Some new skill system observations

[Rurik]

Consider the case of picking pockets.

There being no advanced skill for it, I assume that a the basic skill Sleight(Dex) covers it, and it would be opposed by Perception(Int+Pow). Now take two totally average joes untrained in either skill and a 10 in each Characteristic. Joe1 tries to pick the pocket of Joe2, and lets check BlueJays calculator (I just bumped the thread with the link to it) - we find Joe has a 48% chance of success! If we give Joe2 a Perception skill of 40, Joe1 still has a 42% chance of picking his pocket!

I expect the petty crime rate in my game to skyrocket once the players figure this out.

And here is what i think is the general funky or wonky feel about the skill resolution system.

Consider criticals, they apply to normal skill checks and combat checks, which are opposed, but not to normal opposed skill checks.

The halving rule applies to opposed skill checks, but not combat (which is opposed) nor normal skill checks.

Rolling low is good in combat and normal checks, but in opposed checks (unless you fail).

I can't find the rules actually stating that there are no criticals in opposed checks, but it has been widely accepted. If the high roll under skill wins, as the rules do state, a crit does not seem logical. Joe1: "I roll an 01" Joe2: "I roll a 39 - I win".

It does just not seem like a very consistent system. In RQ2/3 a low roll was good in all cases when resolving a skill. And a character with a 25% pick pocket skill never had more than a 25% chance of success (barring positive modifiers for targeting drunks, etc).

 

[King Amenjar]

Yep, the opposed skills rules are broken. Again, I'd suggest that if both succeed or both fail, the highest wins.

 

[Adept]

Yep, the opposed skills rules are broken. Again, I'd suggest that if both succeed or both fail, the highest wins.

That sounds like a good simple way of dealing with it. On a similar success level the highest skill wins.

 

[iamtim]

Yep, the opposed skills rules are broken. Again, I'd suggest that if both succeed or both fail, the highest wins.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine last night; if the goal of a skill test is normally to roll low, why would an opposed skill test want highest to win in any circumstance? I can't wrap my head around the reason for that decision.

Why not if both succeed or both fail, the lowest roll wins?

 

[atgxtg]

Yep, the opposed skills rules are broken. Again, I'd suggest that if both succeed or both fail, the highest wins.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine last night; if the goal of a skill test is normally to roll low, why would an opposed skill test want highest to win in any circumstance? I can't wrap my head around the reason for that decision.

Why not if both succeed or both fail, the lowest roll wins?

I think they were trying for the Pendragon mechanic but got lost along the way. MRQ stirkes me as having rules mixed from HeroQuest, Pendragon, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, and D&D.

The PEndragon method was highest roll under skill wins. It had an unsusal critcial mechanic too (actually two different versions-the one from first edtion and the one from latter editions).

I was thinking why bother to look at who rolled best if the active character fails in the first place?

If Joe 1 tires to Pick Joes 2's pocket and fails the roll, I would take it that he failed to picked the pocket. No matter how dense Joe 2 is, I cannot imagine that his purse would jump out of his pocket and into Joe 1's hands.

This also makese sense in terms that the resisting character Perception is only going to reduce the chance of the active character succeding, not make it easier. SO Joe 1's chance starts at 40% and goes down from there.

I'd go with if active character fails, task fails. If both succedd low roll wins. It is simplier and seems to make more sense.

 

[iamtim]

I'd go with if active character fails, task fails. If both succedd low roll wins. It is simplier and seems to make more sense.

My god, the sky must be falling or something. I actually agree with you.

 

[Adept]

Yep, the opposed skills rules are broken. Again, I'd suggest that if both succeed or both fail, the highest wins.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine last night; if the goal of a skill test is normally to roll low, why would an opposed skill test want highest to win in any circumstance? I can't wrap my head around the reason for that decision.

Why not if both succeed or both fail, the lowest roll wins?

That has the sucky result that a skill 90% person isn't in a better position than a skill 30% position. If the highest roll wins on equal success levels (success vs. success, critical vs. critical) then at least the higher skill gives an advantage.

 

[Archer]

Yet again, I find that Stormbringer 5's simple rule of "It takes a critical to counter a critical" are just brilliant.

By adding that simple rule to the Opposed skill checks, we get criticals that mean something. If you roll a Critical success, and the opponent succeeded, rolled much higher, but not a critical, you will still win.

 

[atgxtg]

Yet again, I find that Stormbringer 5's simple rule of "It takes a critical to counter a critical" are just brilliant.

By adding that simple rule to the Opposed skill checks, we get criticals that mean something. If you roll a Critical success, and the opponent succeeded, rolled much higher, but not a critical, you will still win.

