HEIGHT and MASS though.

You can use the resistance chart for the exact same thing. Just set the opposition to 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. It doesn't seem like much of a jump to move back-and-forth.

Yup. Or do 1D20 under stat. It is the basic stat roll that has found it's way into 90% of RPGs in some form or another. But in RQ it has always been something of a last ditch defense thing.

I agree with you. I like stat bonuses for skills. They can be a little fiddly, but are worth it to me. I wouldn't mind changing them to eliminate some of that, but never got around to it myself.

I've fiddled a bit. I did a BRP variant that combined stat mods with thebase chances. So all weapons skills started off at something like 2 x DEX + 1/2(STR)%. It reduced the math down to seven mods and no base % to worry about.

I owned it, have read it, but never played it. I'm in the minority that prefers the older versions of the game, both the general system and the magic system. I loved old SB1/3 and played a lot of it years ago.

I own it, read it, played, and ran it, and for the most part have the same opinion you do. SB1 had some weaknesses. Stat mods for culture were too high, and the magic system a bit overkill, but I think it had more Elric flavor that the latter version.

I love them too and IMO they contain much of what was great, innovative, etc. about RQ. I frequently forget that certain innovations of RQ where technically in the appendices rather than the "core" rules due to that. Making that may rolls in a given evening would be rare in most of my games, but it certainly wouldn't be unheard of. Making that many rolls against anything that's noncombat would be rare though.

I have used Stat rolls in RQ. It s just that I think they needed to bring them more into the light to make them useful. The Luck roll and Idea roll would seriously benefit from some examples of what you can and what you can't use them for. I guess BRP is going to have some of that.

[quote=RMS;5370

I like the ideas there, but like above have never been quite motivated enough to change the core system that much.

[Nightshade]

I have used Stat rolls in RQ. It s just that I think they needed to bring them more into the light to make them useful. The Luck roll and Idea roll would seriously benefit from some examples of what you can and what you can't use them for. I guess BRP is going to have some of that.

I see some purpose for the Luck roll, but to tell the truth I'm hard pressed to see any conceptual space for Idea rolls that isn't better served by some skill or another; in cases where no such skill that seems appropriate exists, I usually see that just as a sign that it _should_.

[Atgxtg]

I see some purpose for the Luck roll, but to tell the truth I'm hard pressed to see any conceptual space for Idea rolls that isn't better served by some skill or another; in cases where no such skill that seems appropriate exists, I usually see that just as a sign that it _should_.

I can see some uses. such as when a character's INT score differs radically from the player's. or for "general knowledge" or memory.

All the RPGs that bring stat rolls to the front are those that didn't have category modifiers. RQ and SB didn't use stat rolls nearly as much.

[RMS]

I see some purpose for the Luck roll, but to tell the truth I'm hard pressed to see any conceptual space for Idea rolls that isn't better served by some skill or another; in cases where no such skill that seems appropriate exists, I usually see that just as a sign that it _should_.

I use the "Idea" (usually just INT check for us) fairly often to determine when something pops out of the background for the character that he/she may well know from background that the player wouldn't or which I withhold from the player until after the roll. For example, I was running the other night for someone new to a region. There are two sects that the character knows some about, but isn't an expert. One big distinguishment between them are prefered weapons. The players know this from previous play in the campaign world, but the characters probably wouldn't. I used an INT check to see decide whether to pass that information on to the players or not.

Sometimes I use it to pass along "common sense" type things to the players to help get their view of what's going on in line with my own. I'm not a fan of things like area knowledge skills, etc. so use INT checks there or for background on someone, a god, the region, etc. My players will actually do this on their own frequently to determine how much player knowledge to allow into their decision making for their characters.

I use a lot of CON rolls, which pretty much come straight out of the book. I've used SIZ rolls before, though tend to use both it and STR vs. some obstacle most of the time. I use a fair number of DEX rolls for pulling off various athletic actions not covered by a specific skill.

In fact, the more I think about this I actually like the idea of using stat checks as a basis for all skill resolution. Then add skills on as a training. So, an average person could have a 50/50 shot on most checks (very easy check - anything easier, don't roll) with just natural ability, but with training (skills) could make it virtually a sure thing. An extremely tough task would be stat x 1%, so extreme training (~90%) would be required to have any chance of accompishing a task.

