Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[drohem]

I like the Elfquest method which also grants a pool of percentage points to distrbute on top of the intial skill base. I like the idea of adding the category modifier/5 to improvement rolls.

[McBard]

I'd have to go with stat-based too.

Agreed. In fact, I've substantially increased the influence of stats on skills, and have weighted to a far greater extent talent (the Stat) over training (the Skill).

I've always detested the fairly common RPG dynamic of a character with a very high stat (e.g DEX 18) but with a very low, stat-related skill (e.g. this same DEX 18 character with merely a Tumble 5%, for instance).

And the inverse is just as bad, perhaps worse: a character with a medium to low stat (DEX 10) achieving master level in a related skill (Tumble 90%).

D&D 3.x is very much guilty of this dynamic, but BRP over the years has only slightly mitigated the problem. The RQ3 skill categories still aren't weighted correctly, in my opinion.

For starters, I think skills should be capped at Related Stat x 5. Thus, the above DEX 10 character can never develop the Tumble skill above 50% (10 x 5).

[drohem]

Originally Posted by McBard

For starters, I think skills should be capped at Related Stat x 5. Thus, the above DEX 10 character can never develop the Tumble skill above 50% (10 x 5).

Do you mean just at character creation only?

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by McBard

For starters, I think skills should be capped at Related Stat x 5. Thus, the above DEX 10 character can never develop the Tumble skill above 50% (10 x 5).

I don't like that. GURPS does that and it is silly. Basically anyone who is good at anything ends up being Olympic level in an attribute. Just become someone is a virtuoso pianist doesn't mean that they have an 18 DEX.



How about just reducing the improvement gain when going over STATx5%? So instead of 1D6, they get 1D3. Over STATx10% they get 1D2, past STATx15% they get 1 point.

[Shaira]

Definitely option 2 - for pretty much the same reasons as Nick. Base Chance + skill category modifiers + chargen points to distribute (sort of RQ3 / modified SB5) means you can mess about very effectively with species skills and cultural and occupational differences, et al. V.imp for my games.

Nice to see the Skill Cats making a comeback. Always was a fan of those.

Sarah

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by weasel fierce

Throughout BRP and related games, there's a few ways to handle the skill base chance. What do you prefer for a BRP game or inspired homebrew ?

Flat chance (ala Stormbringer 5) - Example: Mechanic 30
Flat chance modified by stats (Runequest 3) - Example: Mechanic 30 and I get a +4 bonus from my Manipulation skill bonus.
Completely stat based (Elfquest did this I believe ?, the Dodge skill in Call of Cthulhu is a good example too) - Example: Mechanic is INT x3 or INT+DEX or whatnot.

Or something else altogether ?

For the most games in the last time flat chance like SB or CoC. A decade ago we liked it more complex and we used flat chance modified by stats.

[Nightshade]

May natural inclination is toward skill base + attribute modifiers + previous experience bonuses, but you can probably get a compareable result out of average and multiply plus previous experience systems. Either way, I think there should be some effect of attributes on advancement so they still matter, and I've never been a fan of simple flat skill bases with no attribute influence.

[weasel fierce]

I think you can use the stat based base chances and still involve the stats later. Either by having them affect your improvement rolls, or just by calling for stat rolls fairly frequently (whcih I always did, so no issue there)

[McBard]

I think skills should be capped at Related Stat x 5.

Do you mean just at character creation only?

I'd say even after character creation.

I don't like that. GURPS does that and it is silly. Basically anyone who is good at anything ends up being Olympic level in an attribute. Just become [sic] someone is a virtuoso pianist doesn't mean that they have an 18 DEX.

Actually, it essentially does mean that—and not recognizing this fact is what is crazy. Or maybe it just means focusing your terms more clearly: being "good at something" is not the same as being a "virtuoso". I could see someone being a virtuoso pianist (i.e 90% or higher) with perhaps merely a 16 related stat..but nothing lower. Being "good at something" sounds more like 50% (so notice how a STAT 10 character in this system could achieve this level).

I like to follow roughly CoC's guidelines that say 25% is hobby level, 50% is about an average level of professional skill, 75% is a noted professional level, and 90% is world renowned.

There's absolutely no way someone should be able to achieve the 90% or higher level with anything less than a 16 related stat.

And, on a side note, I like to assign the average of two stats to most skills. In the Pianist skill example, I'd probably assign DEX/POW.

How about just reducing the improvement gain when going over STATx5%?

I like this idea--but I'd use it along side of a cap: the improvement die lessens to 1d4 after STATx3% and to 1d2 after STATx4%...and then stops at STATx5%.

[Atgxtg]

MCBard,

I Disagree. I've seen too many people who are good at one thing, and yet don't have a phenomenal stat to back it up.

Using the CoC guidelines of 50% being professional level, then about half the people out there can't do their job professionally, since stats are generated on a 3D6 bell curve.

Pretty much ANYONE can learn ANYTHING if they make a commitment and put the work into it. It just comes a lot easier and faster to those who are gifted.

I also don't use the CoC skill raknings, as no other RQ based game has ever done so. Generally 90% is considered "master" level in most BRP RPGs.