D20 house system

[mike wightman]

I've been reading TNE a lot lately, and giving the D20 house system a lot more consideration.

It's not that bad a system, but I dislike characteristics having a greater effect on asset determination than skill level.

Has anyone come up with any variants that preserve the D20 house system, but make skills more important than stats?

 

[Border Reiver]

This I must think upon.

 

[Badbru]

I'd been thinking of changing task resolution in my TNE game to 2d6 and set task numbers of 3,7,11,15&19 for easy, average, difficult,etc. Where each skill level applies +1, and stas are ranged 0,1&2 -1, 3,4&5 =0, 6,7,&8 +1, 9,10,&11 +2 and those rare stats of 12 or more(possible in TNE) are +3.

After reading this though, it occurs to me I could retain the d20 roll and change the set task difficulty numbers to 4,8,12,16,&20.

This was born out of an npc with pistol 2 and str 3 being killed in a gunfight because she couldn't hit a house at ten paces whilst my players with str 9 and pistol 1 could snapshot targets with greater ease.

 

[matrix cypher]

well as far as the stat being or not being significant in the roll id have to say from what i saw in basic training at the rifle range and pistol range that some people who never even fired a m16 rifle who where shooting expert level and others who have been shooting since being a young lad barely qualifieing or getting sharp shooter id have to say that every one got pretty much the same level of skill out of training so the only difference is that stat (or maybe they just got lucky rolls)

id have to say a very high stat is a basis for a natural tallent some people have it and others just dont or cant

btw i use either str or dex for combat skills that way a low str char may have learned to use his dex as a controlling asset.

 

[matrix cypher]

on the same track

if you had a dex1 surgery4
and a dex8 sugery4

doctor that would opperate on you

i know which one id wrather have heck even a dex8
surgery1 would be ok

sorry if the doc walked in and was tripping over stuff and had a hard time holding his pen and clip board (low dex) i dont care how skilled he may be
hes not sticking a knife in me lol


stats do matter

a naturally high stat dancer is going to be better then a low stat one most anytime unless the low stat one is realy realy realy skilled not just on or two levels either more like 6 or more levels then the high stat one

 

[Springstead]

Originally posted by Trader (CJ) Scott:
on the same track

if you had a dex1 surgery4
and a dex8 sugery4

doctor that would opperate on you

i know which one id wrather have heck even a dex8
surgery1 would be ok

sorry if the doc walked in and was tripping over stuff and had a hard time holding his pen and clip board (low dex) i dont care how skilled he may be
hes not sticking a knife in me lol


stats do matter

a naturally high stat dancer is going to be better then a low stat one most anytime unless the low stat one is realy realy realy skilled not just on or two levels either more like 6 or more levels then the high stat one

If he were that clumsy he wouldn't be a surgeon in the first place, he'd be my wife's previous gynocologist! (drumroll and rimshot, please)

ROFL

but seriously, I found that the house system favored stats too much, and I had worked out a system that divided that stat by three and doubled the skill for asset calculation, but I didn't get a chance to test it out.

 

[Badbru]

The trouble with the Dex 1 Surgery 4, and Dex 8 Surgery 4 example is that BOTH surgeons have had the same training, yet the Dex 8 one is more than twice as effective! Change your example to say the second surgeon was actually Dex 9, but had had less training at Surgery 3, and he still has the same asset, and is still more than twice as effective!

In the system I'm thinking of implementing the first Surgeon is at +3 on his rolls, being penalised for his low dex (Dex 1 = -1 group)The second surgeon recieves a benefit for his excellent Dex, (Dex 8 = +1 group) and is thus at +5 for his task rolls.

You'd still prefer the second surgeon, only now the first does not suffer a game breaking penalty as a resulting of rolling one crappy stat.

Secondly, something like open heart surgery should be a formidable task for both surgeons. The first however will need to roll 2 or less on d20, whereas the second only needs 6 or less, yet both surgeons have exactly the same qualifications. Is that fair?

