Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Arioch on July 19, 2008, 05:33:34 AM
-
Sometimes characters have to manuever using one of their stat bonuses (usually x3) instead of a skill as a bonus to their roll. Since RM is basically a skill-based system and it's built around the concept that with experience and training (levels and ranks) you'll get better and increase your chances of success in doing thing, I don't like very much stat-based manuevers. To me they seem a sort of exception to the norm (like RRs but this is another tale ;)). In addition they're much more difficult to accomplish than normal skill manuevers, since a character will very rarely get a bonus higher than +30.
So I've decided to use skill categories bonuses (without the -15 for no ranks in skill), instead of just stat bonuses, when I cannot come up with a skill for the manuever.
For example:
Feats of Agility: Use Athletic-Gymnastic cat
Consitution: Use Athletic-Endurance
Memory: Either use Self-Control cat or develop a Mnemonic skill (under SC cat)
Reasoning: Science Basic cat
SD: use Self-Control cat
Emphaty: (not very sure, for what kinf of actions you should use Em?)
Intuition: Use Awareness-Senses cat
Presence: Use Influence cat
Quickness: Use Athletic-Gymnastic cat
Strenght: Use Athletic-Brawn cat
What do you think?
-
Havn?t got my books with me, but wouldn?t Empathy be actions involved in reading others (detect lies, see if they are hiding something, how do they feel about X, etc)? I don?t know what could replace it though as I don?t got my books here to look in.
Btw, always wondered about Magicians having Empathy as their prime stat. Brings out weird pictures of these touchy-feely mages which blasts their enemies with bolts of lightning;D
-
What specific situations do you find these sorts of rolls (be it stat or category based) are required?
I suspect that many could be resolved with a specific skill, with characters without the specific skill given the option to instead making a stat based roll (or a Category -15 roll).
Could you give a couple of examples?
-
A couple of examples:
- a character is chained to a wall, trying to break the chains by brute force would be a St manuever (made into a Athletic-Brawn man.)
- a character is trying to remember a detail, that would be a Me man (made into a Self Control or a Mnemonics man.)
I agree that these situations doesn't come up very often during play (I put all Stats just for sake of completness), but still I don't like it when it happens.
-
I feel the same way about 'exceptions' to the rule, or multiple mechanics that don't fit in with the main skill system and philosophy.
The Athletic Brawn maneuver for breaking the chains seems a very good option (better than a stat roll for sure). Another possibility could be an Adrenal Strength roll to break the chains, or to change Weightlifting into another skill like "Strength Focus" (I haven't settled on a name yet) - a skill that deals with lifting, ramming, dragging, shoving strength maneuvers against inanimate objects.
For trying to remember something, I would use Mnemonics (using SD/PR/ME stats).
As an aside, I have changed around many categories and skills (and applicable stats) for my own games, and one of the changes is that not all skills incur a -15 penalty for having no ranks. eg Mnemonics would not incur a -15 penalty, but Longbow would.
-
Arioch,
I do not use skill checks, I only use skills.
MDC
-
Arioch,
I do not use skill checks, I only use skills.
MDC
What skill would you use for the two examples?
-
I would use the two that Arioch used in his examples.
But if I did not have thoes skills in my game I would have to set a default skill to take care of it. I can understand how it might be confusing to players and GM's but if you can set up a chart at the begining of the game it helps.
Another point here is that IMO I bet that not a lot of players, GM, or traingin packages give the right skills for this use. So IMO with a chart you players knnow what skills they have to take to get the benifits they want. Also IMO I would give all players some ranks in thoes skills at the begining of the game. Or have them roll and depending on the roll give them DP to spend only on thoes skills. Another option would be to assign thoes skills by cultuture and a GM maybe modifing it by talents if he feels it is needed. [I play a fairly low powered game compaired to the talents listed in the RMSS book and Talent Law].
I think thoes two ideas will help a lot in any game. And if you get it writen up I deffinatly think that you should submit it to the Guild Companion for publication and help out other players.
Did that help?
MDC
-
I would use the two that Arioch used in his examples.
So you would use the category bonus in lieu of a specific skill then? Did you mean you don't use stat checks but skills instead?
For remembering a detail, would you use mnemonics? And if a character did not have any ranks in mnemonics, would it be a roll at -15?
