Quote from: LordVreeg;548442well, that is the truth.  And I am kind of insane that way.

Nice. Did you ever do up an at-a-glance chart of the skill trees? I'd be interested to see something like that. That's the kind of detail that really needs to go into every game world, but so few have the time and/or skill to pull it off. I've a half dozen campaign milieus on the workbench at the moment, and I doubt I'll get a single nested skill group in there.

Quote from: The Traveller;548431The system I use can't really be gamed by adding +50 bonuses somehow and then use driving skills to perform brain surgery, again its a common sense thing like any system. Similarly no matter how high you roll to hit with "use blade" you can't mimic the effects of the "inverted crocodile" martial arts skill.

Hope I haven't killed the conversation by interrupting too much, I've found it interesting to talk through. I think alot of it does come down to different preferences about level of randomness, but its interesting to see the logic behind the different preferences.
I think what you're calling 'common sense' is what jhkim called 'a hodgepodge of fixes to make the skill range larger' (multiple rolls, taking 10, minimum skills to make checks).
 
Another thing I found interesting was when you said earlier.  

Quote from: The Traveller;548122I think half random is too much, ten percent random is too little, so a nice median fits well.

I'm not sure that [d10 + skill [1-10] + [stat 1-10] is one-third random, though. I'd say its more random than that. Everyone has a stat and an average is probably 5-6; on opposed rolls for instance, this will cancels out; on a normal skill check also, basically half the potential bonus is going to be there. So in this system, the difference between two characters is mostly going to due to the skill and random roll.
(Probably not explaining that very well, sorry.)

Quote from: The Traveller;548454Nice. Did you ever do up an at-a-glance chart of the skill trees? I'd be interested to see something like that. That's the kind of detail that really needs to go into every game world, but so few have the time and/or skill to pull it off. I've a half dozen campaign milieus on the workbench at the moment, and I doubt I'll get a single nested skill group in there.

Well, it was a consious decision a few decades ago(ok, almost 3 decades) to concentrate on one setting and a system built specifically to support it and the gamestyle I wanted.

I will be drawing out the nestings again soon, I had rto change a few and add a few more.  

And sometimes a dozen good ideas should not be ignored.

(Re: a Difficulty 22 driving task)

Quote from: The Traveller;548331Hard overtake on a deep bend maybe? If uncontested.

This depends on exact how hard the overtake is and how deep the bend.  But I suppose you have a picture of it.  So the best driver in the world can't quite do it reliably - failing 1 out of 10 tries.  That seems like it's going to be a really tough.  Then picture that someone who is simply above average (reflexes 6, driving skill 6) has a 10% chance of success.  

For most skills, I find this really hard to picture.  The top expert in the world can't do something reliably, and then someone just above average has a good shot at it?  

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;548461I think what you're calling 'common sense' is what jhkim called 'a hodgepodge of fixes to make the skill range larger' (multiple rolls, taking 10, minimum skills to make checks).

To clarify a bit about the "hodge-podge" of fixes.  The issues I have are:

1) Skill Zero and required minimum skill

Here you're effectively lumping a wide range of abilities under a single number.  For example, someone with skill 0 has 0% chance whatsoever at a task, but when they get to skill 1 they have an 80% chance.  In reality, there should be a range between 0% and 80%.  This works if you don't care about distinguishing among low skill levels.  However, I think would be more straightforward to have those extra skill levels.  

A similar issue appears in minimum skill level for a task.  The result is that someone with below the minimum has zero chance, but when they get the minimum they jump up to a higher chance.  

2) Take-10 and "No roll"

Take-10 is the D&D3.X / D20 system rule.  By "no roll", I mean the tendency of GMs to allow someone to do some things automatically at higher skill, even though they would require a roll for someone of lower skill.  For example, in Call of Cthulhu, a high-school grad has English skill at 60%.  The GM makes the foreigner with 10% English skill roll (with no bonus or penalty) for a simple conversation - but allows the native speaker to do that automatically.  

Effectively this is the inverse - with a step higher skill, the chance goes up to 100%.  This is explicit with Take-10.  If you need to roll an 11 for a task under stable conditions, you have a 50% chance of success.  If you need to roll a 10, you have a 100% chance of success.  

