Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[Gnarsh]

Ah... So where was I?

Two answers. For dragons and choas terrors then answer is no, not really. Those nasties tend to be beyond the one hit-kill range.

Only if you stack them with extra magic and abilities though. Dragons don't tend to parry. Dragons have huge AP, but a critical ignores that, right? How many HPs does an average dragon have? How many does that leave per location? How much damage can that character do with his greatsword stacked up with truesword, bladesharp, and strength?

I think we've already established that by the book RQ easily allows for damage levels in the 30-40 range, which is more then enough to sever any location on a dragon in a single blow from a critical. Those kind of baddies are potentially single-hit killable.

You do touch on a point though. The exact things you're talking about are one of the reasons why we modified some rules, including allowing combat skills to subtract and changing criticals to only reduce armor by half (but all armor, including spells and parry APs). It effectively prevents the very problem you're addressing, since powerful characters facing powerful characters are no longer relegated to determining success via a "lucky guy wins!" mechanic (which I've always disliked since I'm inevitably not a lucky die roller).

As to the issue of combat skill subtraction amplifying difference in skill, you're correct. But, as I've pointed out (and your entire argument rests upon), the alternative is a "who gets lucky first" resolution system. I much prefer a system in which the 180% guy fighting the 160% guy has an advantage because his skills are 20% higher and therefore everything else being equal, he's going to be more likely to get an hit through unparried/dodged then otherwise, then one in which the only difference is that one of them has an 8% chance to critical and the other has a 9%.

I'll also point out that we only allow this for natural skill. Skills gained via spells and whatnot still add to the top. So it's still quite possible for both to have over 100% chance to succeed. However, it does effectively stop the "your chances of getting an unlucky and lethal hit on you increase as you gain in skill" effect that you're talking about. In the above example, if both characters had a bladesharp 8 and a parry 8, they'd effectively be 140% versus 120% instead of 220% versus 200%.

Assuming that's the factor you're talking about, my methodology effectively eliminates it entirely, while retaining the advantage a significantly more skilled character will have against a minion level opponent.

There's lots of ways to do it IMO, this is just what we came up with. It works quite well and (most importantly) scales evenly all the way up.

[Atgxtg]

Ah... So where was I?

Only if you stack them with extra magic and abilities though. Dragons don't tend to parry. Dragons have huge AP, but a critical ignores that, right? How many HPs does an average dragon have? How many does that leave per location? How much damage can that character do with his greatsword stacked up with truesword, bladesharp, and strength?

No. Depends on if you are using Dragons or Dream Dragons. Real dragons eat heros for luch. 30-40 points of damage just means a hero isn't "convience food."

As for bladesharp, truesword, etc. It is kind of hard to get those up against a Dream Dragon, and even if you do it is equally fair for the dream dragon to do the same. The scary power for him to have is damage resistance, since it was one of the few that worked against criticals.

You do touch on a point though. The exact things you're talking about are one of the reasons why we modified some rules, including allowing combat skills to subtract and changing criticals to only reduce armor by half (but all armor, including spells and parry APs). It effectively prevents the very problem you're addressing, since powerful characters facing powerful characters are no longer relegated to determining success via a "lucky guy wins!" mechanic (which I've always disliked since I'm inevitably not a lucky die roller).

No it doesn't effectively prevent it. You keep missing the point entirely here. The points being that:

1) The lethality of a foe is dependent on said foe's abilities. The more powerful/capable the foe the more deadly he is. That is independent of the character. A foe with 100% skill is more deadly than a foe with 25% skill no matter who you are. If you are a 30% starting character of a 150% Rune Lord, the 100% foe is still more of a threat.

2) Since balanced encounters base the foe on the abilities of the PCs, the more powerful the PCs the more dangerous the foes.

3) Thus the more powerful you are, the deadlier the game becomes.

