Topic: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Started by: Necromantis
Started on: 5/25/2010
Board: First Thoughts
On 5/25/2010 at 5:19pm, Necromantis wrote:
a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
I am working on the skills system within my Fantasy roleplay game titled "a time of steel and staves"
In the game I have created 11 characteristics that define a PC's fundamental make-up.
they are
Might
Prowess
Precision
Agility
Forbearance
Heartiness
Perception
Knowledge
Reasoning
Communication
Appeal
Rather than have skills directly link to an individual Characteristic (ex: heraldry - communication)
since their are so many. and tracing them back could be a hassle.
I have broken them into 4 categories (a nod to chaosium's BRP) to simplify the matter.
BODY - Uses combo of MIGHT, AGILITY, & HEARTINESS
MIND - Uses combo of KNOWLEGDE, REASONING, PERCEPTION
INSTINCTS - Uses combo of PROWESS, PERCEPTION, REASONING
TRADE. - Uses combo of KNOWLEDGE, FORBEARANCE, COMMUNICATION
[sub]or something like that. (dont have my sheet with me - but i think thats how i worked it out)[/sub]
so you have 4 catagories.
examples might be
body - swimming
mind - reading/ writing
instincts - blindfighting
Trade - blacksmithing
now - the trouble is this.
I am not sure how I want to set this up. Its hard (for me at least) being new at design to figure the best way to utilize the 4 categories.
heres what I have so far.
characterics btw range from 3-16 (2d8+1) (can get higher with magical items)
Average joe being 7-8
although i find the average score is 10-11 (when rolled)
but we are dealing with heroes here so no big deal there
I figured there would be ranks to each skill (honestly I'd like to have a lot of ranks - say at least 10 but I am flexible)
Rank 1 is standard starting rank. it allows for a very slight chance of success.
how to get a skill category is still in the air.
I thought about averaging governing characteristics (might+Agility+Heartiness/3)
or a number based on the characteristic itself added to others.
(Might score according to chart) -
Skill Catagory score (same score for all characteristics by they might or knowledge or anything in between)
3) - 7
4) - 6
5) - 5
6) - 4
7) 5
8) 5
9) 6
10) 7
11) 8
etc
My thoughts were originally something like this
rank(catagory)= % chance of success on a d100
Ex: Swimming Rank (4) times BODY (10) 40% chance of success
and the GM would dictate a penalty for difficulty. ex: 40% chance - but -10% for an undertow -- so 30% chance.
While that works for some numbers. its quite iffy on others.
Thoughts? suggestions?
And in Advance I appreciate your help.
sidenote: for the record. I am not opposed to a DC based system. Couldn't find a way to incorporate one myself - or at least one that wasn't diceless. I do want there to be a roll of some sort.d100 or d20 would be best.
On 5/25/2010 at 8:40pm, Vulpinoid wrote:
Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
2 simple questions.
1. Why so many different types of dies rolls?
2. Why do you want things so complex?
If you've got a good solid design methodology for this, GREAT...I'd love to hear it.
If you're just doing it because that's what other game systems do...read a few more game systems.
V
On 5/25/2010 at 9:29pm, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
I don't feel like its very complicated. I bit difficult to explain maybe.
As far as dice rolls. I feel like rather than limit myself to one type of die. Make use of the best one to fit the mechanic.
I have played Games that use on 1 type of die and While I like them I feel like most of them could have benefited from breaking that rule
some things feel forced into place. I want to avoid that in my system.
My goal with skills and my "Skill Categories" is to simplify the governing attribute.. in all of the categories that i use - 1 takes the place of 3
ex: might agility and heartiness = Body. Etc.
Body governs a set of skills.
Mind another
Instinct another
and Trade another.
Rather than
might - some
Prowess some
Etc etc.
I hope this answers your questions. though I doubt its helpful ;)
Thanks.
necromantis
On 5/26/2010 at 12:46am, Vulpinoid wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Here's where I see the complexity.
You've got 11 characteristics. What do these actually do?
You've got 4 groups...strangely the "Knowledge" characteristic fits into two groups, but no other characteristic does this. Does this mean that you think knowledge is twice as important as the other characteristics? Because that's the implication.
What do the groups do?
Furthermore, the system moves from a wider range (11 characteristics) to a smaller range (4 groups)...then you move back out to a larger range for the skills (undefined number of skills).
Another aspect of complexity is the disconnect between the characteristics and what is actually rolled.
Why would you have attributes on a scale from 3-16, if your skill rolls use percentile dice?
If you have an action that doesn't fit well into the existing skill set, what do you do?
