Skill augments

[Alexandre]

Hi all,

in the current version of BRP there are 3 ways to augment skills:

1. complementary skills (p. 38): add 1/5 of the complementary skill;
2. augments (p. 38): roll complementary skill, if successful main task's difficulty decreases one step otherwise it increases one step;
3. passions (p. 214): roll passion, if successful get a bonus, otherwise a malus. 

I appreciate the difference between the former and the other two: Either you get a small bonus with no risk or try to roll for a higher bonus (but with the risk of failure and getting a malus instead). But it seems to me 2 and 3 are redundant and all skill augment should use the same mechanic. I think that modifying the task difficulty is too much: It is definitely more dramatic than a meager +10% or +20%, but the price in case of failure is also maybe too dramatic. I don't know how many players would run that risk (unless you have a very high augmenting skill but in that case it becomes a moot issue). So far I am using the complementary skill rule for all instance of augmenting with a skill, while I let roll to augment with a passion.  What do you think? You use all three depending on the situation, just one, none of them...

Thanks,

Alex

[NickMiddleton]

I dislike adding additional rolls in to the flow of the game, which has always been my misgiving about augmenting skill, so I exclusively use the first method. I prefer the focus of the "drama and tension" to be on the primary roll, so a player makes a pitch to myself / the group of what skills / passions (or "passion like things" in the case of my usual house rules) and where I / we agree they make sense they get to add the special chance of the relevant skill / passion (maximum of one add from a skill and one add from a passion or passion like thing).

Given the success of RQG, it clearly works for many, but it'll do no harm changing the details.

[Nozbat]

I don’t usually do a lot of combat in my games so augments tend to be on non-combat skills. I usually ask the player to roleplay what they are doing ie a speech to persuade someone to give information or form an alliance and then depending on how good their argument is, I’d give them a bonus to their skill level modified by the difficulty level of what they want to do. Generally, I’d give a bonus of 10-50%. 
 

I have allowed passions as augments at times, generally if it’s family or religion, and those are usually in the critical moment of the interaction. I tend not to allow it for trivial reasons.

[Mugen]

18 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

I dislike adding additional rolls in to the flow of the game, which has always been my misgiving about augmenting skill, so I exclusively use the first method. I prefer the focus of the "drama and tension" to be on the primary roll, so a player makes a pitch to myself / the group of what skills / passions (or "passion like things" in the case of my usual house rules) and where I / we agree they make sense they get to add the special chance of the relevant skill / passion (maximum of one add from a skill and one add from a passion or passion like thing).

Given the success of RQG, it clearly works for many, but it'll do no harm changing the details.

As for myself, I think I'd use the random method for passions, and the static bonus method for skills.

In my view, passions are not reliable, while skills, and knowledge, are.

Sounds like an idea for Light Side/Dark Side in Star Wars... 🙂