Let me just say that I love TRoS. That is right off the bat. But it's big weakness is that it was obviously made as a combat game first, and the skills are artificially tacked on. Now, they work, but it is a rather inelegant solution. If this is not fixed, TRoS risks going the way of D&D 2nd ed: a collections of decent systems, linked together only by a core book. I would really hate to see that happen.

So rather than bitch and whine, I put my money where my mouth is, and constructed the rudiments of a total coherent system. Okay, the way I see it, the core mechanic of TRoS is a large dice pool, split up into two or more subpools, each competing against a number of successes.

So what I do, is declare all skills as dice pools. Everything. Then, each skill has a way that it is broken down into sub pools. The difficulty of a skill test is determined largely by the tools available, or the environment.

Let me give you a rough example. Lets say that a blacksmith has a Smithing skill of 5 (average trained), and a Willpower (or whatever the relevent stat is) of 5. His total skill pool is 10. Smithing has two aspects (well, two for our concerns): Quality and Time. The player splits his pool between each aspect. Now, lets say he wants to construct a longsword. Just for arguments sake, we'll assume that a longsword takes three successes to construct an average quality weapon. And we'll also assume (mainly because I have no real info on this) that it takes 40 man-hours to make. Each success on the Time roll reduces this time by 5 hours, to a minimum of 2 hours. Again, I haven't the foggiest clue how long any of this takes, so I'll just keep yammering. To find the difficulty of the roll, we learn that a fully stocked an functional smithy gives a TN of 6. The player divvies up his dice: 7 dice into quality (it better be a good sword), and three into Time (he has a while). The quality roll is made, getting three successes. The sword gets made, and of average quality. Now for the Time rol: only 1 success, so the project takes 35 hours.
This Time/Quality system works for all crafting skills, and gives the player a chance to show off how good his craftsman is. Imagine a bladesmith with a 15 skill pool, spending days constructing a masterwork bastardsword for his friend. Give him some SAs, and we're talking a very devoted weaponsmith. Or imagine a team of workers, where all roll their pools. The time gets reduced for each success between the workers, but the Quality is capped by the worker with the lowest number of successes. Too many cooks spoiling the stew.

I'm working on how to use this system with athletic, stealth, and social skills. i'll keep everyone updated, if anyone has any interest.

pretty slick, but I dig the existant system a bit more for reasons of simplicitty but yours works for detail.
I was glad you kept the relevant stat there as I think the stat vs sr was key to my enjoyment of the current system. Natural ability plays alot in any performance and no training will make an idiot a great researcher (MA 1 SR 3, you can only go so far).

If you play with this new system please let us know how balance goes.

Oh, one problem very obvious just from your example, your system will require a lot of knowlege on the part ofthe GM as far as how long it might take to make a longsword for example. if the seneschal doesn't know your in a bit of a situation.

Well, what I was imagining was a crafts guide, where each item was detailed in its make time, cost, etc.

I'd also have to come up with rules for poor and fine quality weapons.

This is a major project, and I think worth the effort.

Ther's no reason that the fighters and wizards should get all the benefits from the uber-cool system.

actually, thats a kittle misleading. When Jake introduced me to the game I was skeptical, so I decided to test him on the basis of his skill system so I built a skilled based character who couldnt fight nor cast magic, and he worked out incredibly with out a hitch and I used that character for two campaigns without a fight and had a blast based entirely on the skill system. it worked out wonderfully and I bought TROS based on that experience so I think you might be cheating the system by saying its only for magic and fighting based on the pools. I contend that the system is well thought out and fun as is but incourage you to find what works best and then let us know how it goes. Its an interesting idea.

A lot of folks seem to feel that the Skill system isn't streamlined with the rest of the game...but it actually is. Exactly. The skill system was finished long before combat, and it wasn't tacked on. Now, I'm not offended or anything (I can see why people might think that it was an afterthought), but let me explain...

In combat you roll dice against a TN. The TN depends on what weapon your using, and in what situation. The dice depend on your own personal ability.

My philosophy is that "skills" are not measurements of how much ability you have, but rather how difficult something is for you (a fine distinction, I know). I think of the skill as the weapon, so to speak. If you have a finer skill then you have a finer weapon, and a lower TN. This doesn't change your talent--just how difficult an action is.

Example: I want to write a convincing post at 2 in the morning. My normal die pool (Wit stat) is, um, 5. But it's late, and so my natural ability is decreased (-2 for being tired). I'm using my "Compose Forge Post" skill because it is the most appropriate weapon for the job (just as I would use an axe against an armored opponent, instead of a rapier). It's SR is, uh, 7. So I make my roll. If I had a finer skill (lower SR/TN) then I could get more done with my unchanged natural ability.

I'm not saying that you have to agree (It's your game, yada yada yada), but I thought you all should know why.

Jake

To me, the skill system works fine as it is, but I really like this new way as well.
Would be possible to just use twice as many dice as you would normally get when you use a skill, and then divide them between quality/time?
Or more importantly, is it possible to do it this way *and* the normal way, in the same game, without mucking up probabilities n' stuff?