Do you default back to a "characeristic" roll? (This doesn't mesh well with the existing systems you've roughly outlined)
Do you just make something up on the fly? (This is never a good option when designing a game)
Another niggling thing...
characterics btw range from 3-16 (2d8+1) (can get higher with magical items)
Average joe being 7-8
although i find the average score is 10-11 (when rolled)
but we are dealing with heroes here so no big deal there
Roll 2d8+1 gives a result from 3-17 not 3-16...
...and if everyone is adding the +1, why bother with it? Is it just to get a bunch of numbers that look like D&D numbers?
You seem to have some good ideas here, but they need to be integrated with one another to form a coherent rules-set. I'm not even going to bother with where you see your game going from a perspective of "creative agenda" or "the Big Model". Those are questions that can be answered as you refine the systems into something workable.
Sorry, it's just a pet hate of mine to see a game that looks like a cobbled together bunch of random components...(eg. Rifts, AD&D 2nd Ed, a lot of fantasy heartbreakers). I don't like having to learn three different sub-games in order to start my roleplaying, and I especially hate explaining multiple sub-games to a group of new players when I'm GMing, it might make sense to the original designer, but it often confuses people out in the real world ("What die do I use?", "Am I rolling high or low on this one?").
Also consider carefully how the skill system replicates the combat system. Do they work in the same way? Is one a subset of the other?
Now for a couple of positive ideas...
I like the idea of multiplying the attribute by the skill level to get a percentile figure. I toyed with using it in a game a few years ago, I had trouble making it work exactly the way I needed for that game, but it's been sitting in my back-catalogue as a potential tool to use in a future project.
I'd consider the notion that all skills work off a percentile roll, and all skills start at level 1. This way any time you want to roll something you multiply the category by the skill level (and even beginners get their raw "category" score for the roll). Actually having some ability in the skill pushes it up to level 2, 3, 4, etc.
Average hero...10 in a category x no skill (+1 base value for a total of 1) = 10% chance of doing something. This might be a bit low for typical "heroes" in stories.
Good hero...14 in a category x 4 skill (+1 base value for a total of 5) = 70% chance of doing something.
Awesome hero...16 in a category x 7 skill (+1 base value for a total of 8) = 128% chance of doing something.
There's clearly a need for die roll modifiers when a system like this is being used.
Here's a couple of ideas:
• Perhaps early in the mission, when the danger is low, give everyone +10% to their chances. Once the setting has been established and the intrigue begins, the bonus 10% is removed. At the end when the stakes are high, give everyone a -10% to their chances.
• Set challenge difficulties that allow character to progress through their stories or even earn XP. Easy tasks = +10%, Moderate tasks = No modifier (but you either take a step toward completion, or gain an XP), Complex tasks = -10% (gain a step toward completion AND an XP), Hard tasks = -20% (gain a step toward completion and 2 XP).
• Perhaps characters only gain XP when there is a real chance of failure. The character gains a number of advance points equal to the difference between the percentage chance of failure...eg. 70% chance of success, gain 30 advance points for succeeding; 20% chance of success, gain 80 advance points for succeeding. At the end of the game, convert the advance points into XP using some simple formula (eg. divide by 20). Using a system like this, players will choose to take extra risks, or accept penalties to their actions, just to have a better chance of gaining advance points.
• Have a system for adding "stunts" to your actions. Every stunt reduces the chance of success by 10%, but if you succeed, you get a special bonus on your action...maybe it happens faster, maybe it's more spectacular, maybe it deals more damage.
These are just a few of the ideas I was considering when I looked at this type of system.
Feel free to use them or discard them as you wish.
V
On 5/26/2010 at 2:02am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Hi,
Do you have it in mind that campaigns (or one shots, for that matter) with this game culminate in some big issue being resolved? Like the big bad is defeated? Or global warming is averted? Or some big thing that is delt with?
Do you want to have stats that deal directly with whether that big thing happens, or do you want to work indirectly, where the GM basically decides if a skill roll in some way effects whether global warming is averted (or whatever)?
On 5/26/2010 at 2:21am, philipstephen wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Hey there.
My suggestion is that you get rid of your 11 categories. Since you are proposing using the average of 3 attributes to make 4 other attributes -- why not just have a 4 Attribute system?
Like you said, BODY would be rolled for anything involving might, agility, and heartiness -- but that does not mean those subcategories need their own number.
Use MIND for anything involving memory, knowledge, reason.
I would suggest putting the senses and things like Perception and Awareness under Instinct - since it has that feel to it for me.
So INSTINCTS becomes the stat you use to roll for anything involving Perception, Awareness, Reactions and any sort of Sixth Sense or Spiritual Awareness.