I think it's more straightforward to represent the 100% chance of success by sufficient skill that they don't have to roll - instead of making a special case of it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;548461I think what you're calling 'common sense' is what jhkim called 'a hodgepodge of fixes to make the skill range larger' (multiple rolls, taking 10, minimum skills to make checks).

The exploding dice is meant to represent the occasional strange random stuff that happens in the real world, common sense is meant to refer to the idea that you can't use a sufficiently high driving check to perform brain surgery with a Honda Civic. An upscale Lexus, maybe.
 

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;548461I'm not sure that [d10 + skill [1-10] + [stat 1-10] is one-third random, though. I'd say its more random than that. Everyone has a stat and an average is probably 5-6; on opposed rolls for instance, this will cancels out;

In contested rolls between people of equal ability, its 50-50 who will come out on top. Is that unrealistic?

Quote from: jhkim;548533For most skills, I find this really hard to picture.  The top expert in the world can't do something reliably, and then someone just above average has a good shot at it?  

Nine times out of ten doesn't seem unreliable, while one in ten is a fair distance from "a good shot".

Quote from: jhkim;5485331) Skill Zero and required minimum skill

Here you're effectively lumping a wide range of abilities under a single number.  For example, someone with skill 0 has 0% chance whatsoever at a task, but when they get to skill 1 they have an 80% chance.  In reality, there should be a range between 0% and 80%.  

Again you're misrepresenting the chances.

This applies to skills where some sort of knowledge is required, like driving, completing a very simple task. An unlettered hill tribesman who just made it into town on his first camel is going to sit in a car and look at the bewildering array of controls and scratch his head. He's not even going to know where the ignition is, or even that the car has an ignition. Zero percent chance.

Someone who knows the bare basics of driving, maybe had a lesson or two, stands a decent chance of success on this very simple task. If the task were more difficult, the barely skilled person's odds drop significantly. In this system by the way, a 10 difficulty would be "easy". You are perceiving a gap in the system where none exists.

Quote from: jhkim;548533A similar issue appears in minimum skill level for a task.  The result is that someone with below the minimum has zero chance, but when they get the minimum they jump up to a higher chance.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Quote from: jhkim;548533I think it's more straightforward to represent the 100% chance of success by sufficient skill that they don't have to roll - instead of making a special case of it.

That is the case already? Plus in the system I use rolling a ten brings with it a chance of an increase in the actual skill score, so you don't want people rolling for things they can do automatically. A fair bit of thinking went into that which I'll explain if you like.

Quote from: The Traveller;548554Again you're misrepresenting the chances.

This applies to skills where some sort of knowledge is required, like driving, completing a very simple task. An unlettered hill tribesman who just made it into town on his first camel is going to sit in a car and look at the bewildering array of controls and scratch his head. He's not even going to know where the ignition is, or even that the car has an ignition. Zero percent chance.

Someone who knows the bare basics of driving, maybe had a lesson or two, stands a decent chance of success on this very simple task. If the task were more difficult, the barely skilled person's odds drop significantly. In this system by the way, a 10 difficulty would be "easy". You are perceiving a gap in the system where none exists.

I had put some numbers down before, but here you're hand-waving without specifying the system numbers.  I'm going to suggest as examples three actual current player characters in my Call of Cthulhu campaigns.  I'd suggest some basic tasks: turn the car on; back the car up from the street into an alley; and drive the car merging onto a busy highway.  

1) Koko is a native of Easter Island who has never seen a car before.  He has good reflexes (7 out of 10).  As you say, he should have no chance to turn the car on, let alone back it up.  

2) Lila is a lower-middle-class woman from Chicago, who has frequently been in and around cars, and knows the principles, but never owned or driven one herself.  She has above-average reflexes (6 out of 10).  It should be trivial for her to turn the car on (100% or close), tricky for her to back it up (roughly 50%), and really tough for her to merge onto the highway (no more than 10%).  

3) Rico is a gangster who is used to driving and has frequently owned a car, but was never a specialized wheel-man.  He has below-average reflexes (4 out of 10).  He should have 100% chance for all the tasks.  

