Quote from: Peregrin;547522Re: 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?

If I were running BRP, that's how I'd approach it: not really much different from how I'd do it with D&D.  Make a judgment call on whether a roll is needed, at all, and probably only require a roll if the situation is critical or high-pressure, somehow.

For climbing the rope, BRP gives some other numbers that could inform the judgment call (e.g., STR compared to SIZ).

Quote from: B.T.;547481I'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.

Thoughts?

I think you're only going to have problems by thinking too much on it.  What I mean by that is that there are several types of climbing.  Rope, cliff, threes, etc.  And each required different technique and ability.  Some might rely on strength more while other forms rely on technique more.  So putting that into an rpg mechanic is just too much fiddling.

In your rope example, someone with a lot of strength might be able to just pull themselves up the rope.  But if you use proper technique (using the feet to act as a brake by having the rope go over one foot while the other foot is on top), you're using much less arm strength because you're lifting with your legs, and not just arms.

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 exactly mirrors what I asked Gary about skills once; if you're taking on the mantle of "person who goes into unspeakable places looking for treasure" you've already managed to learn how to ride a horse without falling off, catch small game (within reason) and so on and so forth.

It really keeps the game moving to keep that in mind

Quote from: B.T.;547481I'm a pretty scrawny guy.  Not strong, rather thin.  Should probably start lifting.  Point being, I could never climb the rope in gym class.  

Did anyone ever show you how to hold the rope with your feet?  If so, I'm surprised that a skinny guy would be unable to climb a rope. Whereas pulling yourself up by arms alone is something lots of people can't do.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;547583..you're using much less arm strength because you're lifting with your legs, and not just arms.

This, by the way, is the correct way to climb anything - push yourself up with your legs instead of trying to pull yourself up with your arms.

In the real world, the difficulty of a climb is graded and climbers classify how good a climber they are by the highest grade that they're comfortable climbing.

So, someone might say that they're comfortable on 5.5 and happy to attempt 5.6 or 5.7. However, a 5.12, say, would be well beyond their abilities.

I like Rolemaster's Moving Manuver Table which gives you a percentage of movement accomplished.  So you get part of the way up the cliff, hit a rough spot and have to roll again.

But then, I like a lot of things about Rolemaster...

Quote from: David Johansen;547647I like Rolemaster's Moving Manuver Table which gives you a percentage of movement accomplished.  So you get part of the way up the cliff, hit a rough spot and have to roll again.

But then, I like a lot of things about Rolemaster...

It's a good system but the point is to find a happy medium between Dnd and RM.

Quote from: Peregrin;547510I 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 always seemed obvious to me. However, I've seen too many GMs require rolls for things that really should be gimmes in most situations. I finally put a rule in the latest edition of Microlite74 clearly stating that all adventurers are assumed to be competent enough in basic adventuring skills (stuff like riding a horse, climbing, swimming, making camp, cooking dinner, etc.) that all attempts to do so should be automatically successful in normal/near normal circumstances.

If someone wants to play, Realism, the Dice Rolling, and make rolls for all those mundane actions, I suppose they can knock themselves out.  But I'd like to save that time wasting function for when it really matters, so you're not interrupting game play.

Quote from: RandallS;547682That's always seemed obvious to me. However, I've seen too many GMs require rolls for things that really should be gimmes in most situations. I finally put a rule in the latest edition of Microlite74 clearly stating that all adventurers are assumed to be competent enough in basic adventuring skills (stuff like riding a horse, climbing, swimming, making camp, cooking dinner, etc.) that all attempts to do so should be automatically successful in normal/near normal circumstances.

It's unfortunate, because those same GMs are often the ones spawned by White-Wolf and 3e module-based/Living Greyhawk gaming who believe it's the GM's job to be a storyteller and create drama.  But you're trying to create drama while making people do a dozen pointless checks, increasing their chances of failure on stupid things, and generally just slowing the game down.

The Pathfinder group I'm in atm has one of those GM-as-storyteller types, and another dude who thinks Pathfinder is "better than D&D at telling stories", but then the game is run like a sticky-slow tactical exercise with checks for everything.  Mismatch of design and player desire if I ever saw one, but they're close friends and I don't want to tell them they're trying to use a knife to eat pudding after they've invested so much in adventure-path modules and whatnot.