TRADE seems like a nice unique stat which could be used for Buying, Selling, Haggling, finding Goods, Investing, and Commerce. You seem to have Crafting and the creation of goods put in there - which seems like a different sort of skill -- but maybe TRADE is the stat for whatever working career or means of income your characters have -- be they a trapper, fletcher, smith, performer or what not. That is an interesting thing to have as a general skill. The ability to earn and handle money.
You could have a few more from your list of 11, but depending on the focus of your game, those 4 might be enough.
And what mechanics you should use to determine success with these 4 Attributes -- I am not sure. I would need to re-read your post to see if I understood it, but a simpler system might be good.
Do you hope to have a magic or miracle system? Those could be based off MIND or INSTINCTS or be their own Attribute that people buy if they wish to have access to mystic powers.
Good luck with your game!
Phil
--
www.philipstephen.com
www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/estea
www.cartographersguild.com/member.php?6498-philipstephen
On 5/26/2010 at 6:52am, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
I find that the problem with asking others for help here is I can paint only so big-a-picture.
This picture is never close to big enough.
Sorry, it's just a pet hate of mine to see a game that looks like a cobbled together bunch of random components.
The problem with this statement is I can only show you the problem at hand. 1 at a time as I work them out.
My system may seem like a cobbled together mess (and at this point in development - might be)
a statue is just a lump of rock in the beginning. But regardless of that, If you only see the statues elbow you cannot play judge to the entire statue.
Especially if the artist is asking if the thing is too pointy.
My suggestion is that you get rid of your 11 categories. Since you are proposing using the average of 3 attributes to make 4 other attributes -- why not just have a 4 Attribute system?
Another big picture problem.
I just can't post everything concerning my game here then ask about 1/12th (an arbitrary number dont get excited) of it.
I can say that the 11 Characteristics are the central most defining part of my character design and growth.
one characteristic or another or group of them + a dice roll will always decide an action. (or near enough to always)
Trimming the 11 down to body mind instincts and trade skills would destroy 1/2 the game i have designed thusfar and am happy with.
Roll 2d8+1 gives a result from 3-17 not 3-16...
this is a typo .. and not worth taking such offense over.
on the subject of the +1
as I said in an earlier post I will use whatever roll works best
I needed the numbers to be between 3-17 with the average roll around 10
I tried hundreds of rolls - night after night. deciding on what worked best to fit my need.
4d4
3d6
3d20/3
4d10/2
2d10
2d8
on and on and on.
If you have a better way of getting said desired numbers. I will definitely listen.
If you have to try and take a jab at me by suggesting that I am "trying to look like d&d"
Then you're not helping, and in the end being assish (oh yes I made the word just for you)
In the end you ARE trying to help I guess. Thanks . but...
I don't like having to learn three different sub-games..........
You seem to be from the school of thought that I have seen a lot of lately.
Use one system that resolves all conflicts.
I might be wrong but also from the school that believes in using 1 type of Die only.
That is all well and fine. I have played those types of games and I like them.
I don't want that though. I feel like that should be respected... once known at least.
If you were looking for help on your d10 based game "how can I my my universal conflict resolution system apply to social situations?"
I wouldn't go in there and suggest that you use 6 siders and d20s and make a new set of rules for it. That is not what you are asking for.
[sup]
I see that all the time here.
PeteSmith25: I need help figuring out how to best to level characters
JoeSmoe76: Levels are dumb you should go with a point buy system -- blah blah blah
PeteSmith25: My group and I all like levels and I just cant figure out.....
GMsupreme: You should play some different games.
Its rare to see actual help towards the problem getting solved.
People just try to change the problem to something they feel they have figured out a solution to. [/sup]
Callan wrote:
Hi,
Do you have it in mind that campaigns (or one shots, for that matter) with this game culminate in some big issue being resolved? Like the big bad is defeated? Or global warming is averted? Or some big thing that is delt with?
Do you want to have stats that deal directly with whether that big thing happens, or do you want to work indirectly, where the GM basically decides if a skill roll in some way effects whether global warming is averted (or whatever)?
I don't see how this is relevant to skills (unless i misunderstand your question) but none-the-less I'll answer
No. Not Necessarily. If the GM wants to design a game about tackling a big issue then he/she can. If they want to make it a matter of gathering ingredients for soup it will not be evident in the rules what-so-ever.
and I am pretty sure that I don't understand your 2nd question. at least enough to give a good answer.
I will state (and this may clear it up) That my main 11 characteristics represent the person. Those representations govern how and how well that person reacts to situations or conflicts or trials - big or small. Meaningful or Trivial.