There is no question that players often want their characters to perform tasks that they have not developed skills in - I don't really see that as a problem. Not all characters can do everything well, even less so at low level.
I alluded above that there are a few ways of dealing with the issue (other than allowing a stat check, or allowing a 'category' roll as detailed by Arioch, as already discussed in this thread):
One widely (though not by me) used option is to reduce the number of skills so that a number of skills can be reduced to one. The 'advantage' is that players get 'caught short' less often as they don't have to be as judicious with their DPs.
Another is to tell players to get ranks in as many skills as possible ("if you spend all of your DPs on weapon skills, don't complain when your character is one dimensional")
My list of possible skills is huge (as many as I can think of without duplication), but as many skills do not incur a -15 penalty for not having developed ranks it becomes a list of things a character can do (to some extent), and can develop if they so wish. The result is that stat rolls tend to not be required, and as characters gain levels there is great scope for diversity and specialisation.
In the main, I think the problem is knowing which skill is the appropriate one for any given task. The more creative the players, the more likely an unusual task will crop up. I use the method of letting players first nominate what they want to do, and then nominate which skill they might like to use to achieve it (and to justify this choice). If I don't think the nominated skill is appropriate I will suggest an alternative (players sometimes suggest the skill in which they have the highest bonus, rather than the one most appropriate). Often it is just a case of breaking down the 'grand plan' into it's component parts - there is no skill called "bring down the evil empire" (well, apart from Battleaxe OB!).
-
This is pretty close to the problem I tried to solve in my discussion on use of stat bonuses, but with a very different solution. In essence, I invented a system of using stat bonuses for pure stat bonus rolls, based on the assumption that a +25 (RM2) bonus should have a very high chance of success and +0 should be intermediate. I invented the term 'stat action' for this kind of thing.
In the past I tried other things, like simply ruling that a character with +10 bonus can do a specific action (like pushing open a heavy door), but lower bonuses cannot. That works fine, but takes away the thrill of a roll of dice ;D
-
Arioch,
I do not use skill checks, I only use skills.
MDC
I try to use skills when it's possible, too, but sometimes I really cannot think which skill to use (expecially after a certain hour when we play late in the evening ;)). So I've ended up using category bonuses.
That's also because using cats you don't have to introduce new skills or change how skills work in the middle of a campaign.
Another point here is that IMO I bet that not a lot of players, GM, or traingin packages give the right skills for this use.
Yes, but probably this is because rules are often not very clear on which skill is used for what, mainly because they're scattered around so many books (SoHK is very useful in this sense).
One widely (though not by me) used option is to reduce the number of skills so that a number of skills can be reduced to one. The 'advantage' is that players get 'caught short' less often as they don't have to be as judicious with their DPs.
Another is to tell players to get ranks in as many skills as possible ("if you spend all of your DPs on weapon skills, don't complain when your character is one dimensional")
I've trimmed down the skill list a little bit (mostly to cut down redundant skills), but I still use most of the skills. The huge number of skills is one of the reasons that make me playing RM! ;)
So, you could say, why don't I just add a new skill for each stat?
Well, firste because I'm mastering an ongoing campaign, and I don't think that my players would be very happy to learn that new very useful skills just popped out. Second because such skills would either become too powerful (being used for too many actions, usually covered by other skills) or too specific.
This is pretty close to the problem I tried to solve in my discussion on use of stat bonuses, but with a very different solution. In essence, I invented a system of using stat bonuses for pure stat bonus rolls, based on the assumption that a +25 (RM2) bonus should have a very high chance of success and +0 should be intermediate. I invented the term 'stat action' for this kind of thing.
