This chart is already in the BX D&D rules as the "Morale of retainers" column under Charisma. Is there any reason why it couldn't be applied generally for all sorts of skill checks?
Mince Pie Fest 2024: Waitrose (Un-Numbered)
-
The pastry has a bit of a salty taste, and I'm not a fan of salt, but
otherwise it has a decent flavour and a good, firm, texture. The filling is
beautiful...
.jpg)
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
Not a bad idea. Simple, based off ability scores. Worth a test run if your games maybe?
ReplyDeleteIf you already have it out/on your GM screen for checking retainer morale then hey, sure, why not?
ReplyDeleteBut for everyone else--what's the good of another chart-based mechanic? D20 roll-under-stat, 3d6 roll-under-stat or even d20 target-number mechanics work just as well and you don't need to look anything up.
Zak basically said it.
ReplyDeletePlus what about the -3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3 Ability score modifiers of B/X?
You could do a little algebra, and end up seeing this as roll 2d6 + ability modifier, target 8 for most tasks. No table required. And suddenly we are playing Traveller.
ReplyDeleteIs good! Have been in 2d6 & 4d6 appreciation mode for months now.
ReplyDelete"You could do a little algebra, and end up seeing this as roll 2d6 + ability modifier, target 8 for most tasks. No table required. And suddenly we are playing Traveller."
ReplyDeleteI like that! I recently experimented with using 2d6+stat, or any other relevant modifier, for opposed ability checks. I'm not quite done thinking it all through yet.
Damn! I am again reminded, why I should play Traveller, sometime.
I agree with Zak; I just roll under the attribute score on 1d20 though 3d6 would work as well. No chart needed.
ReplyDeleteBut for everyone else--what's the good of another chart-based mechanic?
ReplyDeleteCharts are fun? Honestly, maybe I'm brain damaged or something, but I really -- and I mean really -- don't understand why so many gamers seem to have an aversion to charts.
Charts are fun, but not for basic task resolution.
ReplyDeleteI'm a fan of 3d20 roll under appropriate stat; take lowest result for easy tasks, middle for difficult, and highest for heroic type tests. Gives a wide range of numbers ad allows the ref to assign a "DC".
ReplyDeleteZak: The difference between a 2d6 chart like this, 3d6-roll-under, and either d20 system is in how much variation you want a single +1/-1 modifier to affect your odds. When you roll 2d6 and need to roll 7 or under, a -1 or -2 drastically increases your odds, but the change is less pronounced at the extreme ends (11-12 or 2-3). With a 3d6-roll-under, the bonuses likewise mean more in the middle values, but to a lesser degree. With a d20 roll, plus or minus one always means a 5% difference in the probability.
ReplyDeleteI think the real question is, can everything be modeled on the same scale of influence vs. success? Proponents of 'core mechanics' seem to subscribe to this view, but I've always liked, for example, how classic Runequest did skills: the skill level was a linear probability, but the skill increase followed an S-curve pattern of:
skill level * (100 - current skill level)
@Captain: If the attribute itself determines the target number, wouldn't using the attribute modifier be "double dipping?" Meaning, if an 18 means your TN is 10 or lower, including the +3 modifier makes your TN 13 or lower, which on 2d6 would be automatic success.
ReplyDeleteNot trying to stir the pot - just curious. I've thought about this too, and I like systems where there's always a chance of failure, no matter how good your PC is at something.
I was thinking of them as a separate issue. i.e. you already have these numbers that are derived from your ability scores, couldn't you use them instead of the score? I wasn't thinking of using them together.
ReplyDelete@Arcadian - that's a really neat way to do it. I think I'm gonna try that.
ReplyDelete@Jeff - This is just based on intuition rather than math, but I sometimes don't like the idea of doing more bell-curve-based stuff off the character's already bell curved abilities. Not sure if that made sense, but there you have it!
The idea is very neat, but IMHO the problem could be another: the scale of the action.
ReplyDeleteRolling 2d6 on Charisma to bluff a goblin should be slightly different than rolling the same 2d6 on Charisma to bluff a dragon.
Same problem between grappling an orc (2d6 on Strength) or an Ogre.