You've got 4 groups...strangely the "Knowledge" characteristic fits into two groups, but no other characteristic does this. Does this mean that you think knowledge is twice as important as the other characteristics? Because that's the implication.
[sub]i havent mentioned (again the big picture issue) that knowledge is the accumulation of things learned or understood or remembered. That is its function.
as opposed to reasoning being - problem solving, understanding things, logic, thinking. common sense.
[/sub]
Implied or not. It takes Knowledge to do both of those things. its one aspect Mental skill (or mind) as well as acquired knowledge from trade skills or practiced things. to work a forge and temper steel - you need to remember the process for doing so.
to read requires your mind to remember (or recongnize) the shapes of letters and words. The definitions to those words.
Its a fact not an implication.
I refuse to change the rules to "even out" the lumpiness of the truth. Knowledge is important. More important than reasoning? Up the the player as far as I am concerned. If they will pile all their points on knowledge for some kind of advantage thats their choice. ( a poor one by my standards though)
I am tired and feel like I have wasted a lot of time being defensive about something I shouldn't have to be. All while aggravated.
I did NOT proof read this. I type far too fast and my grammar and punctuation suffer horrible . so do me a favor and ignore all the typos.
don't whore-like and point them out. also try and excuse my irritability.
There was some help. but mostly BS. Hard not to get irritated.
On 5/27/2010 at 3:29pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
I've been trying to moderate here for a couple of days, without success due to server hassles.
Anyway. Brent, no one was rude to you. No one said you were dumb or said your game design didn't make sense. Everyone had reasons for what they suggested, and they knew that those reasons might not dovetail with the rest of the game design or with your own reasons behind that design. They were at risk by making the suggestions, not you, because of their limited knowledge.
Your irritation is misplaced. You are free to feel what you like, but as moderator, I am saying your post is discourteous to people who were not insulting you, not insulting your game, and doing their best to work with the information you provided. Your defensiveness is incomprehensible and also misplaced, and as text, it communicates that you like your system as described very much, and gives the impression that you do not intend to anything about it.
You asked for suggestions and feedback with no other specifications. My reading of your post is that you were not looking for any such thing. I don't know your mind, of course, and can't know what you were looking for, but I can say that everyone's responsibility, when posting, is to be sure that they are not merely asking for praise and confirmation when they claim that they're asking for critique. Whether this applies to you or not is your private concern.
None of your points about typing and format are valid. I'm not holding you to any specific editorial standard, but the very fact that you "type too fast" means you are responding in the grip of emotional reaction. I suggest typing into a word-processing program first, instead of the Reply box, and only pasting it in as a reply when the post says what you mean without being fueled by immediate responses.
Best, Ron
On 5/27/2010 at 9:33pm, Locke wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
I still believe in the 9 cardinal attributes
- physical strength
- physical endurance
- physical agility
- social
- mental
- and these 9 can be taken down to less usually. I think generally in the short term games and designers have found ways to reduce skills and attributes to minimums which can lead to better playability and balance. Specializations can be a way to add some more flavor if need be. Such as : +4 swimming when rolling athletics checks.
On 5/29/2010 at 1:27am, Necromantis wrote:
attempt #2
No one said you were dumb or said your game design didn't make sense
I Don't disagree but, I don't agree with you either.
statements like the ones below, I think are intended to be "down the nose" - even if they weren't I definitely felt that they were wholly unnecessary.
Sorry, it's just a pet hate of mine to see a game that looks like a cobbled together bunch of random components.
If you're just doing it because that's what other game systems do...read a few more game systems.
you don't think this is condescending? I clearly stated "new (to me)" in the title of this thread. That is of course ignoring that this statement is a contradiction.
Is it just to get a bunch of numbers that look like D&D numbers?
I don't mean to seem unappreciative. I don't mean to seem like as ass.
Just trying to get some help getting my numbers to the right place.
and for the record Vulpinoid I am not angry with you.
I have noticed a pattern in all my reading here at the forge. I was reluctant to ask for help
because of that pattern. A lot of people substituting your problem with one they feel they have already solved (always for their game/project).
I still believe in the 9 cardinal attributes
- physical strength
- physical endurance
- physical agility
- social
- mental
- and these 9 can be taken down to less usually. I think generally in the short term games and designers have found ways to reduce skills and attributes to minimums which can lead to better playability and balance. Specializations can be a way to add some more flavor if need be. Such as : +4 swimming when rolling athletics checks.
For this reason and others, things take a long time and a good amount of effort. I realize its a process. I apologize for "snapping"
I still mean everything I said. Proof read or not. (not a matter of typing out of some emotional haste .. it was 3am and I was trying to finish so I could sleep - hence no proof reading I can't seem to sign on during the daytime - server overload I think.)