 

[jfetters]

While I see your point, I never considered that much of an issue. The more I thought, the more I considered that yes, stats DO matter. Raw ability plus learned skill is what makes some people better than others in life.

My main gripe with the system was that I found it a pain to use an asset as a target base rather than the skill level being a task modifier. But in any case I didn't have much of a problem with it overall.

I think the issue for me is that the "skill + talent" viewpoint works better for some skill sets and attributes (physical-based) than others (Education-based).

 

[Sidncoke]

Originally posted by Badbru:
The trouble with the Dex 1 Surgery 4, and Dex 8 Surgery 4 example is that BOTH surgeons have had the same training, yet the Dex 8 one is more than twice as effective! Change your example to say the second surgeon was actually Dex 9, but had had less training at Surgery 3, and he still has the same asset, and is still more than twice as effective!

In the system I'm thinking of implementing the first Surgeon is at +3 on his rolls, being penalised for his low dex (Dex 1 = -1 group)The second surgeon recieves a benefit for his excellent Dex, (Dex 8 = +1 group) and is thus at +5 for his task rolls.

You'd still prefer the second surgeon, only now the first does not suffer a game breaking penalty as a resulting of rolling one crappy stat.

Secondly, something like open heart surgery should be a formidable task for both surgeons. The first however will need to roll 2 or less on d20, whereas the second only needs 6 or less, yet both surgeons have exactly the same qualifications. Is that fair?

Isn't that life though, as much as the PC brigade say that everyone is equal, some people are more gifted than others. So using your example DEX 1 Surgery 4 had the training but is basically inept (they do exist), and DEX 8 Surgery 4 has the training and can do the job.

 

[TheEngineer]

Well, in MTs skill definitions it needs medical-3 and at least dexterity 8 to be a surgeon.
Guess it was forgotten to clarify that.

Well, perhaps the dex 1 "surgeon" is better placed in a forensic department....

 

[leighton]

One thing I've come to appreciate is that it is not a question of simply stat versus skill, but what's playable, what works for your game. Good background trumps mechanics, but I will acknowledge a bad mechanic can spoil a good setting. I found the GDW house system confused players, they were never sure what they should be rolling even if it appeared logical ....

The simple correction if you do not like the full stat applied to task rolls is reduce it. Use Something like the d20 system for determining stat bonuses and penalties: (Stat score - 10)/2 and round down. Or whatever takes your fancy.

I personally like the Storyteller system found in the World Of Darkness series, and have been writing a preliminary version for Traveller. It gives an almost equal weight to stats and skills (skills are cheaper to but and you can specialise) but rolls involve multiple dice. Some people like rolling lots of dice!

But back to my main point; what you and your group like should drive your system.

Leighton

PS if anyone is interested in a Storyteller port just say and I'll share it with the world....

 

[davidm]

If I recall correctly, TNE skill improvements were also a hell of a lot cheaper than stat improvements - it was something like, you pay the next level up in xp to go up a level in a skill. The suggestion was to give players at least 1 xp per play session (up to 3).

 

[mike wightman]

I've thought of a possible solution, based on the idea I had for T4

If the asset base was just 6 + skill, then attributes could be decoupled from a particular skill.
Attributes could still provide a bonus or penalty to the asset before the task difficulty is taken into account.

 

[Ron]

I don't think the examples above are particularly good as we can only evaluate the effective skill level, without measuring the individual contribution of training and inborn ability. I'm no psychologist so I cannot say what is the current theory about it, but my personal experience of ten years as a professor tell me that characteristics have little impact in the effective level, if any. No doubt characteristics are fundamental to determine the speed of learning, which would explain Trader Scott experience with shooting instruction, and also determine the higher level of achievement. However, I don't think they would give an edge without enough training.

A smart student can go faster and further than a less gifted one. However, if he doesn't work toward it, he will not go anywhere. It is fairly easy to notice that smart student grasp the basics very fast, which give them a pretty good start. However, in the long run, those who work harder to learn will have an edge. Obviously, the smart and committed student will eventually master the skill better and faster than anybody else.