This is actually a variation on the Ring World skill system, before anyone points out that I'm wondering a long ways away from BRP and into a new game design.

[Atgxtg]

More than a few RPGs use the stat as a base approach.

The Bond RPG used an appproach somewhat similar to your. Skill was added to stat and then multiplied by a Ease Factor, verey similar to the Stat x1%, x2%, x5%, x10%, rolls.

There are some games that give the base chance of success for a task (30%, 65%, etc) and then the PC adds his mods to it. SO rather than an extremely difficult task being -90%, it might be 0% and an average task might start off at 50% Plus Stat and Skill mod.

Another option would be to use the resistance table for everything. For example a guy with DEX 10 and Sword 8 would use an 18 for his ability on the resistance table.

IF you were going to go with several different stat multiples as the base and add in skill, then you would probably want to put them on the sheet. Either by categories (a row of DEXx1%to DEXx10% above DEX skills) or by putting a multiplication table on the sheet.

LOts of different ways to go with it.

[Nightshade]

I can see some uses. such as when a character's INT score differs radically from the player's. or for "general knowledge" or memory.

All the RPGs that bring stat rolls to the front are those that didn't have category modifiers. RQ and SB didn't use stat rolls nearly as much.

Memory, maybe (though I'm of the opinion that's even a developable skill, just one with a high base) but I think general knowledge _should_ be a skill.

[Nightshade]

Skill mod.

Another option would be to use the resistance table for everything. For example a guy with DEX 10 and Sword 8 would use an 18 for his ability on the resistance table.

Even if you don't use it for everything, it has some virtues in stat rolls as it allows them to scale better, as it means every stat roll is relative to difficulty.

[Enpeze]

I see some purpose for the Luck roll, but to tell the truth I'm hard pressed to see any conceptual space for Idea rolls that isn't better served by some skill or another; in cases where no such skill that seems appropriate exists, I usually see that just as a sign that it _should_.

I, and other BRP GMs I know, use idea and luck rolls quite often. Of course it depends on your playing style as GM. If you have never used them in the past years, you probable have substituted these rolls by other mechanics. Or maybe you prefer to play games in which such situations dont come up.

In CoC adventures you can find many examples how idea and luck rolls are used.

[drohem]

I (we) used Idea rolls mostly for character's memory or profession related ideas. Since you really can't penalize the player for not remembering information that the character would know or remember.

I (we) used Luck rolls extensively. It is a great tool for moving the story along, or interjecting tangent sources of adventure.

[Atgxtg]

One thing I'd like to try, would be the used stat rolls, but getting a better grade of success with the skill. I messed around with a "marginal" success idea for a BRP variant. My idea would be that someone who does something through a stat roll, might succeed, but he won't get the same type of results as someone who is skilled. But it takes more grafes of success to pull it off.

[Nightshade]

I, and other BRP GMs I know, use idea and luck rolls quite often. Of course it depends on your playing style as GM. If you have never used them in the past years, you probable have substituted these rolls by other mechanics. Or maybe you prefer to play games in which such situations dont come up.

In CoC adventures you can find many examples how idea and luck rolls are used.

The issue with the Idea rolls is that it seems to me that the majority of them are substituting for knowledge or other Int based skills that aren't present in the rules, and to me, the appropriate way to deal with that is to add the skill or skills its filling in for.

I acknowledged there's some functionality to the Luck roll, as nothing else in the standard mechanic fulfills the same function.

[Atgxtg]

The issue with the Idea rolls is that it seems to me that the majority of them are substituting for knowledge or other Int based skills that aren't present in the rules, and to me, the appropriate way to deal with that is to add the skill or skills its filling in for.

I acknowledged there's some functionality to the Luck roll, as nothing else in the standard mechanic fulfills the same function.

I agree. That is why I think I used Luck rolls more that the other stat rolls.

One example, in RQ, it looks like they specifically went out of their way to eliminate the need for stat rolls. The Throw skill was a perfect candidate for the Agility roll, but is instead, a skill. One that rarely got used in my campaigns.

[Nightshade]

I agree. That is why I think I used Luck rolls more that the other stat rolls.

