Stealth vs. Perception

[Trifletraxor]

What about this one?

If stealthing against an unaware/unobservant opponent, he'll have to succeed with at least a perception roll one level better than your sneak roll to notice you.

If stealthing against an observant guard/someone looking for you, he'll have to make at least a hard perception roll (1/2 skill) of the same level as you to notice you, if you succeeded with your stealth skill.

When you get to perception skills up to 200% it breaks down somewhat, but for a nitty gritty game where you actually follow the rules for experience, that doesn't happen (at least with RQ3 rules for experience).

Keeps roll below, easy math, levels of success. What do you think? Any other ideas?

SGL.

[Hedgehobbit]

I know most of you won't like this but I'm tempted to add James Bond-like levels of success to BRP. Rolling below your skill gives you 1 success, below 1/2 your skill = 2 successes, below 1/4 = 3 successes, below 1/10th = 4 successes, etc. These numbers can be precalculated and put on the character sheet (of course this precludes the use of -X% type penalties for difficulty but I don't like those much anyway; more difficult tests will require more than 1 success to succeed.)

There will still be ties but they will be less likely. Plus this will scales ok with very high skills (200% skills will always get at least 2 successes but only have a 50% chance to get 3)

One this I also like about the James Bond game is that damage is a function of the success roll rather than as a seperate damage roll. This will allow you to make a weapon, such as a dagger, that does only superficial damage on a normal hit but does lethal damage on a good hit. Whereas a larger weapon would do more significant damage on a normal hit while still doing lethal damage on a good hit. So daggers and the like can still kill characters in one stab but it is much more difficult.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

What about this one? ... Keeps roll below, easy math, levels of success. What do you think? Any other ideas?

Mmmm, yes. I like it! I'd probably add-in extra stages ("closer... closer...") for particularly dramatic sneakings/spottings. How do you define observant/unobservant?

Originally Posted by Hedgehobbit

I know most of you won't like this but...

Too right. I'm sure the good ol' "1/5th Special, 1/20th Critical" is too ingrained for you to get many (any?) takers for that one...

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Mmmm, yes. I like it! I'd probably add-in extra stages ("closer... closer...") for particularly dramatic sneakings/spottings. How do you define observant/unobservant?

Observant:
-Actively searching/scanning for opponents.
-Expecting that something could happen (camping in a dangerous area, on guard during a period of increased activity/unrest).
-On guard, early in the shift, motivated.

Unobservant:
-Not expecting anything/not looking at all.
-On guard duty, but tired or bored, where nothing usually happens.
-Distracted by something.

Basically it would be the GM's call, depending on how alert he wants the watchers to be.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Hedgehobbit

I know most of you won't like this but I'm tempted to add James Bond-like levels of success to BRP. Rolling below your skill gives you 1 success, below 1/2 your skill = 2 successes, below 1/4 = 3 successes, below 1/10th = 4 successes, etc. These numbers can be precalculated and put on the character sheet (of course this precludes the use of -X% type penalties for difficulty but I don't like those much anyway; more difficult tests will require more than 1 success to succeed.)

There will still be ties but they will be less likely. Plus this will scales ok with very high skills (200% skills will always get at least 2 successes but only have a 50% chance to get 3)

One this I also like about the James Bond game is that damage is a function of the success roll rather than as a seperate damage roll. This will allow you to make a weapon, such as a dagger, that does only superficial damage on a normal hit but does lethal damage on a good hit. Whereas a larger weapon would do more significant damage on a normal hit while still doing lethal damage on a good hit. So daggers and the like can still kill characters in one stab but it is much more difficult.

I like this idea.

Very JB Inspired. While I'd use it, I think a lot of people would complain about there being too much math.

I was thinking of something like this with damage along the lines of:

Success= 1/4 MAX
1/2 Success+ 1/2 MAX
Special= Max
Crtical= 2x Max

[frogspawner]

(Re.: Observant/Unobservant)

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

Basically it would be the GM's call, depending on how alert he wants the watchers to be.

Very sensible. Just wondered if you were thinking of tying it to a particular % of Spot/Listen skill - but that's probably not a good idea...

[Hedgehobbit]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

(Re.: Observant/Unobservant)

Very sensible. Just wondered if you were thinking of tying it to a particular % of Spot/Listen skill - but that's probably not a good idea...

Why is that?

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Hedgehobbit

Why is that?

It's something I've tried but am not quite happy with. Perhaps because it's a double-whammy reward and/or the percentage for 'Observant' is arbitrary and/or it's unnecessary complication. (Although it's still in my current written houserules...)

[Gnarsh]

I've always favored a mechanism where someone actively attempting to spot/hear prompts an opposed roll mechanic against someone attempting to hide/sneak. However, if someone's defined (by the GM) as "inactive" in this context, then a simple success of the hide/sneak/whatever just plain works. IMO, that's the assumption of the skill number on the sheet. If you've got a 75% skill at hide, that means that 75% of the time you should be able to hide well enough that you aren't "obvious" to someone just walking by (or standing around, but not specifically looking for people who might be hiding).

If the person trying to be stealthy fails their roll, then I give the inactive potential perceiver a chance to make their appropriate roll to see/hear them (they get to roll their own scan/listen skill). But only in that case. The assumption here is that you're clearly visible and/or making enough sound to be heard. But that doesn't automatically mean that someone noticed you (otherwise why have scan/listen skills, right?).


It's a pretty simple system, but it seems to work quite well. In odd situations, I just use common sense to figure out what happens. I think sometimes, having too many rules in an attempt to cover every conceivable situation can make the game less realistic instead of more...

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

I've always favored a mechanism where someone actively attempting to spot/hear prompts an opposed roll mechanic against someone attempting to hide/sneak. However, if someone's defined (by the GM) as "inactive" in this context, then a simple success of the hide/sneak/whatever just plain works. IMO, that's the assumption of the skill number on the sheet. If you've got a 75% skill at hide, that means that 75% of the time you should be able to hide well enough that you aren't "obvious" to someone just walking by (or standing around, but not specifically looking for people who might be hiding).

If the person trying to be stealthy fails their roll, then I give the inactive potential perceiver a chance to make their appropriate roll to see/hear them (they get to roll their own scan/listen skill). But only in that case. The assumption here is that you're clearly visible and/or making enough sound to be heard. But that doesn't automatically mean that someone noticed you (otherwise why have scan/listen skills, right?).


It's a pretty simple system, but it seems to work quite well. In odd situations, I just use common sense to figure out what happens. I think sometimes, having too many rules in an attempt to cover every conceivable situation can make the game less realistic instead of more...

I agree with you. I see this way as well. It's simple and intuitive.