I'm a pretty scrawny guy.  Not strong, rather thin.  Should probably start lifting.  Point being, I could never climb the rope in gym class.  Not on Monday, not on Tuesday, not on Wednesday, not on Thursday, and not on Friday.  I couldn't do it.  Problem is, RPGs say I can climb the rope if I try enough times.  That is wrong.  A random skill check doesn't work.  So my thinking is that climbing (and certain other skills) should have a base skill that must be met before a character even has a chance to climb.

For instance, in WFRP, climbing a rope might require a 40% scale sheer surface to roll the dice.  Players can stack bonuses to boost their skill (chalking hands might give +10%).  At that point, rolling merely determines how long it takes to climb the wall.

On the opposite end of the above scenario, there are people who will always climb the rope no matter what.  Thus, they need not roll at all.  Using the example above, if a player exceeds the base chance of success by 20% or more, he need not roll at all.

Thoughts?

I use climbing not as a "can you get up there" but "do you fall when you get a certain distance up", if it's high enough.  F'rex I had a one of the players in a game I was running climbing up the side of a giant's castle - quite a formidable climb.  I deemed that halfway up he needed to give me a climbing check (per thief rules, as he was a fighter/thief) or else he'd fall.

That's not a hard rule; sometimes short distances I won't even ask about, or if the surface is rough enough (like a dry cave wall).

It wouldn't come up in the D&D I run.  They only character that uses a climb check is the Thief (or variants), and *his* climb check isn't to climb ropes, but to climb sheer surfaces without any gear at all.

I'd just "eyeball" climbing a free-hanging rope, leverage the class concept, and evaluate the circumstances:

You're a lightly-laden Thief?  Up you go, no roll required.

You're a lightly-laden Fighter or Cleric?  Up you go, no roll required.

You're an encumbered Thief, Fighter, or Cleric?  Got a strength bonus?  Yeah, ok, but you struggle and go slow.

You're a heavily encumbered PC?  Drop something, Einstein.

Your PC is especially heavy (fat, dense, whatever)?  Probably not going to happen.

You're a Magic User?  Got a penalty in Str or Con?  No?  Ok, you struggle a bit
and complain about how it hurts your hands, but you make it.

I might call for some sort of roll if time were critical, but it wouldn't be a success/failure roll, it would be a "how long do I take" kind of roll.

Climbing a rope just isn't the kind of action that I think deserves a lot of rules minutiae.  (Similarly, I'd probably almost never call for any rolls for things like "starting a fire.")

Yup, they bug me too.
A PC once died in a game I played after failing 4 Climb rolls, with associated DEX rolls, plunged into a swamp, which buffered the fall damage, only to fail to get his armour off and drown.
I cringe at the memory of my younger self, who was trying so hard to both follow the rules and also try and find a way to save the guy.

So now, either it's a base skill and you can climb it, or a massive +50% bonus for an easy climb, or the downside is just a delay compared to others, which only matters if there is a combat, or people firing arrows at you, or the last one up gets a nibble from a dragon.

Plus those who can climb well go up the truly nasty climb first, and then lower a rope, and all who follow get a BIG bonus and CANNOT fall. With a rope round your middle almost anyone can be hauled up!

But yes, this whole linear skill % thing can be a problem, and those of us who prefer skill based systems do need to take a lesson from the old skool handwavium guys!

I handle it like the Dungeon Delver mostly but if feel bitchy PJ's way is the ticket. It's a game dammit!  If want real life I'll just walk down to the store while people straight up ask me if I'm drunk while I'm walking.  It gets fun when the police stop me, for me that is.

It really isn't something I want to deal with other than it may take you longer not failure.  Besides that's what Levitate is for silly. You can even help others with that spell. I wonder if I could convince a DM that combining Tenser's Floating Disk with Levitation isn't game breaking and perfectly allowed?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;547486It wouldn't come up in the D&D I run.  They only character that uses a climb check is the Thief (or variants), and *his* climb check isn't to climb ropes, but to climb sheer surfaces without any gear at all.

I'd just "eyeball" climbing a free-hanging rope, leverage the class concept, and evaluate the circumstances:

You're a lightly-laden Thief?  Up you go, no roll required.

You're a lightly-laden Fighter or Cleric?  Up you go, no roll required.

You're an encumbered Thief, Fighter, or Cleric?  Got a strength bonus?  Yeah, ok, but you struggle and go slow.

You're a heavily encumbered PC?  Drop something, Einstein.

Your PC is especially heavy (fat, dense, whatever)?  Probably not going to happen.

You're a Magic User?  Got a penalty in Str or Con?  No?  Ok, you struggle a bit
and complain about how it hurts your hands, but you make it.