Uh, doesn't it work thay way anyway. I pretyty much thought of that when looking over the combat charts. Else:

Rusk Runerapier 120% vs. Eric the Expendable 40%

Rusk rolls an 07 (critical) while Eric rolls and 05. Eric rolled lower, but Rusk rolled a crit. If it were combat, Rusk would "win" with a crit vs. success result.

Why not the same thing for opposed?

The same system for everything is more...streamlined.

 

[atgxtg]

I'd go with if active character fails, task fails. If both succedd low roll wins. It is simplier and seems to make more sense.

My god, the sky must be falling or something. I actually agree with you.

We only disagree on two topics: Is MRQ really RQ, and is MRQ very good.

When it comes to interpreting and running the game, that's a whole different pack of rubble runners.

Oh, 3 things, we disagree about your hat.

 

[iamtim]

Oh, 3 things, we disagree about your hat.

What's wrong with my hat? I thought Gloranthites would appreciate the Donald Duck hat I picked up at Disneyland!

 

[haargald]

In the old Bushido RPG (boy, I am dating myself now) you had effect levels for opposed rolls. Simply meant who ever rolled under their skill by more won and you could stretch this out over multiple rounds if appropriate, just adding the new results to the effect level. I kind of like that idea and I think the Stormbringer idea of a critical only being countered by a critical is sound also.
As for the pickpocket on a failed roll, the way I see it the roll is really to see how sneaky the pocket is picked, not so much whether the pocket is physically picked. If I failed to pick your pocket by 10 and you failed to perceive that by say 25, I got the goods because you were oblivious beyond belief. Now as an evil gamemaster what I would do next is have a roll for bystanders, who would likely notice the pick pocketin and let the victim know. :twisted:

 

[atgxtg]

In the old Bushido RPG (boy, I am dating myself now) you had effect levels for opposed rolls. Simply meant who ever rolled under their skill by more won and you could stretch this out over multiple rounds if appropriate, just adding the new results to the effect level. I kind of like that idea and I think the Stormbringer idea of a critical only being countered by a critical is sound also.
As for the pickpocket on a failed roll, the way I see it the roll is really to see how sneaky the pocket is picked, not so much whether the pocket is physically picked. If I failed to pick your pocket by 10 and you failed to perceive that by say 25, I got the goods because you were oblivious beyond belief. Now as an evil gamemaster what I would do next is have a roll for bystanders, who would likely notice the pick pocketin and let the victim know. :twisted:

I liked that too.I think the problem is that the math is a bit more complicated that was desired. Subtracting a 68 roll from an 86% skill isn't easy for everyone.

Putting in an under half category in the skill roll section might be help. Say a roll under one half skill beats a roll under skill.

RQ3 has the critical/special/normal success rules.
Both the James Bond RPG and Steve Perrin's SPQR rules use a 4 stage method. SPRQ uses:

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

THen it just subtracts one side from the other and takes the difference as the effective result. Similar to what MRQ is trying to do, but someone didn't get it right in the chart.

Bond does something similar but with 50%/20%/10% brackets.

 

[Archer]

Yet again, I find that Stormbringer 5's simple rule of "It takes a critical to counter a critical" are just brilliant.

By adding that simple rule to the Opposed skill checks, we get criticals that mean something. If you roll a Critical success, and the opponent succeeded, rolled much higher, but not a critical, you will still win.

Uh, doesn't it work thay way anyway. I pretyty much thought of that when looking over the combat charts. Else:

Rusk Runerapier 120% vs. Eric the Expendable 40%

Rusk rolls an 07 (critical) while Eric rolls and 05. Eric rolled lower, but Rusk rolled a crit. If it were combat, Rusk would "win" with a crit vs. success result.

Why not the same thing for opposed?

The same system for everything is more...streamlined.

Hmm, as I have understood it (mind that I have not yet got my rulebook), in combat you do not compare the value of the dice roll, just the level of success.

And so far, I have not seen anyone explain that a critical needs a critical to be countered outside of combat. Seems only the result of the dice roll (and if you failed/succeeded) has any bearing.

 

[Archer]

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.

 

[atgxtg]

Oh, 3 things, we disagree about your hat.

What's wrong with my hat? I thought Gloranthites would appreciate the Donald Duck hat I picked up at Disneyland!

It is a tool of Chaos! Look!

If a mouse owning a castle and a themepark isn't a dead givaway that it has chaotic features, what is?

 

[Decurio]

I knew there was a reason I didn't like Disney!!! Insidious motherf***ers!

 

[King Amenjar]

When I said "Highest" by the way, I meant highest skill not highest roll.

 

[peterb]

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).

 

[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.