I will try my best at a mission statement here.
My attempt at explain my goals.
[sub]Note: I have not read any books on game design or theory.
This however should not be treated as a handicap.
I finished my entire basement (1000 Sq feet)
without any training or real experience (except helping my dad build a deck when I was around 10)
Electrical, drywalling, molding, flooring, plumbing, etc etc. all soundproofed all to code.
I don't say this to brag. I say this because People are arrogant. If they had to be trained to do something. So do you.
I will now design my RPG. I don't know what I am doing here either. I will succeed though. Eventually.
I would love the help of more experienced guys. [/sub]
Mission statement.
[sub]PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS MY GOAL FOR SKILLS ONLY[/sub]
I am basing as much of my character design (and advancement) on 11 core elements that make up a person.
they are (very boiled down)
[sub]Might - physical strength
Prowess - instincts
Precision - Control of body
Agility - balance - flexibility - speed
Forbearance - fortitude (the word not the D&D save)
Heartiness - health
Perception - readiness - awareness
Knowledge - accumulation of things learned
Reasoning - problem solving, common sense
Communication - how well you commune with others - empathy
Appeal - how ideal your actions/dress/appearance/hygiene are.[/sub]
These are the driving force behind as many aspects of my game design as I can make them.
My goal is for these 11 characteristics to drive the character portion of the game.
[sup](meaning things that deal with the character - excluding things that are wholly non-character related - therefore I cannot say simply - "drive the whole game") [/sup]
My goal with SKILLS is to have an easy way to determine chance of success while a character is attempting to perform a skill.
[sup]note: when I say easy I refer to gameplay - not character design necessarily - this is an important difference. A point buy system (I'll use Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire RPG for example.) Can be slow and arduous but the end result during gameplay is much easier and faster
I don't mind if it take's time and understanding for the Players to setup their skills. [/sup]
Skills in my Game design could also be considered Secondary skills. Lesser skills. This aspect of my game design is mainly a success/failure system
and is otherwise a roleplaying (narrative) portion of the game.
Example of potential gameplay: (rules come into effect in the green parts )
Eldrin: (to GM) I am going to try to make that cloak that Sarah was looking to find
Sarah: Sweet! the one with all the hidden pockets?
Eldrin: No, The other. I am only starting to sew. I need to start with something simple. But I can maybe add pockets in a few levels if I decide to up my tailoring skill.
Sarah: Thank you, Are you looking for payment? How much are materials?
Eldrin: Don't worry about it. I am still using up that roll of rich silk that we found in that abandoned cart along the road here. No charge I need the practice
GM: roll your tailoring skill - adding/substrating modifiers (perhaps checking against a Difficulty Class)
A SINGLE ROLL IS MADE
SUCCESS OR FAILURE IS IMMEDIATELY (excluding possible chart checking time) KNOWN
for example sake I'll say he Fails
Sarah: Aw, Well thanks for trying. I didn't want to say anything but I didn't really want a Cream colored cloak
Eldrin: I was going to see if Periss would Dye it for you. I know you wanted it Green. You woodsy types always do.
END EXAMPLE
[sup]Note: the mechanics portion of this example was used only to show how much/little the rules come into play during actual gameplay when performing skills. CONSULTING CHARACTER SHEET - STATING INTENT - PERFORM A SINGLE DIE/DICE ROLL - POSSIBLY STATE DEGREE OF SUCCESS/FAILURE[/sup]
I will admit that this method differs from other aspects of my game design. For one its faster. I want it to be faster. I don't need to speed up any other parts of my game. I notice there is a desire in games I have read about or played to use a single mechanic across the board (so to speak)
meaning combat and social encouters skills - magic all work on the same mechanic. While that is all well and good. It is not my intent to attempt this.
I want Skills to feel different from Combat or magic or social encounters.
In my system - I would like the common denominator to be the core 11 characteristics. they will play a vital roll in Both Combat and Social Encounters as well as Skills.
I hope that provides a big enough picture of my goals. My hopes are low that it is a big enough picture.
Now, to outline (or re-outline) My idea for simplifying the big 11 - parring them down to 4. I will (this time) provide reasons for doing this.
[sub]note: the birth of this idea came when reading through the 4th ed. Chasium Basic RP rulebook. This sytem divides the skills into categories (see char. sheet) but other than an optional bonus I saw no other reason for doing this other than for organizational purposes. It gave me the idea of using the categories as governing aspects of the skills[/sub]
Reasons:
• Many skills don't require a skill characteristic (ex: might) but a combo of them (ex: might and agility and a bit of precision)
• I wanted this portion of the game to feel different from the rest of the game.
