Some new skill system observations

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

A similar system was posted by Steve Perrin on the old MRQ playtest mailinglist: Drop the digits from both your roll and your skill. Substract your roll from your skill, the result is your (relative) level of success.

For example: If two poets, with 100% in oratory, take part in a poetry contest, then the one with the highest level of success will win. The maximum difference is 9 (i.e. one rolled 95 and the other below 10).

I'm not sure I'm getting quite what your describing, but halving is starting to sound not so bad.

He is suggesting that you can determine the degree of success by subtracting your roll from your skill (i.e. highest MoS wins), but only consider the 10's die to ease in the calculation.

Example: Rurik Runespear attempts to barter over the price of a horse from the local merchant. Ruriks Influence skill is 78%. Rurik rolls a 29%. You subtract the 2 (his roll) from the 7 (his skill) and get 5 Levels/Ranks/Degrees of success. The Merchant influence is 65% and rolls a 58%, achieving 1 Level/Rank/Degree of success. Rurik Runespear manages to convince the merchant to lower the price of the horse.

It isn't a new concept, but it can work, although some people have problems subtracting a number from a number. If you were to use this way of Resolution, I'd suggest ruling a critical trumps MoS, to give the guys with lesser skill a chance.

 

[andakitty]

That is the basic mechanic used in the new Tekumel from GOO, indeed(except only D10s are used). I haven't played it, but it seems a good answer to the perceived problem of opposed skill tests. In fact, now that you have pointed it out (how it can be used in a percentile system) I think I just might introduce it to my BRP games in the future. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Rurik]

A similar system was posted by Steve Perrin on the old MRQ playtest mailinglist: Drop the digits from both your roll and your skill. Substract your roll from your skill, the result is your (relative) level of success.

For example: If two poets, with 100% in oratory, take part in a poetry contest, then the one with the highest level of success will win. The maximum difference is 9 (i.e. one rolled 95 and the other below 10).

I'm not sure I'm getting quite what your describing, but halving is starting to sound not so bad.

He is suggesting that you can determine the degree of success by subtracting your roll from your skill (i.e. highest MoS wins), but only consider the 10's die to ease in the calculation.

Example: Rurik Runespear attempts to barter over the price of a horse from the local merchant. Ruriks Influence skill is 78%. Rurik rolls a 29%. You subtract the 2 (his roll) from the 7 (his skill) and get 5 Levels/Ranks/Degrees of success. The Merchant influence is 65% and rolls a 58%, achieving 1 Level/Rank/Degree of success. Rurik Runespear manages to convince the merchant to lower the price of the horse.

It isn't a new concept, but it can work, although some people have problems subtracting a number from a number. If you were to use this way of Resolution, I'd suggest ruling a critical trumps MoS, to give the guys with lesser skill a chance.

Wow. That was really Perrin's contribution? That feels less RQ them the MRQ way of doing things.

The math is simple enough, but there a a lot of little calculations, which makes it cumbersome. I drop a couple digits and subtract, he drops a couple digits and subtracts, we compare results and subtract the losers level of success from the winners to determine the degree of success (I am assuming you are using degrees of success, otherwise what is the point?) then potentially have to reference some table that tells us what winning by X degrees of success means.

And with the MRQ system, the chance of a tie is 1/100, while in that system it seems more like 1/10. Is a failure a 0 level of success? Because I could have a 79 skill and roll a 70 and get a 0, or do we get into negative levels of success for rolls over the skill? And finally, why not just use a D10 (or D20) based system if we are basically ignoring the ones position?

I don't mean to totally trash the mechanic, It could work very well in a system designed around degrees of success, but it definitely does not seem RQ to me.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

I don't mean to totally trash the mechanic, It could work very well in a system designed around degrees of success, but it definitely does not seem RQ to me.

It can be a little clunky, especially if you are using the system for combat (as opposed to just skill vs. skill tests). I personally am not the biggest fan of it as it ignores the ones die (i.e. why not just use a D10?).

I think the new version of the Warhammer RPG uses a very similar system, if you want to check it out there.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

That is the basic mechanic used in the new Tekumel from GOO, indeed(except only D10s are used). I haven't played it, but it seems a good answer to the perceived problem of opposed skill tests. In fact, now that you have pointed it out (how it can be used in a percentile system) I think I just might introduce it to my BRP games in the future. Thanks for the suggestion.

No worries, you can also check out Warhammer Fantasy RPG, which uses a similar system. There were a few other % RPG with a degree of success mechanic, but I cannot remember the names at present.

 

[andakitty]

I believe that is Tekumel you are thinking of.

Personally I love the idea of using for percentile opposed rolls. It seems an elegant, easy solution to me.

 

[Rurik]

I believe that is Tekumel you are thinking of.

Personally I love the idea of using for percentile opposed rolls. It seems an elegant, easy solution to me.

Ahhh, its good to be on the other side than andakitty again! :wink:

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

I believe that is Tekumel you are thinking of.

