Inverted BRP?

[rust]

I think you have a good method of determining difficulties in general, though I disagree with having to redo it for every campaign.

Well, I actually only design or rework the difficulties for those skills which are

likely to become important in a specific setting, which are normally only few.

For example, in the case of the Asornok setting it were Drive (Dogsled), Pilot

(Boat) and Track plus the new skill Spirit Lore and some notes on Craft skills

to determine what can be done with stone and bone, everything else uses

my "standard difficulties", more or less improvised experience values.

[Darkholme]

Hmm. I suppose that makes sense Rust.

In that case, having a single collection which you can modify if your campaign needs deem it necessary still seems like a useful task.

I guess it would go from being a "universal difficulty chart" to a "generic difficulty chart". You could easily do a "if you are doing this sort of campaign, these changes are suggested."

[frogspawner]

The Skill Ratings list, from the 'Big Gold Book' pp48-49, could be the basis for any such Difficulty Chart:

"05% or less: Novice. A character with a skill rating this low is a complete amateur, and has little hope of succeeding even at Easy tasks...

06–25%: Neophyte: A character with ratings in this range is either a beginner or has a small amount of knowledge of the subject at hand. The phrase ‘knows enough to be dangerous’ applies well here...

26–50%: Amateur. Ratings in this range indicate a little talent, some rudimentary training, or hobby level dabbling in a skill...

51–75%: Professional. A 50% rating in a skill allows your character to make a living using that skill...

76–90%: Expert. Skills in this range indicate advanced expertise in a given field: your character has a reasonable chance to succeed even at Difficult tasks. Few people ever attain such mastery of a given skill...

91% or higher: Master. Only a handful of true geniuses attain this level of mastery..."

There's also the Language Fluency Table (p67), which is similar - but more amusing.

[Darkholme]

Thats an interesting chart for skill levels, but it doesnt necessarily help mark individual tasks for each skill at each difficulty all that much, does it?

The other side of the issue isnt filled in so much.

[vagabond]

Thats an interesting chart for skill levels, but it doesnt necessarily help mark individual tasks for each skill at each difficulty all that much, does it?

The other side of the issue isnt filled in so much.

The other side is intentionally left generic.

In the BGB, you are given Difficulty Modifiers - Easy multiplies the chance 2x, Average uses the chance unmodified, Difficult halves the chance, and Impossible tasks succeed only on a roll of 01.

Also, the individual skill descriptions may mention situations in which Difficulty modifiers might be applied.

But, in general, it is a GM and setting specific thing, and having some sort of chart to provide a generic set of situations and their difficulties would be near impossible. I suppose one could cull the skill descriptions for examples, but then again, the examples would be very vague, incomplete, and may not fit the GM's preferences or setting.

Ian

[Darkholme]

Yeah. I'd like to have hard examples of what qualifies as easy, average, difficult, etc in the context of each skill, and move a step away from "Let the GM decide" in an effort of standardizing things. If the GM wants to deviate from it on purpose, or make an alternate set of difficulties for a different genre or whatever, then great.

Once I've collected some data, and come up with a set of standard difficulties, I'll post them up here. My information will likely be drawn from as much real-world data as possible. If people want to modify it or just not use it, great.

I see it as the major thing the d100 systems lack, that (in my opinion) is needed for a good game. Nothing bothers me more than shifting target numbers, and the same task having a different difficulty for different players, or on different days.

I guess I mostly wanted to ask if it had been done before.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Darkholme

[RosenMcStern]

Yeah. I'd like to have hard examples of what qualifies as easy, average, difficult, etc in the context of each skill, and move a step away from "Let the GM decide" in an effort of standardizing things. If the GM wants to deviate from it on purpose, or make an alternate set of difficulties for a different genre or whatever, then great.

Page 175. If the modifier is inherent to the action itself, then it will make it Easy or Difficult. If the modifier is due to external but relevant circumstances, you get a +/- to your roll.

Suppose you have to climb a wall. It will never give you a +/- to your climb skill, as the nature of the wall is inherent to the action performed, and so it can be only Easy, Normal or Hard. However, poor lighting will give you a -10. The circumstance of lighting is external to the action attempted, so it does not make it Difficult.

[Darkholme]

In Legend, Easy and Difficult are +/- to your skill on the roll (as opposed to a multiplier). But thats kindof irrelevant to my point.

I'd like to know what sort of climbing action qualifies as easy, standard, and difficult, etc. Same for the other skills.

[Mankcam]

Suppose you have to climb a wall. It will never give you a +/- to your climb skill, as the nature of the wall is inherent to the action performed, and so it can be only Easy, Normal or Hard. However, poor lighting will give you a -10. The circumstance of lighting is external to the action attempted, so it does not make it Difficult.

Actually that was a pretty good example to illustrate the point

I'd like to know what sort of climbing action qualifies as easy, standard, and difficult, etc. Same for the other skills.

Are you looking for a list of examples here?

[Darkholme]

Not unless someone has already written one for their own purposes or there is one in a book somewhere that people can point me to.

I'm just saying that a list of examples is something I think you'd need to have next to you when running the game if you want to be consistent, and kindof arguing against the people who say no such list is needed.

I understand that I will likely have to start looking stuff up and come up with my own lists of examples.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Darkholme

[vagabond]

Not unless someone has already written one for their own purposes or there is one in a book somewhere that people can point me to.

I'm just saying that a list of examples is something I think you'd need to have next to you when running the game if you want to be consistent, and kindof arguing against the people who say no such list is needed.

I understand that I will likely have to start looking stuff up and come up with my own lists of examples.

I think what people are telling you is that in their experience, such a list is not necessary. Either enough info is found in the BGB, or they make a judgement call when the need arises.

Ian

[1d8+DB]

Another variant to inverting the rolls would be the 'Blackjack' approach, you try to roll as high as you can without actually going over the listed skill. I found this in Green Ronin's Spaceship Zero. You could apply this BRP by taking the critical/special off the top: ie, with a skill of 55% the critical range would be 49-55%, and the special 44-48%.

[rpgstarwizard]

My lovely dnd zombies take a few sessions to break the habit of rolling over. If you want rolemastrr like increases simply allow another roll on a crit and anything better than a special would do even more damage. However since BRP is a low hit point system I dont feel it is necessary.