Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[McBard]

Originally Posted by RMS

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

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it.

I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by McBard

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it.

I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

I think there is a difference between theoretically "attainable" and what you will see in play, though. For instance, a character with an 11 INT, can still get those improvement rolls over 100%, but someone with an 18 INT is going to make the roll much more often and thus improve much faster. In RQ3 terms, 8 times faster. So while the guy with an 18 might go from 100 to 150% in ten years, the guy with an 11 INT might take another 80 years, if he lives that long.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by McBard

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it.

Ironically, one of the things I've aways enjoyed about RQII/III is that their skill/attribute relationship is as realistic as I've seen. You don't get the hyper stats, like in GURPS for example, and yet there's a pretty large advantage of a superior stat to a weaker stat. An 18 vs. 10 stat in a primary stats has a 8 or 10% advantage in both current ability and ability to improve, which is substantial. So for the same amount of work, the superior natural ability has a very real advantage. Then, that person gets skill checks more often, per attempt at a skill, and most likely attempts the skill more often due to the higher total skill. At higher level, the natural ability will result in far more frequent skill check successes, so the difference in the skills will actually increase after hitting the ~90% range. As mentioned before, as skills approach 100%, the more able character will have either an 8% (RQIII) or 18% (RQII) superior chance to increase intellectual skills over someone with an average INT. (Due the particulars of RQII vs RQIII advancement, this changes a little depending on which skill set we're talking about, but the difference is similar.)

It sounds like you're only going to be happy with a hard cap. I just don't think that it's necessary because the math of the current system does a much better job of acheiving your goal than a hard cap will do (as I read it), and does it far more elegantly - hey, I'm a math guy, so I really like math that works out elegantly...and slapping hard caps on things isn't the way to do that.

I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

Which is exactly the way the system has worked since day 1, and is actively supported by RQII/III/SB1-4/RW/etc. as written. (Btw, this is why I'm not as big of fan of any of the later BRP games that lack the stat/skill link.) It still sounds like you are trying to work around a "problem" that the system already addresses extremely well (best I'm aware of in any rpg). Talented characters in RQ/etc. have a huge advantage over people with less natural talent, and the difference increases as skills increase.

The nice thing is it does all of that and still retains the ability to let grizzled, average stat, veterans be superior to inexperience, talented people (like the real world). (No default weapon skill taking out a veteran, like GURPS for example.) A veteran with years of experience and straight 10s should be able to crush a newbie with all the talent in the world, but that same newbie should be superior to other newbies with less talent and the same experience, and should excel with experience to a greater deal than those same rivals. This already works extremely well in the system, as written, straight out of the box.

OK, now I'm being a little argumentative, but just because you've hit on one of the things that I think RQ/BRP does extremely well by default: realistic stat/skill links.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think there is a difference between theoretically "attainable" and what you will see in play, though. For instance, a character with an 11 INT, can still get those improvement rolls over 100%, but someone with an 18 INT is going to make the roll much more often and thus improve much faster. In RQ3 terms, 8 times faster. So while the guy with an 18 might go from 100 to 150% in ten years, the guy with an 11 INT might take another 80 years, if he lives that long.

Exactly. This doesn't even cover all of the other advantages that superior stats give a character. For INT, it's extra points of magic available, meaning the character can do more in the game (cast more spells, cast bigger spells, etc.) and thus is more powerful even with identical skills. For STR, it's extra damage and the ability to carry more, all the time, regardless of skill. For DEX, the iniatitive advantages and ability to more/round give the character a far better chance of simply suriving to even get that next skill roll, a better chance of earning the skill roll (better chance of hitting), and then a better chance of succeeding at the skill roll.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

Exactly. This doesn't even cover all of the other advantages that superior stats give a character. For INT, it's extra points of magic available, meaning the character can do more in the game (cast more spells, cast bigger spells, etc.) and thus is more powerful even with identical skills. For STR, it's extra damage and the ability to carry more, all the time, regardless of skill. For DEX, the iniatitive advantages and ability to more/round give the character a far better chance of simply suriving to even get that next skill roll, a better chance of earning the skill roll (better chance of hitting), and then a better chance of succeeding at the skill roll.

Yeah, we're in agreement here. Not surprisingly though. We seem to have a lot of overlap.

I'm don't believe in a hard cap. No matter how good someone is, there is always something new to learn. For instance, if Einstein had a 99% skill, how come Einsteinian physics don't work? Ditto with Quantum Mechanics. I tend to look at skills over 100 as being able to look a bit ahead of current science.

I do like soft caps though. In any well run RQ-based RPG. Guys like Einstein probably don't get to make too many improvement rolls, so that 150%, or whatever, is pretty solid.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yeah, we're in agreement here. Not surprisingly though. We seem to have a lot of overlap.

True. Too bad you don't live around here. I need a local game!

I'm don't believe in a hard cap. No matter how good someone is, there is always something new to learn. For instance, if Einstein had a 99% skill, how come Einsteinian physics don't work? Ditto with Quantum Mechanics. I tend to look at skills over 100 as being able to look a bit ahead of current science.