As for you method to address that. There are a few things missing there. For starters it depends on how you look at skills. Realistically, you do reach a point where it really does balance out to who get luckier-or in this case the more skilled guy having a slight edge in the critical and special success ratings. Real world martial artists typically come down to that difference as well as tactics. A 10th Dan Blackbelt doesn't have a big edge over a 5th Dan. Not nearly the same edge that the 5th Dan has against an average person.

HeroQuest scales the way you run it, but it is for a very mythic setting with heroes who do superhuman, impossible things. Stuff like people cutting down mountains or forests with their sword swings.

Plus there comes a question of is it the relative skills that are important or the difference? For instance is 150% vs 200% really a 50 vs 100 or a 75 vs 100?

I'll also point out that we only allow this for natural skill. Skills gained via spells and whatnot still add to the top. So it's still quite possible for both to have over 100% chance to succeed. However, it does effectively stop the "your chances of getting an unlucky and lethal hit on you increase as you gain in skill" effect that you're talking about. In the above example, if both characters had a bladesharp 8 and a parry 8, they'd effectively be 140% versus 120% instead of 220% versus 200%.

Now you've made magic more important than natural ability. I hate that. If you are going to adjust be fair and adjust the magic too. What's the advantage of skills over 100% if you are going to make Bladesharp superior.

Assuming that's the factor you're talking about, my methodology effectively eliminates it entirely, while retaining the advantage a significantly more skilled character will have against a minion level opponent.

No as I've said before, it doesn't. It changes things but the togher the foe, the more dangerous he is going to be, and the greater the chance he will kill a PC.

Look at it like this. It's know that even if we could fight off disease and old age, a human being's lifespan probably wounldn't extened much beyond 500 years or so due to accidents. Likewise, partarking in an intense physical activety such as a sport can increase the risk of accidents. Pro level athletes, don't have a reduced chance but an increased one due to the greater strength and abilties of thier opponents. Being hit in the head with a baseball isn't good. Being hit by one throw at 95mph by a major league pitcher is worse. Doesn't matter is you are the Home Run King, the 95mph ball is more dangerous.

Same thing with more powerful characters.

Another nasty bit is that as the foes get more skilled they get more competent overall. This keys in the other big change, tactics and situational awareness. Very capable foes don't mess up as much and expolit the PCs screw ups better than inexperienced foes. This translates into higher steath scores given a better chance for a successful ambush, coordinating attacks, better teamwork, and a host of other things that cut into the PCs margin for error.

[Lord Twig]

I'm really not understanding the point of your argument Atgxtg. Are you saying characters shouldn't get more powerful? That they shouldn't want to become more powerful? Maybe just that they should actually be harder to kill if they go up in power? Easy enough, don't ever increase the power of the bad guys and the PCs will always become more and more powerful relative to the power of their opponents. Not sure if the game would be quite as fun, but there is no rule that NPC have to be tougher when PCs get tougher.

I once had my players surrounded by 30 city guards after they came back from a quest. The guards demanded their weapons and said they would escort them to the ruling council. The players were puzzled but generally were on good terms with the council so they agreed. Eventually they realized that they were not going the right way. Then one of them noticed some unusual holes in the outfits of the guards. Seems the thieves guild wanted to get rid of the party. At that point they attacked the 30 guards, each with a loaded heavy crossbow.

Now a weaker party would have just been annihilated, but these guys were of tougher stuff! Sure, some of them went down, but the ones who didn't beat the pulp out of some of the thieves with their fists and a good dose of magic, then grabbed their weapons and finished off the rest. The characters who fell were quickly healed and they went hunting for the thieves guild master.

So how are these characters not tougher?

[soltakss]

The more powerful the PC the more powerful the foe and the more chance the PC has of dying. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

But, the more powerful the PC the more likely he is to survive a powerful opponent. Once you have enchantments, more spells and so on, the chances of surviving are vastly boosted.

Of course, I'm talking RQ and Glorantha here with Divine Intervention, Rune Levels and Divine Magic, maybe BRP will be different and high-skill PCs might die left, right and centre.