Given that Fighting Fantasy was my gateway drug to role-playing games, likely I am hardwired to jump gleefully at this proposition. Of course, the question of weighting the odds makes me want to have a few other subsystems - using 1d6, 1d20, 3d6, 1d100, 2d10, etc - on hand too.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I've always wanted the D&D stat numbers to do more than just give me the occasional modifier of +1 to +3. The "roll under ability score" mechanic scratches that itch for me, and my preferred method is d20.
ReplyDeleteI'm messing around with moving thief skills in Classic D&D over to ability checks. Trying to make a more unified mechanic for the system, so to speak. This is most likely due to the influence that Castles & Crusades has had upon me. But C&C doesn't have a roll-under-stat mechanic, per se. But you get the idea.
By extension, I think that this unified mechanic for Classic D&D (at least how I would like it to function) will perhaps make all the classes more useful, especially the demihuman classes. For instance, for listen/searching, I am considering having only elves and dwarves able to increase in skill with regard to perception rolls (and taking this away from thieves).
I use a roll-under-stat, using d6s, but I'll decide, based on the difficulty I'm shooting for, how many to roll.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a "gimme" - no roll or possibly 2d6. 3d6 is baseline, harder tasks are 4d6, extremely difficult are 5d6.
I dislike the idea of DC or TN, so it works for me.
I think it would need something that takes character level into account. For non-level-based systems it's fine, but I've grown less fond of stat checks in D&D over the years because of it.
ReplyDeleteFor off-the-cuff checks, I use a system very close Paul Eliot's unified Classic Traveller skill system. Basically set a difficulty (usually between 10 and 20) and assign a stat. Roll 2d6 + level. Add 1 if stat is above difficulty, add 2 if it's 2x or more above difficulty, subtract 1 if less than half difficulty. Equal or beat difficulty, you succeed. It sounds messier than it is.
"I recently experimented with using 2d6+stat..."
ReplyDeleteThat's called playing Tunnels & Tolls. :)
The Techno from Arduin Grimoire. "There's no such thing as unicorns!"
ReplyDeleteZut allors! Wrong post for that last comment. Sorry
ReplyDelete@amp108
ReplyDeleteThere is no way I am going to pretend I know (or care) so much about the fine details of the success curves of imaginary people in imaginary medieval europe trying to convince henchmen to open doors and fight bats vs, trying to force open a stuck door that I can justify using a whole different mechanic for it.
@james mal
I am Mr. Dr. Random Table. But I feel like there's a time and place for tables
(
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/fast-tables-slow-tables.html
)
and that time and place isn't, I feel, "Ok, I want to try to run down the stairs" "Hold on, wait and do something else while I find the table to see if you can run down the stairs without falling".
I gotta fondle enough dead trees just to make the game happen at all, I don't need more in my way.
Or: what Jesse said.
I'm with James; I've never had a problem with charts. Of course, I love Rolemaster.
ReplyDeleteIntroducing yet another ability-derived subsystem just doesn't work for me.
ReplyDeleteLike KenHR said it doesn't factor level. In a game where lvl is the 800-lb gorilla & ability scores - as far as resolution mechanics go - are the two-headed stepchild locked in the basement, this excludes it as a contender for any kind of serious subsystem.
OTOH the idea of a simple ability-based check as quick and elegant catchall is wonderful, but if that's what you want then why not just use ability scores directly?
Jumping off of ^ that dude, what an ability score really does is differentiate among all the Level 2 Fighters out there. You are a really charming rougish F-2, or a big strong F-2, or whatever. The game's other components don't need ability scores, they include them because they're there already.
ReplyDeleteMagic items that modify stats now can just be written to modify the stat's effects (a Dex-enhancing item just gives a bonus to AC and missile to-hit, a Girdle of Giant Strength gives melee bonus and increased carry ability, etc).
Spells that modify stats now can be written to have specific effects (Ray of Enfeeblement reduces damage by -2 and raises your encumbrance category two places, etc).
But, ability scores do provide defined numbers with defined effects, so later rules can just modify the ability score rather than have a written description of the effect each time. Then you have to worry if your description of the Strength spell is like the description for Gauntlets of Ogre Power. And do they work together? Augh!
So yes I think you do need ability scores even if you don't care whether you differentiate between a F-2 of high intelligence and one of low intelligence.
@arcadayn
ReplyDeleteI love Rolemaster to, but I love it because all those columns on the charts don't just say "failfailfailfailfailfailfail/succeedsucceedsucceedsucceedsucceed" on them.
This one does.