• Organizational reasons - ease of finding the numbers you need on the character sheet.
• I wanted to simplify the skills section - by this I mean Make it quicker in gamplay - not in character design
heres what I have so far.
BODY - Uses combo of MIGHT, AGILITY, & HEARTINESS
MIND - Uses combo of KNOWLEDGE, REASONING, PERCEPTION
INSTINCTS - Uses combo of PROWESS, PERCEPTION, REASONING
TRADE. - Uses combo of KNOWLEDGE, FORBEARANCE, COMMUNICATION
so you have 4 skill categories.
examples might be
body - swimming (rather than Swimming as sheer an agility based skill)
mind - reading/ writing (rather than a knownledge based skill)
instincts - blindfighting ( reather than a prowess based skill)
Trade - blacksmithing (rather than a ??? based skill - this is another reason for breaking it down to 4)
[glow=red,2,300]Now Heres where I would like Help/suggestions.[/glow] [sub] (not a critique - which I never asked for Ron “asking for praise and confirmation when they claim that they're asking for critique”[/sub]
I am having considerable trouble getting the numbers where I want them. (I will state Where I want them this time in a moment)
I had thought that I could Use skill ranks and multiply them with a Skill category score.
Ex: Body(smimming rank) = % chance of success (on a d100)
That would be my ideal formula but I can’t make myself Happy with the numbers.
How many ranks do I need versus what do my Skill category scores (body, mind, etc) need to be to get the NUMBERS THAT I WANT.
The numbers that I want: Ideally I want the skill ranks to reflect how practiced the player is with the skill
So the lowest rank would be untrained (rank 1) All players can attempt to make a roll with a low chance of success >15%
The highest rank (as yet undetermined) would represent the highest chance of success possible – which I want to be 95% - (even a master can mess up.)
The ranks spread out between these extremes would move up evenly.
If there were ten ranks on a perfectly average Skill category score.
The percentages might go something like
Skill rank 1-------- 10%
Skill rank 2-------- 20%
Skill rank 3-------- 30%
Skill rank 4-------- 40%
Skill rank 5-------- 50%
Skill rank 6-------- 60%
Skill rank 7-------- 70%
Skill rank 8-------- 80%
Skill rank 9-------- 90%
Skill rank 10-------- 95%
Since I'm basing as much of my game on the 11 characteristics (or in this case there combined version)
[sub]note: More on how to combine them in a moment[/sub]
The Skill category score will effect this number.
Why? Maybe a player is naturally better than others. Natural talent + Practice = better than Lack of natural talent + Practice
So now my next step is determining how to derive a number that supports this theory using combination of the Big 11 (might, prowess, etc)
[sub]My first thought was ---- average them. [/sub]
Might + Agility+Heartiness/3 = Body
[sub]My second thought was [/sub]
Have a modifier linked from the characteristic scores (a little harder to explain)
Score
[sub]scores range from 3-17 can generally average around 10 when rolled – your average joe would score a 7 without being below or above average[/sub]
If your score is ---- then your modifier is
7 1
8 2
9 3
10 4
Then you add them together.
Ex: might is 7 (mod +1) – Agility is 10 (mod+4) – Heartiness is 8(mod +2)
Body score is 7 (1+4+2)
Further example: Body score is 7 (see above) times tightrope walking rank 7
Giving the player a 49% chance of successfully walking a tightrope.
These are my ideas. I am not stuck on them. I like them though.
I would like help making this work in such a way that I don’t end up with
Percentages often times well over 100%
Or situations where players have less than 50% chance more often than not.
I have not been able to find a way to keep a Difficulty class without being diceless using this idea.
I want a dice roll and would rather sacrifice a DC. Especially since the GM can do the equivalent by using situation bonuses and penalties (ex:+10% because of fair weather or -20% because of an undertow while swimming, Etc)
I hope this clears up my needs.
I really do. It took a long time to type it all up.
Thanks. Look forward to your suggestions.
On 6/11/2010 at 6:24pm, Mike Sugarbaker wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Multiplication is what's defeating you here. Not only do people, even very smart people, have a disinclination to do lots of it at the game table, but it leads to numbers that explode very quickly in ways that are difficult to guess and even more difficult to design for.
I would vote that it's best to leave the multiplier thing aside. It's a neat idea, and I could be wrong, but I know that my own designs progress fastest when I know when to let go of my neat ideas.