Personally I love the idea of using for percentile opposed rolls. It seems an elegant, easy solution to me.

No, Tekumel wasn't a % game. There have been several % games to have the every 10% a degree of success system...

 

[Rurik]

On a different note, while reading the disease rules I did come upon something I like about the MRQ opposed rolls. A GM can have a player make his roll and not know if he has succeeded or failed, which is useful in some situations.

Take the disease case - they have an incubation period. A player could be exposed to the plague, the GM can have him make his Resilience roll (or CONx5 if you prefer), and he will not know whether he succeeded or not even if he 'fails' his roll. There are times when a GM rolls for a character in secret because he does not want him to know if he succeeds. Now he can let the player roll.

 

[Trodax]

He is suggesting that you can determine the degree of success by subtracting your roll from your skill (i.e. highest MoS wins), but only consider the 10's die to ease in the calculation.

Example: Rurik Runespear attempts to barter over the price of a horse from the local merchant. Ruriks Influence skill is 78%. Rurik rolls a 29%. You subtract the 2 (his roll) from the 7 (his skill) and get 5 Levels/Ranks/Degrees of success. The Merchant influence is 65% and rolls a 58%, achieving 1 Level/Rank/Degree of success. Rurik Runespear manages to convince the merchant to lower the price of the horse.

It isn't a new concept, but it can work, although some people have problems subtracting a number from a number. If you were to use this way of Resolution, I'd suggest ruling a critical trumps MoS, to give the guys with lesser skill a chance.

But the outcome of this is almost exactly the same (but without all the calculations) as what Archer suggested earlier in this thread; just use your roll directly as a measure of success. Only difference is that this means rolling high is good (as long as you stay under your skill!) while the above described system has rolling low as good.

For example, a guy with 35% would get 0 Degrees of Success (DoS) if he rolled 01-09, 1 DoS on 10-19, 2 DoS on 20-29 and 3 DoS on 30-35. Much simpler, and with the same result, as doing the subtraction-thing.

As an aside, this is how it works in Fading Suns which is also a roll-under system (but with a d20 instead of d100); you want to roll low enough to get under your skill, but the higher you roll, the more degrees of success you get.

 

[Rurik]

I believe that is Tekumel you are thinking of.

Personally I love the idea of using for percentile opposed rolls. It seems an elegant, easy solution to me.

No, Tekumel wasn't a % game. There have been several % games to have the every 10% a degree of success system...

I have not played read Tekumel but I know some gamers who hold it in high regard.

The system certainly has merit, but you need to do sometning with these levels of success to make it worthwile in my opinion.

I still don't see the point of using that system in a % game if all you are taking into account is the 10's roll.

 

[atgxtg]

Roll Skill or less =success
Roll under 1/2 skill = 2 success
Roll under 1/10 skill = 3 success
Roll under 1/100th skill =4 success

Sounds overly complicated. Why not use something simpler.
Example; You roll vs 80%, you roll 63. You get 6 successes (counting only the 10ths).

A similar system was posted by Steve Perrin on the old MRQ playtest mailinglist: Drop the digits from both your roll and your skill. Substract your roll from your skill, the result is your (relative) level of success.

For example: If two poets, with 100% in oratory, take part in a poetry contest, then the one with the highest level of success will win. The maximum difference is 9 (i.e. one rolled 95 and the other below 10).

That's becuase I lifted the example from Steve Perrin's SPQR rules.

 

[mthomason]

That's becuase I lifted the example from Steve Perrin's SPQR rules.

Waste not, want not

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

But the outcome of this is almost exactly the same (but without all the calculations) as what Archer suggested earlier in this thread; just use your roll directly as a measure of success. Only difference is that this means rolling high is good (as long as you stay under your skill!) while the above described system has rolling low as good.

For example, a guy with 35% would get 0 Degrees of Success (DoS) if he rolled 01-09, 1 DoS on 10-19, 2 DoS on 20-29 and 3 DoS on 30-35. Much simpler, and with the same result, as doing the subtraction-thing.

As an aside, this is how it works in Fading Suns which is also a roll-under system (but with a d20 instead of d100); you want to roll low enough to get under your skill, but the higher you roll, the more degrees of success you get.

I'm not arguing that, just clarifying the example given (as I have seen it before) to make it easier to understand, Trodax. The only issue with the roll high/count success system is it doesn't account for skill over 100%. That can be easily remedied by simply adding an automatic success (if the roll was in fact successful) for every 10% of skill above 100%.

Example: Rurik has a skill of 124% and rolls a 63%. He gets 8 successes (6+2 for being 20% over 100%).

Simple enough...

The point I am trying to make here is that the system is pretty flexible. The rules can be custom tailored to personal preferrence very easily.

 

[atgxtg]

Roll Skill or less =success
Roll under 1/2 skill = 2 success
Roll under 1/10 skill = 3 success
Roll under 1/100th skill =4 success

Sounds overly complicated. Why not use something simpler.
Example; You roll vs 80%, you roll 63. You get 6 successes (counting only the 10ths).