In my first game most of the players made combat gods with cool SA's and one guy made a roguish street guy with lots of skills. When we played the next week without the more skills related character, the players were really bummed and said so, they knew how valuable he had been to the party.

I know Jake is coming up with lots of cool stuff for TFoB, and he may have new thoughts on how to handle Buying Initiative/Pre-emptive Strikes...

But it strikes me that Jon the B's Quality/Speed idea might be a better way to handle Buying Initiative. If two players are attacking simultaneously, they each spend dice to buy initiative. The aggressor gets a bonus (perhaps 2 dice), but he also has to declare how many dice he's using for initiative first. Each TN is the opponent's Reflex.

I'm just making this up as I go along, and I'm not a practitioner of the martial arts. But the current system seems too complex.

Gene Ha

MrGeneHa wrote:
But the current system seems too complex.

Jake: Your explanation of the theory behind the TN for skills is fantastic. Hadn't occured to me to think in those terms. Make a note to yourself whereever you're compiling such things that should you one day do a 2nd edition that you include that explanation in the skill section.

With that said the two systems are identical with the exception of how the Die Pool is calculated. For combat the die pool is Proficiency + Attribute (ok, derived attribute). For skills the die pool is simply Attribute...with the assumption that you're rolling 100% of your pool every roll.

So one could postulate Non Combat Proficiencies. They'd need to be pretty broad, so as to include a wide range of narrower applications (the way combat maneuvers are narrower applications of the overall proficiency).

You'd need something broad like "Mercantile Proficiency", or "Soldiering Proficiency", or "Wilderness Stuff Proficiency" and so on.

But wait...we already have that don't we...Skill Packages. What is a Skill Package really other than a Non Combat Proficiency. What are Skills really other than Non Combat "Maneuvers" (conceptually anyway).

So if one really wanted to unify the system more, the easiest thing to me would simply be to ascribe an actual Proficiency Level to the Skill Package itself. What would that be...how about the base skill level you get from starting Priorities (before applying the individual skill mods).

That would give essentially the same doubling effect to the number of dice rolled while leaving the mechanic Attribute vs Skill rather than Attribute + Skill. Then all kinds of die pool fun could be used if one was so inclined. After all what was Jon's sword smith example other than a Sorcery check...roll for effectiveness, roll for aging...literally.

I don't know that I'd be too inclined to do this unless I was creating a game that was primarily about whatever area the proficiencies were for. I mean if one is really playing a game where you are making more sword making rolls (or sailing rolls, or lost in the wilderness rolls) then you are combat rolls, than exploding out the non combat skills in this manner might be a good way of generating some additional mechanical variety. But if not...not sure if its worth it.

There's a couple other perspectives.

First, Jake's analogy is shakey at best. In what way isn't the blacksmith's tool set directly analogous to the warrior's sword? And how is a proficiency with a sword not a skill? The things in combat that affect difficulty are all external, and it's personal ability that determines die pool. Why switch that around at all for something non-combat. From that POV, I'd go with the Jon's methods.

And the amount of time it takes to make a sword is something the GM is going to have to know anyhow if it matters, even if using the old system. If it doesn't then the player will put in minimum dice, and the GM will say it took "a long time". This is not a problem particular to Jon's system in any way.

The reason for going with a single system is unity. Players only have to learn one method for buying skills/proficiencies, and only need to know one way to resolve them. It's just slicker.

That all said, I kinda like Ralph's take, too. What I'd do, then is to think of Combat as a single skill. What that implies is that proficiencies are subsets of skills. Thus, if I had Merchant skill, I could have proficiencies in Haggling, Assessing, Marketing, or whatever. That's very much like the original poster's idea, however, as the "skills" as such then have no particular advantage attached.

Hmm. I'm afraid I see it like Jon does.

Mike

well, let me know how it goes, and if the original system somehow someday causes me problems I will have an alternative, in the meantime I dig how jake wrote it.

Well Jake, not to contradict you, but I don't see how the skill of swinging a sword is really all that different from say, playing an instrument. The only real difference is that combat is deadly lethal. Yes, that was a double positive. On a purely logical level, if anything, the fine moter control, fast reaction times, diverse experiences, and strategic thinking involved in a musical instrument are far more in depth and difficult to master than swordsmanship. Now, if you miss an E flat, you're not dead, but that is really the only difference.
Poor or difficult to master intruments make the performance less likely to succeed, just like a shoddy weapon will make for a dificult block.

I think the skill system works, but there are a few shortcomings.

1. It shortchanges the skill-based character. Yes, the rogue is valuable, efficient, and probably very dangerous, but the player will never have the ability to go as in depth as the swordsman.

2. It breaks down at very high skill levels. Say you've got an elf with a leather working of 2, and a seven agility. Well, he's entirely likely to get seven successes on anything he does, but if he wants to get any better, he must raise his Agility.

