Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[McBard]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's cool. I think at this point we're just having different interpretations of the various adjectives such as "good", "master", "phenomenal" et al and how these adjectives should be reflected using BRP percentiles! To me "good" translates as about 50%, and thus a "phenomenal" stat of 16 or more would not be required to achieve this level...in fact, merely a non-phenomenal stat of 10 could attain 50% using my houserule...

Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen).

In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by McBard

Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen).

I completely agree with your concept, but come to a different conclusion. In BRP/RQ it's very common to have characters with well over 100% skills, so Einstein is not a 99%, per the rules, but rather is a 200 or 300% Physics skill. Since great INT is necessary to exceed 100% easily (either in the old way of +3% skill check bonus per point over 12, or in the newer way of just adding skill category bonus of +1% for each point over 10), only someone with a very high INT can get those kinds of skill levels.

In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

We can. My only issue is it seems like you're trying to do the classic "trying to fix something that ain't broken" deal and I'm completely failing to see what you hope to gain from it. High stats already give huge bonuses to the ability to have high skills, in the rules as written, and they do it organically without the need for artificial caps.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to see if I'm missing something about your approach.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Kloster

Not by much, RQ rule was that you add your category mod to the roll before comparing to the value.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

The rule suggestion I was commenting was:

When rolling to see if such skills improve at one-fifth of the skill category to the improvement chance. So a 34% Manipulation Skill Category is worth 34/5= +7% to the improvement chance.

Which includes lots of horrible math!

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by McBard

That's cool. I think at this point we're just having different interpretations of the various adjectives such as "good", "master", "phenomenal" et al and how these adjectives should be reflected using BRP percentiles! To me "good" translates as about 50%, and thus a "phenomenal" stat of 16 or more would not be required to achieve this level...in fact, merely a non-phenomenal stat of 10 could attain 50% using my houserule...

But everyone in BRP doesn't have a 10 in the controlling stat. So 37.5% of people can't do thier job professionally.

Originally Posted by McBard

Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen).

I'd have rated hjim with a rating higher than 99%. Part of the problem is that the % skill rating do't really repsrent the % of the field known. Someone with 25% skill isn't really failing 3/4th of the time, just that his work isn't of as high a quality.

Part of the problem I see with your houserule is that it applies to all skills. For cutting edge sciences and such where a high INT is needed, I could see average skill with the Idea roll, as it is more that just the skill needed, but the ability to look at things in a new way. But you system would mean that anyone with a high score in evaluate, shiphandling, or first aid must be highly intelligent.

Nor do I think that Caruso was a genius simply because he had a high singing ability.

Originally Posted by McBard

In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

You can say it, but we don't agree on it. I think the beauty of BRP is that it does what it does well. Where or not it is flexible or adaptable is really secondary to me. If it sucked, I wouldn't care how flexible it was. TO me, it's not about how many different ways different people can use it, but how well it does what it was designed to do.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by 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)

I want the attributes to be relevant to the _skills_ though, not just as standalones, the first is a solution but not the second. I've also never been a really big fan of the attribute rolls; in almost all cases (the exception being luck rolls for the most part) I tend to think an attribute roll is just standing in for a skill, sometimes a skill the game doesn't recognize.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

That's the way I did it in my previous posted variant. I kept the skill categories, but used them for the base chances. So Manipulation would be INT+DEX+(STR/2), Knowledge would be INTx2, and so on.

It simiplied skills greatly, since you only had to track those skills that were higher than the starting percentage (the skill category).

THen I used 1/5th of that for improvement rolls.

That's a workable approach, though I think I'd want additional multipliers or adders for some skills that are supposed to be particularly easy (read: high base) by nature.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Well, I think that the skill cap of characteristic x 5% is reasonable only at character creation.

However, I disagree with the skill cap after character creation. This is severely limiting on character development; especially for average or slightly below average characters.

I wouldn't necessarily be averse to a starting cap, either (at least with the quasi-freeform previous experience methods the new BRP uses) but I agree that a permanent cap is both excessive at that level, and probably undesireable at almost any level; maximums were one of the elements in the somewhat BRP-like Swordbearer that caused long term problems there as characters could dead-end relatively early.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

That's a workable approach, though I think I'd want additional multipliers or adders for some skills that are supposed to be particularly easy (read: high base) by nature.

I was uses a Easy/Normal/Hard approach to skills.

Easy were x2, Hard x 1/2.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I was uses a Easy/Normal/Hard approach to skills.

Easy were x2, Hard x 1/2.

I wasn't thinking so much of advancement but as untrained starting base.

[McBard]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

You can say it, but we don't agree on it. I think the beauty of BRP is that it does what it does well. Where or not it is flexible or adaptable is really secondary to me. If it sucked, I wouldn't care how flexible it was. TO me, it's not about how many different ways different people can use it, but how well it does what it was designed to do.

Uh, no. This thread is about BRP's skill system and which system—as written in several sources or used in home brew—we prefer to use, as the initial post states:

Originally Posted by weasel fierce

What do you prefer for a BRP game or inspired homebrew ?...
Or something else altogether ?

I've simply shared some home brew ideas, just as you did in your own first post in the thread:

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I've been leaning towards a hybrid.

What I'd like to do it take the old category modfiers, but instead of baseing them around zero, have then use to full stat vale.

Clearly, you do care how flexible the system, as you've just tweaked it yourself.

Look, you don't like the ATT cap idea. Fine. But pay attention to what the thread is about: discussing different approaches ("core" and homebrew) to stat chances.