On 6/15/2010 at 4:33pm, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Mike wrote:
Multiplication is what's defeating you here. Not only do people, even very smart people, have a disinclination to do lots of it at the game table
Unfortunately I believe your right Mike. Thanks for your input.
In this case I don't think the Math would be too bad. (small number x a slightly larger one. write it down- Done- until its leveled)
But I cannot get the numbers where I want them across the board.
while the site has been down and I couldn't get you guy's input I began working on Magic types (Arcane - Divine - Innate & Conducted) and have left skills alone for the nonce.
I am still hoping someone out there might have a brilliant way to keep my Skill category system (in some form). I haven't tried to figure anything else out with it.
I am not above Throwing it out, would just love to make it work.
When I get done with/stuck on Magic - I'll return and Either Try to fix it or start over.
When I do return to it (hopefully with someones great Idea aiding me) I'll try to get results without multiplying.
On 6/15/2010 at 5:34pm, horomancer wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
First off I'll admit i jumped through your very very long post with much of the colored text.
The point i want to make is that percentile based skill checks get tricky when you have direct competitions between characters. This is most noteable in combat, but happens else where. The short is if two characters are competing in something they roughly have at the same high level, and they both pass, then there is no real way to determine who did better. You can look at who had the lowest number on the percentile, but that's just pure randomness at that point. Since you are still open for how skill checks are handled I would look at some other dice mechanic. I'm partial to bell curves, as they handle this problem nicely by making it more difficult to roll very high or very low. Maybe have the BODY/MIND/INSTINCTS/TRADE added to a SKILL rank then add something like 2d8 or 3d6 or 3d8.
A friend made a home brew where combat was just a skill you had, and all skills where a percentile, so characters with really high levels in combat would be in endless duels. He implemented critcal hit rules which was really the only way to break the stalemate when characters had +90% to hit or avoid being hit.
On 6/16/2010 at 12:04am, horomancer wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Maybe some form of percential buy off if you want to keep it d100.
Like you take a -10% but your success is like a success+1 if you make it.
On 6/16/2010 at 5:52am, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
horomancer wrote:
Maybe some form of percential buy off if you want to keep it d100.
Like you take a -10% but your success is like a success+1 if you make it.
This is a good idea.
like a degree of success.. well sort of. the negative (your ex: -10%) would represent challenge
for each negative (whatever it may be) and degree of success could be added. Is that what you mean?
or do I misunderstand?
I just has a thought will typing something else here
which was that I am not set on D100.
Here's what I though of.
So you derive your Skill Category numbers by some means - It doesn't matter (yet at least)
The main thing is that the number you get relates somehow (reference chart) to a die
low numbers --- d4
High numbers d10
going from low to high hitting all the main dice. 4-6-8-10
then you take your skill rank and roll your rank in dice
Ex: Body number = d6
Swimming rank 4
Roll 4d6 against a difficulty class (though I am not fond of that term)]
thoughts?
Its late and I just thought it up. Any obvious holes? Any improvements?
On 6/16/2010 at 7:46am, Vulpinoid wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Necromantis wrote:
Here's what I though of.
So you derive your Skill Category numbers by some means - It doesn't matter (yet at least)
The main thing is that the number you get relates somehow (reference chart) to a die
low numbers --- d4
High numbers d10
going from low to high hitting all the main dice. 4-6-8-10
then you take your skill rank and roll your rank in dice
Ex: Body number = d6
Swimming rank 4
Roll 4d6 against a difficulty class (though I am not fond of that term)
thoughts?
Its late and I just thought it up. Any obvious holes? Any improvements?
There is a system that uses this, it's old and I can't remember what it was, but I do remember playing at a convention with it.
Don't take this as an insult, I'm just saying that it HAS been done...I'm pretty sure it was a version of Savage Worlds but I could be wrong.
On 6/17/2010 at 3:16am, Necromantis wrote:
**shrug**
Don't take this as an insult, I'm just saying that it HAS been done...I'm pretty sure it was a version of Savage Worlds but I could be wrong.
No insult. I realize its not cutting edge or anything. Just looking for a way that works out. I haven't play-tested it yet (AKA making my wife an unwilling guinea pig) But I this may be the ticket.
Its good that no one has shot it full of holes..... yet.
Thanks guys.
If anyone knows of a system that utilizes this type of mechanic. Please Post/Mention it (Like Vulpinoid- thanks by the way)
I'll look into it (for **cough cough** inspiration)
Thanks Guys
Brent
On 6/17/2010 at 1:10pm, horomancer wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Quick question- Are the various dice being rolled and added together to make a total number? Or is this similar to white wolf where you are looking for target numbers and tallying up all the 'successes'?