3. It creates a disjunction in the uniformity of the system. This is really just a stylistic complaint.

In defense of my addition (because I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it has merit), I believe that it makes it entirely possible to have a Craftman character with just as much power and complexity (system-wise, not personality wise) as the most powerful wizard or most dangerous swordsman.

Once again, I'm just saying these things because I think it's a great system, and I just want to contribute my two cents into it.

Making all skills die pools would be slicker... The problem would be making the target numbers non-arbitrary. If you can figure out a quick and simple system for coming up with TN's for skills then I'm all for a conversion.

One of my only complaints with die pool systems (not only TROS, but WEG star wars, storyteller, etc. is the arbitrary TN/difficulty chart/s.

You know the one that goes from easy to hard to challenging to heroic, and the other one that lists the successes as barely succeded, done well, done masterfully, etc. etc. A a GM I hate those charts and I had trouble coming up with fair and reasonable TN/success #'s for my players. As player I hate it even more "TN 16 for a Per roll? And I need at least three successes!? WTF.? Exactly how did you arrive at this number Mr. GM???"

Contrast the skil/ability checks system with the combat system where the number TN's and successes are always a known quality. And you see the lack of consistency in the rules.

I just feel there should be a more solid guideline how many sucesses and what the TN is for a PC with a str 6 to break down that door. I don't want the minute detail that you find in the HERO system, but a mechanic which at least puts you in the correct ball park would be nice. IF, Jon could come up with a reasonably quick and simple mechanic to do this it would be worth converting over.

My comlaint is with this die pool mechanic in general and Mr. Norwoods skill system works just as well as anything else out there.

I just want it all, and I'm all for switching over to a better mouse trap.

There is a great difference between swinging a sword and playing an instrument as far as the game goes and IRL, too, IMO...).

See, if it was "the riddle of the lute" then I think that I could justify a greater level of detail in musianship (or whatever), but it isn't...it's the riddle of steel. The purpose of having a large die pool is so that you have resources to switch around--when would you need to sacrifice one thing in favor of another when playing an instrument? The die pool is there when you need to make decisions that truly affect your character. I don't know what decisions a player would have to make when playing an instrument other than "I'm playing an instrument." I'm not saying that you couldn't come up with one, but does it really fit in with the game?

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: The purpose of having a large die pool is so that you have resources to switch around--when would you need to sacrifice one thing in favor of another when playing an instrument?

I think part of Jake's point here, is that the game is largely centered on combat.

If you were running a game centered around travelling bards/skalds/whatever, then you might want to treat, say, performance skills the same way that combat skills are treated.

If you're playing a fairly standard RoS game, though, the skill system works fine as is, and the more robust system for combat is apt.

Stuart

I get your point, Jake.

Hmm... Maybe "Riddle of the Lute" could be an add on.

It's really just something that I was futzing around with. I guess its a difference between the whole Simulationist / Narrativist stance. You point out that in terms of most games, combat and spell casting play a whole helluva bigger role than say, underwater basketweaving for teens. So you've relegated these other tertiary skills to a seperate, quick and easy system. No need to clog the synapses with useless infromation, right?

Now my stance is a bit more on the Simulationist side. I know that the in-game effects of lute playing are usually minor. But I don't see why logically, weapon skills are given any special treatment. If anything, weaponskills are often quite a bit easier to become proficient with than many other types of skills. Anyone who has tried to learn another language, or become a phsyicist, knows that often many years are required to just become mediocre. On the other hand, mediocre shieldsman can be mass produced in a matter of weeks. So I use the same super cool system for either, even though most players will never care if their basket was constructed faster or slower than LArs the BasketWeaver.

But i'm just a completist like that.

after further thought I found many merits in the idea for crafts and I may adapt some of the ideas within the existant system for craft based characters.

I might be a bit slow on the uptake, but I'm starting to like this idea of Attribute + Skill Proficiency for determining crafting skills. I understand Jake's point of view about TRoS being centered around combat, but I envisioned my campaign to be much more than that. This is why I have been so excited about the new rules suggested in the Social Combat post.

I do acknowledge two road blocks to doing skills this way though. First, as was pointed out earlier in this post is the fact that general times would need to be worked out for the different items that are crafted. I bet we could rely on the work of other games such as Chivalry & Sorcery for inspiration if not for information though. Another thing too that would need to be worked out is the TN's for crafting different works since the Skill Rating would then be used to determine the overall Dice Pool. This too might not be as hard as it sounds if we look around at other examples.

Just some thoughts that are probably late in coming on this topic, but there you are just the same. I realize that my style of gaming doesn't appeal to most out there, but I my suggestions aren't made with the intention to make anyone feel uncomfortable. I'm only adding this last part because of the cold receptions some of my ideas about house rules have receive on other subjects as of late.

Durgil wrote: I understand Jake's point of view about TRoS being centered around combat, but I envisioned my campaign to be much more than that.

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Not that you're not completely entitled to do that, don't mistake the tone of my post - I'm not saying your way is silly or that you must do things the TROS way, or anything like that, I'm simply presenting the other side.

Peaching to the choir, Mike. You should know me better than that by now...

Brian.