I'm leaving it to you to set what the skill levels and difficulties are, but the results should be roughly what I state.  I will claim that it can't be handled in the system scale you describe.  (Though of course the GM could assign the chances above based on judgment overriding skill and difficulty numbers.)

Quote from: jhkim;548586I will claim that it can't be handled in the system scale you describe.

Really?

1) No chance.

2) No chance. People ride in taxis all the time before they learn how to drive (where I come from there are quite a few people who don't know how to drive into their 30s due to public transport). Turning the key and starting the car, sure. Knowing it should be in neutral when you do that, nope. Pushing the clutch to change gears, knowing when to release the clutch after accelerating so the car doesn't stall out, zero chance. Even knowing which pedal is which is not something she would know.

If she had made a particular point of learning these minutae she would not have skill 0.

3) Rico has no problems, his skill would be 5 or 6. Normal driving is easy, that's why so many people manage it without crashing daily. At a base skill of 5 with reflexes 4, he gets to do most tasks 100% of the time, no roll required.

Quote from: jhkim;548586the results should be roughly what I state

No, they shouldn't.

The system does make allowances for situations say where 1) or 2) are left alone with a car for a week and told to figure it out, that's a possible way to go from skill 0 to skill 1, but that isn't going to work for many skills. Left alone with a software decompiler, the same people are not going to be able to self train to hack a program. They need a book or prefereably a mentor actively teaching them.

Quote from: The Traveller;548590Really?

1) No chance.

2) No chance. People ride in taxis all the time before they learn how to drive (where I come from there are quite a few people who don't know how to drive into their 30s due to public transport). Turning the key and starting the car, sure. Knowing it should be in neutral when you do that, nope. Pushing the clutch to change gears, knowing when to release the clutch after accelerating so the car doesn't stall out, zero chance. Even knowing which pedal is which is not something she would know.

If she had made a particular point of learning these minutae she would not have skill 0.

3) Rico has no problems, his skill would be 5 or 6. Normal driving is easy, that's why so many people manage it without crashing daily. At a base skill of 5 with reflexes 4, he gets to do most tasks 100% of the time, no roll required.

I didn't specify that Lila had skill zero.  To clarify some more:  She is smart as a whip and has an interest in cars and driving, but has never had a chance to drive herself.  (As a lower-middle class colored woman in the 1920s Midwest, it was well outside the norm.)  She will indeed have asked many questions like what the pedals do, the gears, and even how the engine works.  I might picture her sitting beside her gangster boyfriend in Chicago criticizing his driving, for example.  

Given this, you imply that she should be skill 1.  That gives her a base of 7 + 1d10 for driving tasks.  

Rico is reflexes 4 and skill 5 for a base of 9+1d10 and you agree that he has a 100% (or more) in all the driving tasks mentioned.  

That would mean that Lila has a minimum of 80% in all the driving tasks.  

The point is that the system allows no middle ground.  If she were skill zero, Lila could do absolutely nothing with a car.  If she were skill 1, she has at least an 80% chance to merge onto a highway without incident.

Quote from: jhkim;548604The point is that the system allows no middle ground.  If she were skill zero, Lila could do absolutely nothing with a car.  If she were skill 1, she has at least an 80% chance to merge onto a highway without incident.

I'm sorry what is so hard to understand here? Day to day driving isn't hard. Once you can make it go forwards, backwards and stop, that's all there is to it. On the other hand if you don't understand the mechanics of it and the specifics of each control, you aren't going to be able to hop into one and make it work.

Every single point you've raised, including some extremely dubious ones where one in ten is a "good chance" and nine out of ten is "unreliable", has been dealt with. A d10+skill+stat system is nothing unique, CP2020 used it among others, its well proven and tested. These are the systems you're arguing with on increasingly boggy ground.

Quote from: The Traveller;548609Every single point you've raised, including some extremely dubious ones where one in ten is a "good chance" and nine out of ten is "unreliable", has been dealt with. A d10+skill+stat system is nothing unique, CP2020 used it among others, its well proven and tested. These are the systems you're arguing with on increasingly boggy ground.

