Thoughts on skills in BRP

[Joseph Paul]

In another thread the subject of what skill percentages mean came up.

I would like to invite people to discuss their views on the subject in this thread. Feel free to quote rules from different BRP games to support your view.

I can break out a couple of different thoughts on the matter.

Case 1) the PC can try anything. If they have zero points in the skill they can still roll for an automatic success on a 01. In fact this is how you can get a starting score in a 00 skill in CoC 5e.

Variations are to allow rolls versus a skill category bonus (usually derived from stats) or to roll against some iteration of a multiple (.5 to 5 times) of a stat.

Case 2) Zero is zero and you can't try it. Held to by some GMs.

I am with the camp that wants to know what 10% Surgery means. Is the guy just really bad at it or less than fully trained? Is he board certified at 10% (shudder) or does that take 40%?

There seems to be a watershed in there somewhere. At 00 the character has no knoweldge of the skill that would let them practice it. At 1% they do and can call themselves a surgeon who can apparently take care of all routine surgery tasks without a roll.

I believe in RQII there were skill percentage requirements for being part of different units (militia, regulars, cavalry etc) so the percentages meant something. What does the skill allow the character to do or know about the subject, current theory, others in the field etc? Again CoC 5e gives an example of pegging a great amount of knowledge that is actually outside of the skill to it. So you get the oportunity to know who the leaders are in the field, to have contacts in the field, etc. Other games break such things up into discrete skills or advantages.

What bothers me about that is that the benefits are not well defined and are subject to both players and GM being inconsistent about there application.

Thoughts?

Joseph Paul

[badcat]

For case 1, I have lately used a skill base derived from related stats, ie Dodge at DEX x 2, but expanded so that all default skills have a similar base (much like MRQ). I have most of my gaming life used the SB1 bonus system and usually have skills begin at bonus or 5%, whichever is greater, minimum 5% for defaults. Both worked well enough.

Case 2, I do believe that the Keepers Companion for CoC did indeed lay out parameters for what was professional level, hobbyist level and so forth for skills, and gave specific rules for what percentage a newly graduated doctor (for instance) would have in the various necessary skills and so forth. Also, there were some very nifty rules governing that sort of thing in Elric!/SB5, usually involving increased competence in what you could do with skills at 100%+. Seeing as how Jason just said the other day that the base system in the new book is a combination of those two rules sets, I think we are going to be gold for that aspect of the game. The skill explanations and parameters should be much better defined than in any previous version of BRP. At least that is what I am expecting now.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by badcat

Case 2, I do believe that the Keepers Companion for CoC did indeed lay out parameters for what was professional level, hobbyist level and so forth for skills, and gave specific rules for what percentage a newly graduated doctor (for instance) would have in the various necessary skills and so forth. Also, there were some very nifty rules governing that sort of thing in Elric!/SB5, usually involving increased competence in what you could do with skills at 100%+. Seeing as how Jason just said the other day that the base system in the new book is a combination of those two rules sets, I think we are going to be gold for that aspect of the game. The skill explanations and parameters should be much better defined than in any previous version of BRP. At least that is what I am expecting now.

All of what you discuss here has been addressed in the new manuscript, either directly or indirectly.

[badcat]

As I thought, based on you previous answers. Thanks.

[Enpeze]

Well in my games a 01 is normally even with 00% a sucess, if I allow it to be. A 10% surgeon is not really good, he may know some basics but he has probably (hopefully) never made a real surgical operation.

the interpretation of %values in my games are:
01-40 green, no real experience
40-60 standard, experienced
60-80 veteran, very experienced
80+ expert

During a game I give alot of +-skill modifiers according to situation, player ideas etc. I have for this a little list of modifiers. The modifiers are mostly +-20/40/60/80% etc. and stackable. This means that I apply sometimes more than one modifier. Eg. if a fast moving target crosses in far range the field of vision of a person, but this person can aim 2 turns then it gets -40% (fast moving and crossing) and -40% (far range) and +20% (for aiming) then this person has -60% to hit. This little skill system is very comfortable to use on the fly the most time and produces usually good results.

[Aycorn]

I've never felt the need to do a specific interpretation of % values. But I'm actually kinda happy Jason says this IS in the new rulebook, as it will least shut some detractors up.

Of course - I know people will now debate the interepration, probably ad nauseum

I too have applied modifiers under certain circumstances. As to whether a person with a 0% had a chance to do something anyway, it depended on the skill and the circumstance. I'm a seat-of-the-pants sorta GM. I always thought BRP lent itelf well to that. One of the reasons I like it.

[badcat]

Yes, I have always used values similar to what Enpeze just posted, but my group would always just apply what seemed right and logical, playing each situation by ear. I don't remember ever using a formal list or anything like that, it just seemed obvious. I have never seen them but I understood there were formal rules for those sorts of competence levels and all in one of the CoC supplements, one of the Keepers' Compendiums, if memory serves.