Magnimost
June 26th, 2016, 15:14
Opening a general discussion to make CoC skill rolls more meaningful; topic is general to CoC ruleset, not an FG-specific topic.
We play 6th Edition - and have no plans moving to 7th even when it's released -, and we've been toying with some rules for easy/easy/hard/extreme skill checks similar to 7th. Essentially we apply bonus or hindrance dies to such skill checks. While it works out ok and brings some realism into skill checks by GM's (my) ability to apply a task difficulty adjustment, it's cumbersome, technical, and slows the game.
An even easier system would be just to add/subtract 10/20/30 points based on the difficulty. But that would give a huge boost to someone with a skill of 20, and bring someone with a skill of 80 to unfailing territory. But perhaps that's actually a desirable feature!
As a related topic, I read an article How To Make Skill Checks Not Suck/ (https://www.gnomestew.com/game-mastering/gming-advice/how-to-make-skill-checks-not-suck/) which had a lot of good tips. One that really struck me was the option of having skill checks not be a win/fail scenario like they are in CoC.
For example, a "normal" skill success would be a success as intended, a critical hit (96-100) would be a spectacular success. Critical failure (01-05) would be a spectacular failure. But a "minor" failure close but not quite the skill level would be a success with consequences. So, for example, rolling 40 with a Fast Talk skill of 30 might get the characters into the library's closed section as fire inspectors, but after an hour the librarian would have second thoughts and come looking for the investigators, or would insist on accompanying them, thus hindering their efforts to steal the Necronomicon.
Benefits would be that the GM would be able to transparently fudge the results based on difficulty. This is much more organic way to to do skill checks, and not the frustrating "you fail to convince the librarian you are a fire inspector. You can try again tomorrow, or shoot the librarian in the face to get in."
I'm not sure how to define the "minor" failure, though. Should I take, say, any roll which is 20% or 20 points above char's skill as minor failure? Or use a sliding scale, so one point above is a success with the librarian comes looking for the investigators after an hour, twenty points above the librarian calls the police rather than come looking for them, and thirty points or more they outright fail.
Any thoughts?
We play 6th Edition - and have no plans moving to 7th even when it's released -, and we've been toying with some rules for easy/easy/hard/extreme skill checks similar to 7th. Essentially we apply bonus or hindrance dies to such skill checks. While it works out ok and brings some realism into skill checks by GM's (my) ability to apply a task difficulty adjustment, it's cumbersome, technical, and slows the game.
An even easier system would be just to add/subtract 10/20/30 points based on the difficulty. But that would give a huge boost to someone with a skill of 20, and bring someone with a skill of 80 to unfailing territory. But perhaps that's actually a desirable feature!
As a related topic, I read an article How To Make Skill Checks Not Suck/ (https://www.gnomestew.com/game-mastering/gming-advice/how-to-make-skill-checks-not-suck/) which had a lot of good tips. One that really struck me was the option of having skill checks not be a win/fail scenario like they are in CoC.
For example, a "normal" skill success would be a success as intended, a critical hit (96-100) would be a spectacular success. Critical failure (01-05) would be a spectacular failure. But a "minor" failure close but not quite the skill level would be a success with consequences. So, for example, rolling 40 with a Fast Talk skill of 30 might get the characters into the library's closed section as fire inspectors, but after an hour the librarian would have second thoughts and come looking for the investigators, or would insist on accompanying them, thus hindering their efforts to steal the Necronomicon.
Benefits would be that the GM would be able to transparently fudge the results based on difficulty. This is much more organic way to to do skill checks, and not the frustrating "you fail to convince the librarian you are a fire inspector. You can try again tomorrow, or shoot the librarian in the face to get in."
I'm not sure how to define the "minor" failure, though. Should I take, say, any roll which is 20% or 20 points above char's skill as minor failure? Or use a sliding scale, so one point above is a success with the librarian comes looking for the investigators after an hour, twenty points above the librarian calls the police rather than come looking for them, and thirty points or more they outright fail.
Any thoughts?