That was how my own Genesis system was going to work.

Becuase simplier is not always better, and sometime over-complicated is really just factoring in for things that you might not have considered or decided not to factor in.

Lets look at your idea for a minute.

For an Example, Lets take two Characters, Rusk RuneRapier who has a 150% skill (what skill isn't important for the example, just the score), and Droga the Disagreeable (50% skill).

Lets say that both characters roll a 25. In your system both characters earn 2 success. In fact, anyone with a skill of 25 or higher would earn two successes. They both have the same result. Ofh, and it would be the same if one rolled a 24 too. This makes the fact that Rusk has considerable more skill than Droga of limited effect to the results. Sure if they both rolled a 62, Rusk would get 6 success and Drogo would get nothing, but Rusk skill over 100 has no effect. If Rusk had a 200% skill or a 2000% skill, it doesn't matter.


Now if we modifeed you system a little, it could get interesting. For example, we could add in "automatic" success for skill scores over 100. THis would give Rusk an extra 5 success for a 150% skill. THis would be good except it will become impossible to overcome a 100 point skill difference. We would proably want a crtical hit system to offset this.

Optionally, we could just give Rusk two rolls, one at 100%, and one at 50% and count the successes. THis would balnce out nicely for the lower skilled characters, but maintain Rusk's advantage. It is, however, a bit clunky.



In the BOND rpg, the breakdown is 1/20 skill, 1/5th, 1/2 and full skill. Wll actually it goes by success chance rather than skill, but so does RQ, so we will assume that skill and success chance are the same.
If both characters roll a 25, Rusk earn a Qualty Rating 2 result (1/5th) while Droga only gets a Qualty Rating 3 result (1/2). In BOND lowwer QR is better. THe breakdown of 1/10th, 1/5th and 1/2 are pretty easy to do in your head too.

Now in Bond the character with the greater ability won the exchange.




Games that use mutiple dice, or add to roll handle this sort of stuff easier.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

Now if we modifeed you system a little, it could get interesting. For example, we could add in "automatic" success for skill scores over 100. THis would give Rusk an extra 5 success for a 150% skill. THis would be good except it will become impossible to overcome a 100 point skill difference. We would proably want a crtical hit system to offset this.

I just suggested this :lol:
And yes, as in my previous post about the row low system issues, you would want criticals to trump normal successes....

Seriously though, the amount of tweaking that can be made to the core system is substantial. One of the neat things about it...

 

[andakitty]

Err, a little misunderstanding here, folks. Tekumel isn't a percentile system, it uses D10's for resolution. All D10's, no percentiles. You each roll under your skill level and the amount you roll under is the degree of success. Higher degree of success wins. Every thing is done with this same system of resolution.

I don't remember this mechanic from Warhammer 2, but then I didn't read it carefully. I'll take your word for that.

Rurik, I'm not on 'the other side', just stating a preference. As to what you can do with the mechanic. The combat rolls are attack/parry, whoever succeeds by the greatest margin wins as usual. If the attacker wins he takes the margin (5 if rolling a 2 with a skill of 7, say) and multiplies it by the weapons' damage modifier, which would be x3 for a shortsword. Damage 15. I like it so much I've been considering just using it as is instead of converting Tekumel to BRP. I still have not decided which I am going to use. It is a good system, looks very playable...I have to say more than MRQ. Usually only single digit numbers are used, very easy and very fast, although you have to wrap your head around different feel of it. The game has many, many little bits you can add, so you pretty much have to be careful with the bells and whistles as they can bog it down if you go overboard. That is the only negative I can think of with the system. If I had to choose between it and unmodified MRQ, I'd take Tekumel's system. That's saying something from an old BRP gamer.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

Usually only single digit numbers are used, very easy and very fast, although you have to wrap your head around different feel of it.

You are really comparing apples to oranges once you move from % to another mechanic. Have you considered BODGERS? It might be more up your alley.

 

[atgxtg]

Now if we modifeed you system a little, it could get interesting. For example, we could add in "automatic" success for skill scores over 100. THis would give Rusk an extra 5 success for a 150% skill. THis would be good except it will become impossible to overcome a 100 point skill difference. We would proably want a crtical hit system to offset this.

I just suggested this :lol:
And yes, as in my previous post about the row low system issues, you would want criticals to trump normal successes....

I was leaning towards a HeroQuest inspired solution. Give the higher skilled character a "second chance" roll (as per spending a hero point). THis could help offset the halving rule problem, and is similar to the ""bump" in HeroQuest.

Seriously though, the amount of tweaking that can be made to the core system is substantial. One of the neat things about it...

Yes the amount of tweeking is substantial, but the be honest, you can do that with any system. THey all can be tweaked. It is just MRQ needs it. Hopefully the PDF will fix that. Still, it does not bode well for the vast majoirty of gamers who don't come here.

 

[andakitty]

I don't see the apples to oranges bit. Take the tens die, it looks to me like an identical mechanic. Just me.