Also, don't forget that RQ gets really boring if all you are doing is fighting people with no chance of hurting you. What's the point? You need challenging encounters to give you a sense of danger and excitement.

[frogspawner]

Also, don't forget that RQ gets really boring if all you are doing is fighting people with no chance of hurting you. What's the point? You need challenging encounters to give you a sense of danger and excitement.

Exactly. And the benefit of getting tougher is the glory. You could stay low-level and kill hordes of trollkin in relative safely, but who will tell camp-fire tales about that? If the characters are proper Heroes, not just bullies, they'll get tough and seek out the Big Ugly Monsters - to become immortal! (If only in song...)

(BTW, has some glitch cross-threaded this with the "Balance" topic?)

[frogspawner]

I think I'd prefer skill bases equal to a single stat, perhaps +/- some modifier. Anyone tried that and found problems with it?

[Rurik]

No, but that is a good idea.

I like that simple elegance of using a stat base, but miss the the RQ method of depicting some skills as easier than others.

Using Weapons for example PoleAxe could be STR (or STR -5).

Sword could be DEX+10, while Mace could be STR+15.

Giving these examples I kinda like differentiating some weapons as STR weapons and some as DEX Weapons to give some variety (and a reason other than just the weapons inherent stats to choose one over the other - if all weapons were based on one stat I would use DEX though).

One thing I like about single stat is that the stat can be used as the experience bonus. A DEX 15 person gets a 15% bonus to thier Dodge experience check.

[frogspawner]

I like that simple elegance of using a stat base, but miss the the RQ method of depicting some skills as easier than others.

Using Weapons for example PoleAxe could be STR (or STR -5).

Sword could be DEX+10, while Mace could be STR+15.

Thanks. Yes, that's precisely what I meant by +/- modifiers: different for each skill. I'm using a fairly similar system already, but this does seem like it would be neater.

[Gnarsh]

No. Depends on if you are using Dragons or Dream Dragons.

Oh! You meant a Dream Dragon. Why didn't I know?

You're kidding right? Dream Dragons are a plot device, not a real foe you'd face with a sword. Utterly irrelevant to a discussion of skills, right?

1) The lethality of a foe is dependent on said foe's abilities. The more powerful/capable the foe the more deadly he is. That is independent of the character. A foe with 100% skill is more deadly than a foe with 25% skill no matter who you are. If you are a 30% starting character of a 150% Rune Lord, the 100% foe is still more of a threat.

Yes. But presumably your character *also* gets more powerful. Not just more lethal. I suppose if characters do nothing but increase combat skills, you'd be right, but in every RQ game I've played, characters gained offensive *and* defensive abilities. They enchanted their armor. They gained healing magic. They learned protection. They found ways to defend against damage other then just hoping that their opponent didn't get a critical hit on them.

2) Since balanced encounters base the foe on the abilities of the PCs, the more powerful the PCs the more dangerous the foes.

3) Thus the more powerful you are, the deadlier the game becomes.

False conclusion. A beginning group tends to die more often due to the simple fact that their opponents don't have to get a lucky critical in to damage them, and they're less likely to have much healing.

Now you've made magic more important than natural ability. I hate that. If you are going to adjust be fair and adjust the magic too. What's the advantage of skills over 100% if you are going to make Bladesharp superior.

Um... Magic is weaker in every way. Only natural skill can be used to subtract from your opponent. Bladesharp can't. It's always better to reduce your opponents skills then simply retain a higher chance to crit/special (ok, usually better). I think that why you can't see how this works is because you're stuck in a mindset that says that the only advantage of higher skills is an increased chance to crit/special, so when I propose something that reduces that chance, you think it's a reduction of power somehow.

It's not. Trust me. I've been using this system for almost 10 years in my game. It works incredibly well.

[frogspawner]

Dream Dragons are a plot device, not a real foe you'd face with a sword.

I think you've confused your Dragons here. (True) Dragons are the BIG ones, (Dream) Dragons are merely big.

