Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 6097256" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Ferghis -The skill system I'm working on seems to have the same effect as what you described above.  Here's the link: <a href="http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/skills" target="_blank">http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/skills</a>I've introduced the Too Easy mechanic: if an action is too easy for a character, he automatically succeeds.  It's reinforced by the GM's difficulty roll: the GM chooses the difficulty of what a character is trying to do, and adds that to his d20 roll.  The player has to beat this roll.  Either the player or the GM can choose to take a result of 10, speeding up an automatic success.Where you've named the skill levels, I have a more continuous progression (using skill points):Untrained - 0 skill pointsTrained - 1 skill pointExpert - 2 to 5 skill pointsMaster - 6 to 10 skill pointsEpic - 11+ skill pointsThe "disadvantage" at making a higher level skill check is included in the Difficulty (<a href="http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/rolls);" target="_blank">http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/rolls);</a> the higher the difficulty, the higher you have to roll.And when you attempt something that's too difficult for you, you'll have to roll a number higher than what's on your die.For example, you're Trained in Deciphering.  You have a +1 from your skill point, and a +2 from your intelligence.  You can roll a maximum of 23 on a d20.  But you're attempting a Master skill level, at +10.  In my system, the GM can take 10 for a Difficulty Class of 20, or try to roll for a higher DC.  If the GM takes 10, the player needs to roll 18, 19, or 20 on his roll (15% odds).  If the GM rolls, the player needs to roll 8 higher than the GM (since he has +3, adding 8 will equal 11, or one greater than the GM's +10).  The player has 50/50 chances of rolling higher than the DM.  Odds of rolling 8 higher, though, also work out to about 15%.Should skills reflect what you need experience for, as well as what you must study for?  Well, it sure beats role-playing those lengthy exams.  Should life-or-death skills follow the same system (like attacking)?  Well, why can't anything be life-or-death?  You're about to get smashed by a giant, unless you can Jump-Skill your way across a chasm.  You're a hostage in a brutal kingdom - better hope your Smithing is up to snuff (when they demand you work for them).  Why can't attacking (I call it Fight) be less-than-lethal?  Fencing with the prince?  Use Attack for a snowball fight.  You could use Attack for a game of billiards, curling, or bowling too.My current system is dividing stealth into two skills: Sneaking and Larceny.  I find that it helps to look at a skill from a class-perspective: would different classes be interested in different parts of this skill?  In Thievery's case, I say yes.  Divide it up.Regarding the Olympic Track and Field team: I wouldn't call that trained and untrained.  Being in shape means you have a good strength score, not that you have Athletics training.  Plus, the dude who's in good shape (but doesn't have any skill points) still has a 5% chance to jump over the 12' high-jump bar.  1 in 20.  Even though the trained people have better odds.But think about this: it's those cheesy '80s movies where the main-character jumps over a wall (trying to save his girlfriend), lands in a 100 meter dash, and beats the competition.  He rolled well.  Or used what I call a Hero Point.  Either way, it's better for the story for him to win, than to be the boring, untrained guy.</blockquote>

Verification