Either way, it's a sound model, just wanted some clarification. The only real draw back (which is a very small one that occurs in many games) is the lack of longshots, or other extreme chances. If you go with a 'number of success' model, you could employ an exploding die mechanic (i.e. you roll a 1, you get to roll that die again to see if you get another success). This could give characters not well trained the chance to pull off something well beyond their means.
The success model would also let you use d12s and d20s if you liked, since you would be working with a success % and the large jump in possible values wouldn't be a detriment.
On 6/17/2010 at 5:00pm, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
It would be the sum of the rolls.
An example might explain it best.
(that and I like them)
Example: [sub](Number are still being worked out and may differ in later versions)[/sub]
The Body Skill Category is comprised of and average of these three Characteristics
Might -7
Agility - 12
Heartiness - 9
7+12+9/3 = [glow=red,2,300]9[/glow] (rounded down)
Reference Chart
Skill Category
3-6 = d4
[glow=red,2,300]7-10 = d6[/glow]
11-13 = d8
14+ = d10
So For Body Based Skills (Which you would buy ranks in with ranks "bought" at each level)
You would Roll a 6 Sider for each rank you have in a BODY based skill.
(note: Rank 1 is what you begin with before adding ranks)
Examples
Swimming (rank 4) - Roll 4d6 Result: 18 DC: 10 --- SUCCESS [sub]was able to tread water - a higher DC for say swimming in a current[/sub]
Tight Rope Walking (rank 2) - Roll 2d6 Result: 9 DC - 25 --- FAILURE -[sub]needs practice/ranks or is his body is just not suited for the task[/sub]
Juggling (rank 1 ) - Roll 1d6 Result: 3 DC - 7 --- FAILURE [sub]needs practice/rank or just too uncordinated[/sub]
Now these numbers can be compared to a Difficulty class> see above (I really don't like the term but we all know what it means)
This is how I Envision the skill system working.
The better the Characteristic Score (might, prowess, precision, Etc)
The better the Skill Category Score (MIND, BODY, INSTINCTS, TRADE)
The better the Die/Dice (d4, d6, d8, d10)
The Better the Die - the Better your Chances are.
Poor Skill Category Scores Can be overcome by Ranks (Even 10d4 can tackle most DCs)
On 6/17/2010 at 5:04pm, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
As far as Skill Rank "Spending"
I will take something from 2nd edition d&d ("non-weapon proficiencies) that I thinks restricts Players in a good way.
I will Brake skills up into lists.
I have 3 types of Classes in my game:
Fighter
Magic User
Rogue
(each of these have 5 or so classes that they Break up into)
So I will Break the Skills into Lists like this.
General Skills
[sup] Body skills[/sup]
[sup] Mind skills[/sup]
[sup]Instinct skills[/sup]
Fighter Skills
[sup] Body skills[/sup]
[sup] Mind skills[/sup]
[sup]Instinct skills[/sup]
Magic-User Skills
[sup] Body skills[/sup]
[sup] Mind skills[/sup]
[sup]Instinct skills[/sup]
Rogue Skills
[sup] Body skills[/sup]
[sup] Mind skills[/sup]
[sup]Instinct skills[/sup]
Trade Skills
your own class "cost" 1:1 -- and others classes "costs" 2:1
Trade Skills will "Cost" Double always.
So a Fighter can choose from any of these - "at cost" for fighter and general skills and "double cost" for Magic-User or Rogue Skills
Magic-Users and Rogues the same.
On 6/18/2010 at 1:11am, horomancer wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
I recall a friend and I went down this path with a system he was writting. It worked well for skills but got kinda weird for combat. Can't remember what it was now, something about damage being really random.
Anyways, good system. we didn't have the Stat backing you do, and only 3 trait blocks (Body, mind, spirit) so you may be able to avoid the messy combat situation we ran into.
On 6/18/2010 at 3:59am, Necromantis wrote:
RE: Re: a new (to me) look at skills. would like input
Yeah my Combat system is based on a different kind of thing entirely.
But like skill category (body, mind, etc) it ties into the "major 11" (as I have taken to calling them --- Might - prowess , precision, etc)
The numbers that you average to get your BODY and MIND values
Provide information just as vital to how and why you make or miss attacks, Dodge or parry or dent someones armor.
Keep your Eyes peeled if you are curious, I will soon post an overview of my combat system and ask for feedback.
Within a week I think.
Thanks a ton everyone.
I honestly think I would have either thrown this idea out of the window or never realized how multiplication can monkey up your numbers.
but Now I know, and knowing is half the battle
(which is why knowledge gives a bonus to fighting in my system *wink* )