I remeber your topic and I think that is a good solution, for RM2. But in this case RMFRP/SS have the (IMHO) advantage of categories, which cover a broader area than skills and can be used in situations where no skill could normally be used. ;)
-
I remeber your topic and I think that is a good solution, for RM2. But in this case RMFRP/SS have the (IMHO) advantage of categories, which cover a broader area than skills and can be used in situations where no skill could normally be used. ;)
That's the thing: I have never really played RMFRP/SS, although I have the core books somewhere in my parents' house on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean :(. My RM group spread to the ends of the world just as we were going to convert from RM2 to RMSS, and lately I have been using RMC. As far as I remember, I liked many of the new things in RMSS, but it may have been difficult to digest for people who are unfamiliar with earlier versions of RM. (then of course you might ask why am I writing comments on the RMFRP/SS forum? ;D)
-
Sometimes characters have to manuever using one of their stat bonuses (usually x3) instead of a skill as a bonus to their roll. Since RM is basically a skill-based system and it's built around the concept that with experience and training (levels and ranks) you'll get better and increase your chances of success in doing thing, I don't like very much stat-based manuevers. To me they seem a sort of exception to the norm (like RRs but this is another tale ;)). In addition they're much more difficult to accomplish than normal skill manuevers, since a character will very rarely get a bonus higher than +30.
So I've decided to use skill categories bonuses (without the -15 for no ranks in skill), instead of just stat bonuses, when I cannot come up with a skill for the manuever.
For example:
Feats of Agility: Use Athletic-Gymnastic cat
Consitution: Use Athletic-Endurance
Memory: Either use Self-Control cat or develop a Mnemonic skill (under SC cat)
Reasoning: Science Basic cat
SD: use Self-Control cat
Emphaty: (not very sure, for what kinf of actions you should use Em?)
Intuition: Use Awareness-Senses cat
Presence: Use Influence cat
Quickness: Use Athletic-Gymnastic cat
Strenght: Use Athletic-Brawn cat
What do you think?
It's more or less exactly how I do it.
If the player doesn't have a suitable skill then they use the default skill category. I however do penalise those without any ranks in the category.
It is very rare for a character NOT to have ranks in most the basic categories... though ones like Self Control it's not an expensive category or one that would be regularly used.
-
You know reading this thread makes me think that RM2 and RMSS appeal to people with completely different world visions.
-
You know reading this thread makes me think that RM2 and RMSS appeal to people with completely different world visions.
Please elaborate - or should this be a different thread?
-
Probably should be a different thread. It just seems to me that if you have trouble thinking of a skill that relates to a problem, it suggests that it isn't the sort of activity where skill (something you learn through practice and study) is relevant. Since strength by RM definition is "the ability to use existing muscles to the greatest advantage", what does athletic-braun skill actually mean?
Fundamentally, I'm guessing players who prefer the older system philosophically don't think skills need to cover all conceivable situations.
Sorry to derail the thread, but you asked.
-
Arioch,
I think instead of the categories you lised I would use a basic athletic games roll for the physical skill situations. I would also use a chart as I said that I as the GM made before the campaign to give the players better info.
I also go threw and remove some skills so my players know beforhand whats going on. I do agree that it can be tough with all the skills spread out over numerous books to get a complete picture. I have made a spreed sheet with all the skills as well as some other info that I use.
The reason why I do not use stat checks is a long time ago I remember reading something about RMSS that said thier are no stat rolls in RMSS. IMO that is great be cause just because you have a great stat bonus does not mean you can do most or every occurance in the stat well. Example just because I have a good agility does not mean I can play computer games well or throw ball through a hoop etc.
I can see the advantage of players nominating the skill to use for an action and IMO that can be very good. Also a GM has to make a judgment call on each skill in each occurance about what the difficulty would be. Example can biology be used instead of first aid to stop bleeding? or other such actions. For the Bio skill stoping bleeding may be a hard maneuver and for first aid it would be and easy maneuver. The other way to do this would be to say that all maneuvers to stop bleeding are easy but you a sliding modifier for what skill is used of -100 to 0.
MDC
-
I actually think this thread has been very illuminating.
My conclusions so far are something like this: the next version of RM should either focus on being a complete set of rules for using skills in ALL situations (either skill categories or pure skills), OR it should have fewer skills, but introduce some way of rolling against stats that works better than just using your stat bonus and rolling to reach values above 100.
The more purely skill-based version of things may actually be easier in some ways, since RM has already been developed pretty much as a skill-based system (however, it would make my wonderful stat-action tables redundant :-[). The skills should then cover basic moving maneuvers and, yes Arioch, Empathy-based skills (trust me, they can be useful for figuring out what's on people's mind, or together with Presence, to seduce someone).
-
Sorry to derail the thread, but you asked.