Tangent: what do you mean by "Einsteinian physics" not working?

Back to topic, there definitely is more to know all the time. Einstein is a great example here. He was obviously brilliant, but failed to recognize one of the greatest contributions his work made. We could argue about whether other people had higher skills or whether they just got lucky with their rolls, or whatever...or more accurately admit that no set of RPG mechanics is going to accurately cover an outlier like breakthrough scientific discoveries. (Also, I'd argue that in a general physics roll, for anything day-to-day, Einstein probably didn't have much, if any, advantage over the typical theoretical physics prof.)

I do like soft caps though. In any well run RQ-based RPG. Guys like Einstein probably don't get to make too many improvement rolls, so that 150%, or whatever, is pretty solid.

Btw, I do teach college level physics and I admit that there do seem to be certain levels of natural ability, not to mention a certain level of basic prep work, that is necessary to grasp certain physics principles. My observation is that this is actually a quantizied level: certain concepts tend to be either understand thoroughly or are incomprehensible. However, I believe that this kind of discrete level isn't applicable to most skills in life, and to most skills that are central to RPGs.

[drohem]

I am in agreement that the RQ3 rules on skills are one of the most elegant in any RPG I've seen.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

True. Too bad you don't live around here. I need a local game!

I don't know. Where is "here"? Right now I can narrow it down to about 13,000km.

Originally Posted by RMS

Tangent: what do you mean by "Einsteinian physics" not working?

Just that they don't cover all situations. Basically opening the door for Quantum mechanics. Still, "Newtonian" Physics don't "work" all the time either, but will work nicely for practically any walk of life except for physicists and some electronics specialists.

Personally, I don't think we've figured out just how the universe actually works. Physics is sort of like a very detailed RPG. I models what the real world does very well, but isn't quite what the real world is actually doing.

Originally Posted by RMS

Back to topic, there definitely is more to know all the time. Einstein is a great example here. He was obviously brilliant, but failed to recognize one of the greatest contributions his work made. We could argue about whether other people had higher skills or whether they just got lucky with their rolls, or whatever...or more accurately admit that no set of RPG mechanics is going to accurately cover an outlier like breakthrough scientific discoveries. (Also, I'd argue that in a general physics roll, for anything day-to-day, Einstein probably didn't have much, if any, advantage over the typical theoretical physics prof.)

Yeah. From what I've seen about Eistien he probably couldn't balance his checkbook. It is really difficult, if not impossible to handle things like leaps on insite in RPG terms. Discovers tend to seem very logical cause & effect, after they are made. Its a lot like knowing who the killer is after you read the book.

Originally Posted by RMS

Btw, I do teach college level physics and I admit that there do seem to be certain levels of natural ability, not to mention a certain level of basic prep work, that is necessary to grasp certain physics principles. My observation is that this is actually a quantized level: certain concepts tend to be either understand thoroughly or are incomprehensible. However, I believe that this kind of discrete level isn't applicable to most skills in life, and to most skills that are central to RPGs.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I just don't think than one INT stat covers it. INT is such a blanket stat in BRP, covering everything from creativity to perception to general knowledge. Much to broad to limit half the skills on the sheet.
I've got a friend who can do basic math addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) faster and often more accurately than I can. But throw in one algebraic equation or raise something to a power and he's dead in the water. In skill terms he probably has a higher "basic math" skill, but I've better at any intermediate math, and he has no chance with any higher mathematics.

Besides, there is also the player to consider. If we make INT that strict, then we would have to limit players to character with their own INT scores, as people really can't role play different INT scores easily or well. Most tend to "dumb" down the lower INT characters and playing higher INT is practically impossible. About the only way to pull that off is to try an anticipate what is going to come up during an adventure and do a lot of advanced planning-then make it look spontaneous.

On top of that, there is the game ramifications of gaming characters whose skills have capped out at 50 or 65%. It takes a lot of the fun out of characters when there is no room for improvement.

Caps don't work for a lot of setting too. Rune Level characters either become impossible, or need a loophole (like in old RQ, when only Rune Levels went over 100%).

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by drohem

I am in agreement that the RQ3 rules on skills are one of the most elegant in any RPG I've seen.

You were faster than I am on this one. I perfectly agree.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Enpeze]

The skill system works very good, if you use either the simple one (without modifiers) or the complex version. Of course its not an absolute law per se. You have to do some houseruling from time to time, just to adapt the system to specific situations.

Regarding Einstein, I would say that he had a very high INT and EDU and a math skill of maybe 110% or so. Normally I regard 45%-65% as standard. Only a few extraordinary people ever reach skills above 100%.

One of the factors I am always wondering is, that many GMs dont care what the fact means that a PC or NPC has a very high skill. I think this means that this skill dominates his life and he has probably not much time to do anything else than practice and train this skill. Eg. consider a modern athlet who is able to jump 7m or more. He has to train his jump skill the whole day and would never be able to participate in longer adventures. So high skills may be ok for cinematic games but for realistic ones specialists with over 100% should have a time/motivation problem.