I mean people wonder where the roll/role dichotomy came from.  When you don't understand the intent of the rules and you're not properly applying them to the intended purpose, of course you're going to have people get pissed off at the dice and think that they "get in the way" of role-playing and fun, rather than serving to push the game forward and keep things interesting by allowing everyone at the table to be surprised or to spur creativity.

Quote from: RandallS;547682That's always seemed obvious to me. However, I've seen too many GMs require rolls for things that really should be gimmes in most situations. I finally put a rule in the latest edition of Microlite74 clearly stating that all adventurers are assumed to be competent enough in basic adventuring skills (stuff like riding a horse, climbing, swimming, making camp, cooking dinner, etc.) that all attempts to do so should be automatically successful in normal/near normal circumstances.

While I certainly think die rolling can be taken too far and too many die rolls can strain or even break verisimilitude, nobody ever talks about the time their character tried to do something and the GM said, "OK, you just do it."  Even a sequence of failed attempts at making camp or cooking dinner can lead to some interesting role-playing and a running joke for the campaign.  I've seen a lot of interesting play generated from a failed DFU* rolls.  

* A Don't "Foul" Up roll, which is a roll where things go wrong only if the worst possible result is rolled on the dice, to take into account situations where things normally won't go wrong but something could go wrong -- perhaps terribly wrong -- every now and then.  One of the most memorable DFU rolls, which I still remember more than two-and-a-half decades later, involved two 00 DFU rolls on percentile dice.  The first was triggered by an NPC saying, "Catch me, you fool!" after a romantic encounter with a PC near the edge of the roof of a very tall building.  Cruel but quite memorable.

Quote from: Dodger;547622This, by the way, is the correct way to climb anything - push yourself up with your legs instead of trying to pull yourself up with your arms.
 
In the real world, the difficulty of a climb is graded and climbers classify how good a climber they are by the highest grade that they're comfortable climbing.
 
So, someone might say that they're comfortable on 5.5 and happy to attempt 5.6 or 5.7. However, a 5.12, say, would be well beyond their abilities.

For comfortable I guess read "able to do with no serious chance of failure"? Probably young BT wouldn't have thought of the leg thing, but its also possible he wouldn't have wanted to do it, if he had thought of it, so as to not fall on his head.
 
Or in other words in 3.5 terms, trying to climb the rope week in and out was Taking-10, over and over again.

I think I was a little unclear about climbing before, as I was in haste.

Let me now expand on it a little.

Thieves, using the thieves' climb skill, are generally the first ones over the top (as it were).

Most everyone can "climb" a rough, sloped surface (mountain, etc.) but thieves are the ones who can climb up smooth-finished towers with little more than a bag of pitons and a small mallet.  Or less.  That's where the thieves' climb roll comes in.  In the case of the fellow climbing the giants' castle tower, it was a case of being confronted with an easily-climbed stone wall that was buffeted by severe winds, hence me having him make the test.  

A thieves' climb check is to cover those contingencies (smooth or otherwise difficult surfaces).  Otherwise they, and other character types, have no problem going up and down slopes with plenty of natural hand-holds.

To the widerr point though its totally reasonable to have skill threshold levels. To climb a rope you need climbing of x your base skill is computed from your stats.
So in dnd terms climb might be 8 plus dex and str bonuses. To climb a rope 30 feet you need climb 9 you can't do it if you have less. If you want to climb an additional 30 feet make a check.
I hate thre all adventurers can do every thing like cos it actually limits roleplay to a set of 'adventurer' archetypes and I want to have the option of fat sedentry wizards or aged clerics.

I have done a bit of climbing, I was that smug kid at school who would get to tthe top of the rope first every time then I trained for an expedition to ice land and did a fair bit of wall climbing. Its totally true that the teenaged BT could have learnt to climb the rope, using his legs and what not, but that is what a skill is right learning to do something.

In GURPS, you have to roll to even start a rope climb.  It then takes into account fatigue, dexterity, the length of the rope (roll for fail at various times as you're climbing it), are you over-burdened, do you have Tarzan skills, and if you're being shot at while climbing (in combat).

You have to be in good shape and be a good rope climber in GURPS.  Otherwise, you take the freight elevator like everyone else.