When to roll attributes vs when to roll skills

[Renfield]

Using BRP, have a fairly generic implementation here.  STR    DEX  CON  INT   CHA

But we also have, you know... skills.  Like... 50 of them.

So why do we need CHA,  when I have 7+ skills that do various charisma stuff? 

Does BRP really need those base attributes at all?

Are they there for when players and GM are like "I have no idea what you are doing, roll a attribute that sorta fits as generic catch all" ??

We have been playing 5 sessions now and never needed to roll CHA as a action... the skills seem to have it all covered.

 

Am I missing something here?

[Mugen]

11 hours ago, Renfield said:

Does BRP really need those base attributes at all?

Yes, because skills don't cover everything needed in a game, which is not only about rolling to succeed at a task.

Hit points, Magic Points, Damage, Initiative, etc.

11 hours ago, Renfield said:

Am I missing something here?

Not necessarily. That's not a new topic, and to be honest BRP shows its D&D origins here.

In the 80s, Pendragon handled the issue with DEX in removing all athletics skills (but retained social ones, making APP useless), and James Bond 007 (not BRP but d100 roll under) based all skill chances of success on a multiplication of a characteristic and a skill level m.

[Ravenheart87]

Characteristic rolls are good for generic test not covered by skills plus they define a lot of other attributes - not everything is a skill after all, like your HP, encumbrance, initiative, and so on. They might even influence skills, if you use skill category modifiers. They are also useful in describing someone.

[NickMiddleton]

On 2/27/2024 at 10:18 PM, Renfield said:

Using BRP, have a fairly generic implementation here.  STR    DEX  CON  INT   CHA

But we also have, you know... skills.  Like... 50 of them.

So why do we need CHA,  when I have 7+ skills that do various charisma stuff? 

Does BRP really need those base attributes at all?

They serve a function, in that they provide a quantification of a characters raw capability / natural talent distinct from the skills and knowledge they have acquired through their upbringing  and training, formal and informal. Whether that function justifies their existence for you only you can say.

On 2/27/2024 at 10:18 PM, Renfield said:

Are they there for when players and GM are like "I have no idea what you are doing, roll a attribute that sorta fits as generic catch all" ??

We have been playing 5 sessions now and never needed to roll CHA as a action... the skills seem to have it all covered.

Am I missing something here?

There is a grand gala, which all the adventurers are attending. They are hoping to connect with the Crown Prince, who it is widely believed will be attending incognito, looking to recruit... Rather than relying on any particular skill, a GM could ask for everyone to make a Charisma check... Because they are not making a Bargain, issuing a Command, putting up a Disguise, picking the correct social mores (Etiquette),  Fast Talk-ing someone, Perform-ing a role,  Persuad(e)-ing anyone, flaunt ing their Status or Teach-ing anyone... they are trying to project their presence as appealing and hoping the prince will pick them.

Now, one could easily see a way to look at interpretations of a specific skill that would serve instead, but equally one can see that a more generalized assessment of how charismatic a character is has value. Whilst many historical and real world figures we talk about as being "Charismatic" have specific talents in terms of the named skills that are in default BRP, many of them don't have obvious strengths in those specific areas, but do have a more generalized quality that draws attention, that lets them dominate or stand out in social situations that we happily gloss under "they are very Charismatic...".

The key thing is that the characteristic rolls are very broad evaluation of qualities. So a GM should always give less information / benefit from a successful characteristic roll than from a successful skill roll. My go to example: any character can make an Idea roll to see that there are tracks on the ground. But only  a successful roll against the Track  skill should reveal anything about / from those tracks.

 

Edited March 4 by NickMiddleton

[Renfield]

So I hear ya all...and I thought the same thing.  But none of that really follows during play....

 

Like for the example above = we would never roll to "just be generally charismatic and hope".

We treat rolls always as "Don't roll unless failure is fun or something is actively opposing you."

So in the case of a gala event with a Crown Prince, they would absolutely need to use Bargain to get close to the Prince, Disguise to look like they are more rich and powerful than they are, and Etiquette to actually interact with the Crown Prince.  Because a single Charisma roll informs us of little to nothing, if failed.  But a failed Etiquette roll tells us exactly what went wrong and how to respond... 

 

And yeah, we do set some initial values from the characteristic, but that isn't really needed.  Our game has all humans with same hitpoints, and POW is just for magic points, which everyone can start with set value, so we don't roll POW, we roll the SPELL% (which is bought and raised just like any other skill), magic points are just spent from the pool the character has. 

 

I'm not advocating for getting rid of them.  I just feel like I want to tell my players something more concrete than "they are whatever catch all / generic sweeping judgement"...  Is that wrong headed?