One example, in RQ, it looks like they specifically went out of their way to eliminate the need for stat rolls. The Throw skill was a perfect candidate for the Agility roll, but is instead, a skill. One that rarely got used in my campaigns.

You did miss a few things that covered, like a Run skill, but then, I always thought there should be a Run skill too, if you weren't going to roll things into a single Athletics skill.

[Kloster]

You did miss a few things that covered, like a Run skill, but then, I always thought there should be a Run skill too, if you weren't going to roll things into a single Athletics skill.

IIRC, Run skill is in trollpack (RQIII release) in the trollball section.

There is an other by Sandy Petersen in TotRM for long distance running (for courriers).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Nightshade]

IIRC, Run skill is in trollpack (RQIII release) in the trollball section.

There is an other by Sandy Petersen in TotRM for long distance running (for courriers).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

As I recall, RQ: AIG had both a Run skill and a March skill to cover the two cases, too.

[SDLeary]

As I recall, RQ: AIG had both a Run skill and a March skill to cover the two cases, too.

Hmm... perhaps in house play. I don't see them in my manuscript (the well laid out version; copyright 93 OJ)

I can see a run skill... I'm not so sure marching should be based on a skill though. Perhaps if you have no fatigue mechanic. If you do have a march skill, perhaps it should have a high base. Strength and Constitution (Average x3?).

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Hmm... perhaps in house play. I don't see them in my manuscript (the well laid out version; copyright 93 OJ)

I can see a run skill... I'm not so sure marching should be based on a skill though. Perhaps if you have no fatigue mechanic. If you do have a march skill, perhaps it should have a high base. Strength and Constitution (Average x3?).

SDLeary

I could see marching as a skill. That's why the Romans practiced it. I think it makes as much sense as any other physical skill. The more you do it the more accustomed to get to doing it, and the longer you can do it without getting tired. It isn't all CON.

[Nightshade]

Hmm... perhaps in house play. I don't see them in my manuscript (the well laid out version; copyright 93 OJ)

It apparently disappeared during the playtest; originally it functioned to offset some of the fatigue class penalties for long distance travel at speed; a skill roll would essentially let you take one less fatigue level.

I can see a run skill... I'm not so sure marching should be based on a skill though. Perhaps if you have no fatigue mechanic. If you do have a march skill, perhaps it should have a high base. Strength and Constitution (Average x3?).

SDLeary

See above. As A says above, there were a lot of infantries where learning to march long distances and still be able to fight was considered part of fundamental training. And its an issue beyond just the usual toughening up, as some armies were used to it and others not.

[SDLeary]

See above. As A says above, there were a lot of infantries where learning to march long distances and still be able to fight was considered part of fundamental training. And its an issue beyond just the usual toughening up, as some armies were used to it and others not.

Yes, but would that be a skill, or would that be characteristic training through physical conditioning? Romans, for example, did a lot of physical conditioning. Other ancient armies that were not professional, such as the Athenians, tended to not do quite as well.

I think it could go either way, but here it just seems to me that characteristics seem a better fit.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

Yes, but would that be a skill, or would that be characteristic training through physical conditioning? Romans, for example, did a lot of physical conditioning. Other ancient armies that were not professional, such as the Athenians, tended to not do quite as well.

I think it could go either way, but here it just seems to me that characteristics seem a better fit.

SDLeary

Read the last line of my prior post; there were perfectly tough armies that could fight extended engagements in the field, but still couldn't march long distances well.

Now whether its _worth_ making the distinction is a judgment call, but there's certainly a distinction in the real world.

[p_clapham]

I prefer the way MRQ handles it actually. Base chance of a skill = Stat+Stat. I find it places more of an emphasis on the diffrent attributes. I generaly found the starting skill precentages in Call of Cthulhu a little frustrating.

[frogspawner]

I prefer the way MRQ handles it actually. Base chance of a skill = Stat+Stat.

Yes, that sounds pretty good. Personally, I'd tweak it to depend on just one stat, with -5/-10 modifiers for more difficult/obscure skills. Is there any option in the upcoming BRP which resembles that?

[Triff]

That's a very simple way that lets characteristics influence skills without giving you the problem of having to recalculate skills every time your stat changes. I haven't heard it being an optional rule though. I think the default is CoC like start percentages, with skill categories as optional.

SGL.