From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Fri 02 Jul 1993 - 18:17:18 EEST
Henk Langefeld writes in reply to David Cheng:
>I think the idea of different skill levels for craft will appeal to
>a lot of people, and a precedent exists: language skills.
Not quite: the actual die roll is based on the sum of the percentages (at
least that's how we play it in RQ3).
>The whole issue is: Is this suggestion really different from the
>standard GM option of adding or subbing percentages to the skill
>for any particular tasks?
Yes, it introduces skills with percentages becoming automatic skills (like
walking, breathing etc.).
>You can look at the issue from two sides: skills vs tasks.
>Using the (30/60/90) model is using a skill based approach.
>The task based approach is defining "hard/medium/simple" task
>levels, combined with skill bonuses or penalties.
>This is one of the traditional ways of resolving skill tests in the case
>of trivial or simple tasks: Modify the die roll or skill.
>Take the example of a simple task: repairing a bronze brooch by
>unbending a pin. Almost anyone can do that. So a crafter with 30%
>will succeed easily. So, add 70% to skill for a "simple" task.
I'd prefer another approach: keep the skill level as it is, and redefine
the success/failure results.
E.g. for climbing a failure is failure to continue climbing in the
direction one wants to go. Assign the tasks' die modifier only after the
die roll, and see if the rol would have been sufficient for easy, medium,
hard or very hard, and interpret the result accordingly.
-- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:10 EEST