I'm not attacking your system in particular; nor am I claiming that it is unplayable.  This is a very common issue through a great many RPGs, not just the d10+skill+stat ones.  I think I've emphasized that these are playable given that a GM regularly steps in to override the strict system results.  

However, just because lots of RPGs do it and it is playable, doesn't mean that it's the best solution.  What I see regularly is:
1) GMs special judgment calls about whether someone can even attempt a roll with low skill.
2) GMs making special judgment calls about whether someone with high skill needs to roll.
3) GMs imposing special restrictions about how many people can attempt a task.  

I think that these could be simplified by stretching out the skill scale.  

For example, I love Call of Cthulhu.  I think it's a good system in general.  However, it definitely has this issue.  For example: an American high school grad has 60% in Speak English.  Let's say my foreigner has a 2% in Speak English.  The question is, what kind of roll is needed to have an ordinary conversation?  You need to give it more than a +40% mod for it to be automatic to the high school grad, but that means that the guy with 2% skill has at least a 42%.  That seems wonky.  

I think a lot of play would go more smoothly, and require less GM overriding results, if the skill scale were increased.  

Quote from: The Traveller;548609I'm sorry what is so hard to understand here? Day to day driving isn't hard. Once you can make it go forwards, backwards and stop, that's all there is to it. On the other hand if you don't understand the mechanics of it and the specifics of each control, you aren't going to be able to hop into one and make it work.

This is a bullshit straw-man.  I never claimed that driving was hard to learn.  Regardless of whether it is easy to learn or hard to learn, though, there exist different levels of driving skill.  

The default result of the system is that there are two states:  Skill 0 where you are unable to do anything at all with a car (like the islander Koko); and Skill 1 where Lila has an 80% chance to merge out onto the highway.

Quote from: jhkim;548604She will indeed have asked many questions like what the pedals do, the gears, and even how the engine works.  I might picture her sitting beside her gangster boyfriend in Chicago criticizing his driving, for example.

You have a very unusual notion of how people behaved in the 1920s.

Quote from: jhkim;548631I think I've emphasized that these are playable given that a GM regularly steps in to override the strict system results.  

According to every example I've given so far this is not the case, the objections are getting a bit hysterical at this stage.

Quote from: jhkim;548631However, just because lots of RPGs do it and it is playable, doesn't mean that it's the best solution.  What I see regularly is:
1) GMs special judgment calls about whether someone can even attempt a roll with low skill.
2) GMs making special judgment calls about whether someone with high skill needs to roll.
3) GMs imposing special restrictions about how many people can attempt a task.  

No special judgement calls needed in any of the above. Even if there were it wouldn't matter. I've never met a player that wasn't a specialist in finding corner cases.

Quote from: jhkim;548631For example, I love Call of Cthulhu.

Roll under systems suck for all sorts of reasons I won't go into here.

Quote from: jhkim;548631The default result of the system is that there are two states:  Skill 0 where you are unable to do anything at all with a car (like the islander Koko); and Skill 1 where Lila has an 80% chance to merge out onto the highway.

Which to my mind is an accurate representation of reality.

Have you seen some of the driving out there? Lot of people wavering around 1 and 2 skill.

Look, I get where you're coming from now, courtesy of your last post. CoC is your thing, and that's alright. What I've done is take a damn good basic system and stripped out all the guff. Then I spent the last twelve years lifting the best from every other system and more from my own head, examining the components, stripping them out, refining, discarding, turning everything over and over, playtesting with my eternally patient group, until what I was left with was a ballet, a fucking symphony.

We have a CP2020-alike core system. We have combat where you only roll to hit, not damage, and it is like sex. Not great sex in the grand scheme of things but still. We have cast aside initiative for an exalted-style battle wheel. The large vessel combat system, you can take five minutes and set up an extremely realistic battle between a combined force of dromonds, galleys, and cogs, or a full blown skirmish between starfleet battle groups, complete with fighters. Do a world war 2 Pacific conflict, it works just as well. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope to be able to share the details with everyone before too long.

You have CoC and I respect that.

Quote from: daniel_ream;548637You have a very unusual notion of how people behaved in the 1920s.