[Atgxtg]

Thanks. Yes, that's precisely what I meant by +/- modifiers: different for each skill. I'm using a fairly similar system already, but this does seem like it would be neater.

There are a few RPGs that doe that. I've even been tempting to set up the cat bases as the starting percentages.

One option you might consider is to allow characters a choiceof stats for a weapon, but favor one stat. For instance, Sword could be DEX+10, or STR+5. So COnana types could still use STR if it was a lot higher than their DEX. Axe could be STR+10 or DEX+5.

Or you could just let the character pick one or the other. A few RPGs do that, allowing the player the option of being a finesse fighter or a bruste force kinda fighter.

[Gnarsh]

I think you've confused your Dragons here. (True) Dragons are the BIG ones, (Dream) Dragons are merely big.

Ah. Yes. Got that backwards. Either way, I assumed that in the context of whether or not higher skills/abilities gained over time helped or hurt you, we'd restrict the conversation to foes against whom those skills and abilities are actually relevant.

[frogspawner]

Either way, I assumed that in the context of whether or not higher skills/abilities gained over time helped or hurt you, we'd restrict the conversation to foes against whom those skills and abilities are actually relevant.

No worries, it happens. I haven't really been following your argument, but it strikes me it's probably more relevant to the "Balance" thread than this one.

[Gnarsh]

No worries, it happens. I haven't really been following your argument, but it strikes me it's probably more relevant to the "Balance" thread than this one.

Yeah. Probably. It started out being about skills though, which is relevant. Bonuses and such affect improvement rates, which is significant in the long run. And it's certainly relevant to talk about the impact of high skill levels on a game in that context. Or at least I think it is... :confused:

[frogspawner]

Bonuses and such affect improvement rates, which is significant in the long run.

Yes, I suppose they should. Though my current houserule uses 'roll over skill or 100-INT' (I can't even remember the official rules). One player whinges terribly about it, and I suppose he has a point (but he just likes to play 3 INT characters - typecasting, I say!).

[Atgxtg]

Yeah. Probably. It started out being about skills though, which is relevant. Bonuses and such affect improvement rates, which is significant in the long run. And it's certainly relevant to talk about the impact of high skill levels on a game in that context. Or at least I think it is... :confused:

Yeah. It all kinda grew out of an observation that I made that can be summed up as:

The benefits of PCs increasing in abilities are more than offset by the drawbacks of the escalation of foes increasing in their abilities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I fist ran across it with weapons. Generally the more powerful/damaging the weapon, the less forgiving things become. That's no biggie for NPC opponents, as they are expendable, but results in higher PC casualty rates.

From there it moved on to vehicles. If you switch from a car to an APC, then the foes will end up using weapons that can penetrate an APC, leading to overkill. GO to a tank and the enemy ends up using anti-tank weapons, that really cut down on the survival factor.

The same thing holds true on the personal scale, too. It makes sense (the more powerful the foe the greater the risk), but it does catch a lot of gamers by surprise, since they usually think that the more powerful their character the greater their chance for survival.

The observation is actually not a game balance issue, since it is based on absolute ability rather than ability relative to the PCs, but a campaign with balanced encounters will be more dangerous since the foes abilities will always be about the same relative to the PCs. So as the PCs get better the foes get more criticals.

[frogspawner]

The benefits of PCs increasing in abilities are more than offset by the drawbacks of the escalation of foes increasing in their abilities.

Yes, I found this insight amazing - and I'm still reeling from the shock of illumination...

So as the PCs get better the foes get more criticals.

Ah, well, not strictly true if you use the over-100% skill-reduction mechanism, as perhaps Gnarsh said. But your shocking principle of "character progression is bad!" still holds in general.

The observation is actually not a game balance issue, since it is based on absolute ability rather than ability relative to the PCs, but a campaign with balanced encounters will be more dangerous since the foes abilities will always be about the same relative to the PCs.

Well, I think it's more related to Game Balance than to skill base percentages...

[soltakss]

(BTW, has some glitch cross-threaded this with the "Balance" topic?)