I might call for some sort of roll if time were critical, but it wouldn't be a success/failure roll, it would be a "how long do I take" kind of roll.

Climbing a rope just isn't the kind of action that I think deserves a lot of rules minutiae.  (Similarly, I'd probably almost never call for any rolls for things like "starting a fire.")

Sounds reasonable to me.

I once asked Geezer how he'd handle field-engineering (like building platforms in trees, setting traps, other apparatuses), and he put it to me like, "If a boy scout can do it, you sure as hell can, since you're adventurers."

Quote from: Peregrin;547510Sounds reasonable to me.

I once asked Geezer how he'd handle field-engineering (like building platforms in trees, setting traps, other apparatuses), and he put it to me like, "If a boy scout can do it, you sure as hell can, since you're adventurers."

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows you can't do anything 'fun' in an RPG without rules.

Feat: Can climb = Fun

GM saying "sure, you climb the wall" = mother may I, bullshit NOTfun.

Quote from: Piestrio;547512That's ridiculous. Everyone knows you can't do anything 'fun' in an RPG without rules.

Feat: Can climb = Fun

GM saying "sure, you climb the wall" = mother may I, bullshit NOTfun.

Not to be mean (or a hypocrite, because I am), but isn't there another thread floating around that would suit that post better?

Quote from: Piestrio;547512That's ridiculous. Everyone knows you can't do anything 'fun' in an RPG without rules.

Feat: Can climb = Fun

GM saying "sure, you climb the wall" = mother may I, bullshit NOTfun.

Even better is can you explain to me how ADEU isn't disassociated mechanics? I thought that question was my permaban at TBP but Kai actually locked the thread before I could respond back to Topher.  Without blaming me?!? That sucked.

Re: OP

Isn't this sort of addressed in some skill systems?  If you're not under pressure or the task isn't super-hard even for a skilled individual, you don't roll.  But if someone is chasing you and you're attempting to scramble up a rope/ledge, then you would roll because even if you're super-good at it, you may bungle in the heat of the moment?

I think just getting past rolls is cool in some contexts, but I think a skill system can still be reasonably applied.

Quote from: Peregrin;547519Not to be mean (or a hypocrite, because I am), but isn't there another thread floating around that would suit that post better?

You're correct.  So lets get this thread on point again.

BT, there are bad and good systems for this.

And there is the rule of fun, which you are avoiding in your attempts at honest realism.

a good system views ascending and rope climbing as different skills, though related.
Rope climbing is harder and needs more strength.  In my main system, there is a STMOD of 14/2.2 for this, which means for every point od ST under 14, there is a 2.2% penalty, and for every point above 14, there is a 2.2% bonus.  And climbing a rope without any footing. Is minus 20%.  so the character in question needs a heap of climb skill to make up for it.

The rule of fun is that characters like to have some chance to succeed....even if somewhat illogical.

Quote from: B.T.;547481Thoughts?

If you want to handle it in a more realistic manner, then have a table that relates a strength attribute to the ability to climb in various ways at various encumbrance levels such that there would be a minimum strength required to climb a rope at an encumbrance level, below which you couldn't do it at all.  The climb skill would come into play with respect to keeping hold of a surface, finding handholds and footholds, or even making them with things like pitons where the problem is not the strength to get up but the ability to hang on is.  Encumbrance could also create negative modifiers to climb skill rolls.

In such a system, a person should be able to climb something like a ladder or a knotted rope most of the time with the default climbing roll so long as they have the strength to do so (with the option to waive the roll entirely, if that's what a GM or group would prefer).  If they have to climb a pole, a tree, a wall, or a cliff, they'll probably need more than just the default skill to succeed most of the time.

Quote from: LordVreeg;547539The rule of fun is that characters like to have some chance to succeed....even if somewhat illogical.

The alternative to letting a single character climb themselves up a rope, no matter how illogical, is to provide a way for other characters to either help them or haul them up, which is quite common in the source material of the genres most games are set in.  One place where many rule systems are weak is handling cooperative skill use and one character helping another character do something.  I think the preferably solution for the weakling nerd not being able to climb the rope isn't to let him climb it, anyway, but to make it possible for the strong jock to haul him up after he's tied a rope around his waist.

Quote from: John Morrow;547558The alternative to letting a single character climb themselves up a rope, no matter how illogical, is to provide a way for other characters to either help them or haul them up, which is quite common in the source material of the genres most games are set in.  One place where many rule systems are weak is handling cooperative skill use and one character helping another character do something.  I think the preferably solution for the weakling nerd not being able to climb the rope isn't to let him climb it, anyway, but to make ti possible for the strong jock to haul him up after he's tied a rope around his waist.

I agree.
most systems, that is.
Some mention it, though.