Previous incarnations of the GDW house system have a more realistic approach to the task system. In Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Dark Conspiracy and (I guess) T2K 2.0 characteristics didn't have any influence on the task roll, made with a d10. However, to buy a skill level over its controlling characteristic would require twice as many experience points. Not a bad system, although the reduced range of the d10 forced only three level of success (easy, average, and difficult). A good patch for TNE and T2K 2.2 would be include the higher cost to acquiring and taking out the characteristic value from the task roll. Skill values could be doubled or, when appropriated, two skill values could be added to some multidisciplinary tasks.

It is possible that my ideas are too centered in intelectual skills and thus are not adaptable to other areas. However, my personal experience with sports, martial or otherwise, tell me I'm not too far from the spot. Perhaps, some actions are performed more by instincts than skills, usually because there is not much to learn. In those cases, I would recommend not to use any skill, and keep only the characteristic.

 

[sgbrown]

If you really want to look at how come training (effectivly learning a skill) is consider the following:

Would you rather have a Dex 9 (avg) Surgeon 4 or a Dex 18 (extraordinary) Surgeon 0 working on you?

Some skills lend themselves to natural talent more than others. Many sports to include shooting I would class in this category.

For other areas, training dominates. I don't care how inteligent you are, if you're not trained in computer porgraming (formally or informally) you don't have a ghost of a chance in programing a computer. (Of course if you don't have brain one, you probably can't program either ... but I digress.)

In the case of surgury, I'd rather the surgeon have BOTH natural talent and considerable training - lack of either is NOT an option.

 

[Ron]

I understand your example, as I usually do pretty well in shooting without having much experience with it. However, I believe anyone with a firm hand and a good eye-hand coordination would do. As such, I'm kind of unsure if a skill is the right way to represent this kind of ability. Skill definitely suggest me an acquired capacity, something you had to be trained to do.

I am planing to run a game with the GDW house system and changing the resolution system to use roll against the sum of two skills or abilities or the double of a skill or ability. Still have to think about where each one would fit.

 

[olegamer4ew]

I haven't playtested this yet but I came up with this:

DIFF ASSET
Easy = Attribute x3 + skill level
Average = Attribute x2 + skill level
Difficult = Attribute x1 + skill level
Formidable = Attribute x1/2 + skill level
Impossible = Attribute x1/3 + skill level

I hope this helps

 

[epicenter00]

Originally posted by Ron:
I understand your example, as I usually do pretty well in shooting without having much experience with it. However, I believe anyone with a firm hand and a good eye-hand coordination would do. As such, I'm kind of unsure if a skill is the right way to represent this kind of ability. Skill definitely suggest me an acquired capacity, something you had to be trained to do.

I've met people who aren't strong at all and aren't particularly coordinated who can shoot well the first time. This guy's wife I know isn't really strong at all (spaghetti arms, anyone?) who is quite the klutz was shooting as well as her husband the first time she went with us to the range about four months ago and he's been shooting for years.

From experiences like this, GDW House Rules is very badly broken - stats have entirely too much of effect on things. She would have been the proverbial "Strength 3" person that Badbru was referring to.

I would say that if you have err on the side skills having too much of an impact and basic stats having too much of an impact, going with skills is almost always less onerous.

In fact, I'd hazard to say that what RPGs as a whole don't do well is model the difference between "natural talent" and the fact that a lot of tasks just aren't that difficult if they can be done in a safe and leisurely manner. I think what games need to do more is add in modifiers for "pressure" and "stress" and "in combat" to make tasks like shooting harder. I've yet to meet anyone who couldn't hit decently with even a big scary assault rifle on single shot at the range when we had time to calm the person down (if they were jittery) and show them some basics on how to shoot (mostly to give them confidence).

GDW instead went down the "natural talent" route and tried doing this by doing J-o-T skill in CT and MT, but that's such a mess that I think even rabid CT fans will wink to you when they tell you that J-o-T is a great idea. Then they tried stats, which was (and is) just as big of a mess, if not worse.