What, this isn't the Balance Thread?

[Nightshade]

I think I'd prefer skill bases equal to a single stat, perhaps +/- some modifier. Anyone tried that and found problems with it?

I've personally found that it somewhat defeats the purpose, as there's usually at least two attributes that contribute too much to a given skill for me to be comfortable settling on one. You can do it of course (a lot of games do) but it doesn't really seem to follow to me.

[Atgxtg]

I've personally found that it somewhat defeats the purpose, as there's usually at least two attributes that contribute too much to a given skill for me to be comfortable settling on one. You can do it of course (a lot of games do) but it doesn't really seem to follow to me.

Or course the add two stat method is a popular alternative in some circles. Melee Weapons starting at STR+DEX, missile weapons as DEXx2 or CON+DEX (Con for eyesight).

[frogspawner]

I think I'd prefer skill bases equal to a single stat, perhaps +/- some modifier. Anyone tried that and found problems with it?

I've personally found that it somewhat defeats the purpose, as there's usually at least two attributes that contribute too much to a given skill for me to be comfortable settling on one. You can do it of course (a lot of games do) but it doesn't really seem to follow to me.

Or course the add two stat method is a popular alternative in some circles. Melee Weapons starting at STR+DEX, missile weapons as DEXx2 or CON+DEX (Con for eyesight).

Thanks. Matters of taste, but no technical problems, then? One-stat is probably enough - I'll keep it simple, like me...

[Atgxtg]

Yes, I found this insight amazing - and I'm still reeling from the shock of illumination...

I found it rather annoying. Like Machiavelli. And like Machiavelli there is really not much you can do about it.

Ah, well, not strictly true if you use the over-100% skill-reduction mechanism, as perhaps Gnarsh said. But your shocking principle of "character progression is bad!" still holds in general.

Oh it's true. Since even if the reduction method or Fate Points are being used the chance of the opposition getting a critical skill goes up with thier skill rating. So a guy with 80% still criticals 4 times as often as a guy with 20%. No matter what safety net you use, that is a constant.

It all stems from the fact that adventures live high risk lives (:shocked:) and as such tempt the laws of probability so often that longshots become eventualities. That's why a lot of groups have a "bad dice day" and get wiped out.

On the plus side it also turns Elric's penchant for accidentally killing his friends in battle more a function of the statistical probability of the fumble chart in RQ3 than the result of some mindless bloodlust. Influence of a malevolent, soul-drinking runesword excepted, if you are that good, get into that many fights, and keep bringing your pals along, you will eventually fumble and roll some "hit nearest ally" results.

Well, I think it's more related to Game Balance than to skill base percentages...

Yeah, but then so does training. How we got down this path was from comments about how some players will stick around in town a train and train until they have mastered their skills.

My point was, thanks to this observation, it really comes around to bite them on the butt. Doubly so if the players are not experienced, since a big fight with a bunch of powerhouse foes is a lousy time to learn the rules. One bad decision and the PC is probably dead. A 30% trollkin is less likely to be able to exploit any windows of opportunity.

[Nightshade]

Or course the add two stat method is a popular alternative in some circles. Melee Weapons starting at STR+DEX, missile weapons as DEXx2 or CON+DEX (Con for eyesight).

And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach (though I prefer something that has _some_ ongoing effect, which this doesn't).

[Atgxtg]

And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach (though I prefer something that has _some_ ongoing effect, which this doesn't).

Unless you add it, or part of it to improvement rolls. You could get away with adding the full ability to improvement rolls, and have about the same rate of advancement if you dropped the improvement gain from 1D6 to 1D4 or so. PCs will make more rolls but gain less per roll. If you cap the over 100% crowd to a flat 1% improvement, you pretty much have the same same of advancement as RQ/BRP. Some people would probably prefer going up 1% every month rather than 3-4% every season.

[Nightshade]

Unless you add it, or part of it to improvement rolls. You

Sure. I just wasn't assuming any other manipulation of system in my reply.