High Skills

[Briquelet]

I've seen a lot of debating about how to handle high skills; like many others, I have a solution of my own:

When making opposed rolls, if either participant has a skill in excess of 100%, that excess is subtracted from the opponent's skill. Let's say Halgrim is 160% Athletics and Thjostolf is 180%. If they race each other through an obstacle course, Halgrim rolls vs. Athletics skill of 80% and Thjostolf rolls against a skill of 120%. Yeah, someone with 100% higher skill will win virtually every contest, but why not? After all, if you are 100% better than someone else, shouldn't you win (barring freak chance) 100% of the time?

With regard to combat, I think I will make the defender decide whether or not to actively oppose any attack roll BEFORE that attack roll is made-the atacker states his intent to attack a target and the target must THEN decide whether or not to oppose it. After all, even in baseball players frequently swing at bad pitches because they think they'll be good--it's pretty hard to react accurately in the span of a heartbeat. Also, that way both opponents roll simultaneously and the above rule will apply nicely.

Anyway, that's my two cents on the matter...

John

 

[atgxtg]

THe reason why not is more to do with those story situations where the brave, but outclassed heroes go up against the evil, more powerful, villian, or overcome a very difficult obstacle.

That concept sort of fit in big time into the whole Glroanthan concept.

Thing like the group trying to sneak past a VIP who if he detects them is going to be big trouble.

 

[iamtim]

After all, if you are 100% better than someone else, shouldn't you win (barring freak chance) 100% of the time?

I'm right with you there. If you are that much better than someone else, your success will be guaranteed unless you roll the equivalent of a fumble on your opposed skill test in my game.

 

[simonh]

I'm right with you there. If you are that much better than someone else, your success will be guaranteed unless you roll the equivalent of a fumble on your opposed skill test in my game.

So even if the lower skilled characetr rolled a success (or even a crit) and the high skill characetr rolled a fail, you'd still have the high skill character win the contest? I'm sure that's not what you mean...

Simon Hibbs

 

[atgxtg]

I think he means that without skill halving, the higher skilled characters are going to win unless they fail or fumble (slight chance) and the low skilled character gets a better result (success vs. failure)

As written, you can't get a critical in an opposed test. THat is one of the things causing all the problems.

 

[simonh]

As written, you can't get a critical in an opposed test. THat is one of the things causing all the problems.

Yep, I keep underestimating how broken it is.

Simon Hibbs

 

[soltakss]

When I first read the halving rule for skills over 100%, I thought "What a clever solution". RQ2 had anti-parry, RQ3 had no resolution, RQM has skill halving. Of the three, skill halving is probably best.

I'd still retain criticals etc. on opposed tests as they are an extra level of resolution. So, a critical beats a normal, a normal beats a failure and, depending on the circumstances, a failure beats a fumble. Then, for the same level of success, highest roll wins (although I find it hard to train my dice to roll low and high at the same time).

 

[simonh]

When I first read the halving rule for skills over 100%, I thought "What a clever solution". RQ2 had anti-parry, RQ3 had no resolution, RQM has skill halving. Of the three, skill halving is probably best.

Even though increasing your skill can sometimes reduce your overall chance of success by over 25%? You must realy like it a lot to let that pass. I notice you don't mention Elric, the only other RQ-derived game specificaly designed to handle characters with skills significantly over 100%. How do you rate it's approach (which I described above)?

Simon Hibbs

 

[soltakss]

Even though increasing your skill can sometimes reduce your overall chance of success by over 25%? You must realy like it a lot to let that pass.

Does it? I thought it was relative and if both of you failed then you rolled again. Admittedly, you don't automatically succeed if you are opposing a skilled character, or even an unskilled character. Maybe it should only apply if both skills are over 100.

I notice you don't mention Elric, the only other RQ-derived game specificaly designed to handle characters with skills significantly over 100%. How do you rate it's approach (which I described above)?

I played Stormbringer once or twice when it first came out, but never played the renamed and rejigged Elric game, so I am not familiar with how it coped with skills above 100%.

I can't see where you described how it works.

 

[simonh]

I played Stormbringer once or twice when it first came out, but never played the renamed and rejigged Elric game, so I am not familiar with how it coped with skills above 100%.

I can't see where you described how it works.

Sorry, it's in the "Ideas to replace halving mechanic" thread. It's also here:

Skills over 100

That's a page I just created in Google pages.


Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

Even though increasing your skill can sometimes reduce your overall chance of success by over 25%? You must realy like it a lot to let that pass.

Does it? I thought it was relative and if both of you failed then you rolled again. Admittedly, you don't automatically succeed if you are opposing a skilled character, or even an unskilled character. Maybe it should only apply if both skills are over 100.

If both characters fail, the lowest roll wins. A character with a skill of 101%, halved to 50%, fails half the time. A characer with 10% halved to a 10% chance fails 90% of the time, but often in the 11-50% range which will automaticaly beat any fail by the higher skilled character. If both roll over 50 then it's an even toss either way.

The odds are massively shifted in the low-skilled character's favour.

Simon Hibbs

 

[soltakss]

I thought they had gone for highest roll wins for that reason.

That's another reason why "made it by the most" is better than "lowest roll or "highest roll".

Ah well, I'll have to read the rules properly.

Thanks for the Elric link, I'll have a look at it.

 

[iamtim]

I'm sure that's not what you mean...

What I mean is this, and it's somewhat subjective:

If you are in a situation where one character is significantly above 100% and another character is significantly below 100% in an opposed test, I'm just going to leave the skills as is, have the players roll, and have only the equivalent of a fumble count as a failure for the character significantly above 100%. Anything else counts as a success.