What exactly are you saying?  This sounds like it's critical, but I can't tell what the substance of the objection is.

Quote from: The Traveller;548639Look, I get where you're coming from now, courtesy of your last post. CoC is your thing, and that's alright. What I've done is take a damn good basic system and stripped out all the guff. Then I spent the last twelve years lifting the best from every other system and more from my own head, examining the components, stripping them out, refining, discarding, turning everything over and over, playtesting with my eternally patient group, until what I was left with was a ballet, a fucking symphony.

That sounds great.  I don't like roll-under much either, in general.  I'm eager to see what your system is like.  (In case you didn't know - I maintain a big encyclopedia of RPGs on the web, and am always interested in new ones.)  

I still think we're talking past each other on the skill thing, but you're taking this as me attacking your system in particular - and on the contrary, I generally like what I've heard so far.

Quote from: The Traveller;548554In contested rolls between people of equal ability, its 50-50 who will come out on top. Is that unrealistic?

Well, no...?
I'll continue pondering this I think.

QuotePlus in the system I use rolling a ten brings with it a chance of an increase in the actual skill score, so you don't want people rolling for things they can do automatically. A fair bit of thinking went into that which I'll explain if you like.

Would a character with a low stat then be rolling for tasks more frequently, and so getting more skill improvements? Anyway, I can't critique constructively without seeing the whole in action, I guess. You're system sounds interesting - look forward to seeing it sometime then. If you drop something over in the Design & Development subforum sometime I'd definitely have a look.


On jhkim's other post:

Quote from: jhkim;5485331) Skill Zero and required minimum skill

Here you're effectively lumping a wide range of abilities under a single number. For example, someone with skill 0 has 0% chance whatsoever at a task, but when they get to skill 1 they have an 80% chance. In reality, there should be a range between 0% and 80%. This works if you don't care about distinguishing among low skill levels. However, I think would be more straightforward to have those extra skill levels.

A similar issue appears in minimum skill level for a task. The result is that someone with below the minimum has zero chance, but when they get the minimum they jump up to a higher chance.

Another fix you see in some systems is benefits/hindrances that apply further modifiers.
If you were playing Savage Worlds for instance (I doubt you would like the system given the increasing-variance-with-skill level problem as mentioned at Darkshire but anyway...) then Lila would have untrained Drive [d4-2], Rico would have perhaps a d6, and Koko would like Lila be untrained [d4-2], but might have a disadvantage - for instance All Thumbs, which would give him a 25% chance (1 on the skill die, irrespective of wild die) of breaking the car when he used it. Conversely, a driving expert might have not just a high skill rating but an Edge e.g. Ace, which would give them a further +2 to their check.
SW also semi-codifies the GM fudge factor with Common Knowledge rolls, where a character can handle some routine things by making an Int check, adjusted with circumstance penalties as the GM deems applicable, and has 'interests' which can add a bonus to common knowledge rolls.

Quote2) Take-10 and "No roll"

Take-10 is the D&D3.X / D20 system rule. By "no roll", I mean the tendency of GMs to allow someone to do some things automatically at higher skill, even though they would require a roll for someone of lower skill. For example, in Call of Cthulhu, a high-school grad has English skill at 60%. The GM makes the foreigner with 10% English skill roll (with no bonus or penalty) for a simple conversation - but allows the native speaker to do that automatically.

Effectively this is the inverse - with a step higher skill, the chance goes up to 100%. This is explicit with Take-10. If you need to roll an 11 for a task under stable conditions, you have a 50% chance of success. If you need to roll a 10, you have a 100% chance of success.

I think it's more straightforward to represent the 100% chance of success by sufficient skill that they don't have to roll - instead of making a special case of it.

I have similar objections to taking 10 (as seen in the other thread) - agree with you here.
GDW's house systems often handled difficulty by doubling/halving the skill score for easy or difficult, which at least handles  the English conversation problem but is still very unsatisfying in other respects i.e. only three levels of difficulty.
Other than than either modifying the dice rolled or having as you say a wider range of skill values would perhaps be the way to go. Anyway, thanks, I've found this interesting since I hadn't considered that side of the d100/roll under thing before.