[Nerval]

Charisma rolls are good for first impressions. One's Etiquette roll might succeed handily, but if the Prince doesn't like you for some reason, no amount of using the right fork is going to sway him to back your faction. On the other hand, if your Charisma roll was a critical, the Prince might be willing to laugh off breaches of Etiquette as harmless eccentricities.

I've used POW vs. POW on the resistance table for a police interrogation. The PC was being obstinate, but hadn't been accused of anything. The detective wanted her to reveal what she did know, and she was trying to get the detective to give her clues for her own private investigation. It wasn't so much Persuasion as sheer bloody mindedness, so I used attributes instead of skills. 

[g33k]

13 hours ago, Renfield said:

...

Like for the example above = we would never roll to "just be generally charismatic and hope".

We treat rolls always as "Don't roll unless failure is fun or something is actively opposing you."

So in the case of a gala event with a Crown Prince, they would absolutely need to use Bargain to get close to the Prince, Disguise to look like they are more rich and powerful than they are, and Etiquette to actually interact with the Crown Prince.  Because a single Charisma roll informs us of little to nothing, if failed.  But a failed Etiquette roll tells us exactly what went wrong and how to respond... 

In @NickMiddleton's example above, it's evidently a masquerade-ball or somesuch; the Prince is incognito.

You can't find him.  You can't "roll against" him.

Your characters genuinely need to "just be charismatic" and hope to attract the attention of the right anonymous ball-goer.


(They might have done well to use their more-specific Social Skills (Fast Talk, Persuade, etc) ahead of time, to find out the clothier / costume / etc details, what the Prince would be wearing ... )

[Saki]

Fwiw the BRP book gives pretty specific examples for when you might roll vs each characteristic.

[Jason D]

Use a Charm roll to get someone to notice your character across a room.

Use Persuade to convince them to do what you want them to. 

[Atgxtg]

On 2/27/2024 at 5:18 PM, Renfield said:

Using BRP, have a fairly generic implementation here.  STR    DEX  CON  INT   CHA

But we also have, you know... skills.  Like... 50 of them.

So why do we need CHA,  when I have 7+ skills that do various charisma stuff? 

Does BRP really need those base attributes at all?

Need is a hard term to justify. I'm not sure if BRP "needs" any specific stat or game mechanic. 

You could eliminate attributes  (or maybe turn their benefits into some sort of advantage/disadvantage). There are pros and cons to doing so.

On 2/27/2024 at 5:18 PM, Renfield said:

Are they there for when players and GM are like "I have no idea what you are doing, roll a attribute that sorta fits as generic catch all" ??

Yeah. Generally, I use attribute rolls to cover things that aren't covered by a skill. I'll also let a character use one in place of a skill at times, but at a higher difficulty. But overall I don't use attribute rolls much. But I also prefer to use skill category modfiers so the attributes factor in tat way.

On 2/27/2024 at 5:18 PM, Renfield said:

We have been playing 5 sessions now and never needed to roll CHA as a action... the skills seem to have it all covered.

And they can if you want them to. Or you could make the attribute rolls more significant. For instance, in film/tv/real life, good looking people tend to have more sucess wit the opposite sex than ugnly looking people. THat';s not really covered with skills, but it could be covered with a CHA roll, if the GM wishes.

On 2/27/2024 at 5:18 PM, Renfield said:

Am I missing something here?

A little. 

1) Attribute rolls can be used to cover things that aren't covered by skills. Since the skills in use in any one BRP-based game can vary from another, just how often an attribute roll is needed can vary. For instance Balance isn't used in all BRP games, so the Agility roll could be used as a substitute..

2) Attribute rolls are also usually called for by the GM, so their frequency will depend somewhat on who is GMing and their style of gaming. For instance a GM might consider a Balance roll to make sense when a character is walking a tightrope, but might consider it too severe for a simple roadside sobriety test, and instead  use the (usually higher) Agility roll instead.

3) Attribute rolls tend to make the actually attribute scores more meaningful. Some BRP games use other game mechanics that can make attributes more meaningful (i.e. skill category modifiers) which lessens the need for characteristic rolls. 

4) Sometimes something pops up that just doesn't seem to fit as a skill, but does seem to be related to an attribute in some way. For instance, most BRP characters don't have a skill to roll for solving a crossword puzzle, nor would most games need such a skill, so a simple INTx5% roll can suffice.  

 

So basically Characteristic rolls are a tool that is  there for you to use if you need it, or want it, but can be ignored if you don't. 

 

[Renfield]

Got it!   That helps a bunch.

i am not really looking to get rid of those stats, but i didn't feel like we were using them in a way that felt consistent. 

Since that seems to be the norm, i will consider it a feature, not a bug 🙂

 

Thanks all!