No problem, seems compatible with the topic to me. ;)
It just seems to me that if you have trouble thinking of a skill that relates to a problem, it suggests that it isn't the sort of activity where skill (something you learn through practice and study) is relevant. Since strength by RM definition is "the ability to use existing muscles to the greatest advantage", what does athletic-braun skill actually mean?
Fundamentally, I'm guessing players who prefer the older system philosophically don't think skills need to cover all conceivable situations.
IMHO that's a problem of "coherence" within the system. I prefer having a system where you use more or less the same mechanic for everything. Normally in RM you use just one mechanic: 1d100+skill bonus -penalties.
There are just two exceptions: RRs and Stat Maneuvers.
I strongly dislike RRs but I cannot remove them without adding new skills and changing a lot of things, so I've left them as they are and hope that in a future version of RM we'll see a good alternative to them.
OTOH Stat Manuevers are easy to replace. As you said skills don't need to cover all conceivable situations, but skill categories are IMHO broad enough to cover all of them.
-
Sorry to derail the thread, but you asked.
Lively discussion and differing views are always welcome.
what does athletic-braun skill actually mean?
We are certainly not discussing a perfect system, but I think it has many good aspects. I like the idea of organising skills into categories as an extension of the similar skill concept, but unfortunately, the categories don't always work that way (skills in Athletic Brawn are pretty similar, but skills in Tech Trade General often seem to have only their 'not fitting in elsewhere' as a similarity). The other problem is the possibility of developing ranks in the category, as opposed to developing skills which then give a bonus to the category.
strength by RM definition is "the ability to use existing muscles to the greatest advantage"
I think that the logical conclusion of that statement is that there should be no skills that relate to strength at all as the stat already gives "the greatest advantage" (possibly no skills at all if the other stats are defined in a similar way). Maybe just a mechanic for improving stats over time.
Fundamentally, I'm guessing players who prefer the older system philosophically don't think skills need to cover all conceivable situations.
I suspect we all agree that different people have different capacities for performing different tasks. And, in the case of most tasks, it is possible to improve one's ability to perform a task. The question is how do we simulate those conditions?
Maybe we have a differing view on a kind of "Nature Vs Nurture" debate - if a skill option is not available, characters can't develop and improve on the said skill (nurture), and so must rely on their natural (untrained) ability (nature).
-
Just a few comments.... ;D in no particular order....
1) It may well be that the intention of the skill categories was to remove the need for most stat-based rolls when RM2 was revised into RMSS. The category skills do tend to aid in that respect.
2) Not all of the categories are well suited to this idea, and some categories don't even have bonuses.
3) I can easily see some stat-based rolls that might require 2 or more stats based on its complexity or details (i.e. such as trying to throw another party member high enough for him to grab a window sill -- that would be strength and agility (just as with thrown weapons), but there is no real skill that applies to the thrower).
4) The whole reason for having stat-based rolls is to allow for the players to be able to roll something when a situation comes up for which there is no specific skill (or where an existing skill cannot be adapted/co-opted for use).
5) Using skill categories in place of stat based rolls is nothing more than replacing one roll with another, but the replacement has the benefit of the character's being able to improve through the purchase of skill ranks, so it allows for more experienced characters to be better than lower level character at the same sort of rolls.
6) The problem with using skill categories is that, IIRC, they only get a single stat, not 3x the stat), so this means that they will start off being much weaker than a regular stat-based roll. So, you end up with a different problem than the one you are wanting to solve, but it also
7) Approximately the same thing could be done by giving the characters a +1 to stat rolls for each level that they have, and another +1 per level if the stat is one of their prime stats for their profession.
-
6) The problem with using skill categories is that, IIRC, they only get a single stat, not 3x the stat), so this means that they will start off being much weaker than a regular stat-based roll. So, you end up with a different problem than the one you are wanting to solve, but it also
I think it depends on what option you use. The 'core' rule is generally that each category has 3 stats (with an option for each skill to instead have its own set of stats).
We have had the "Dwarf tossing" situation at some point, I'm just trying to remember how we resolved it - probably an Athletic Brawn Skill modified by the Acrobatics skill of the "Dwarf".
-
okay, so I wasn't recalling correctly... ;D
-
5) Using skill categories in place of stat based rolls is nothing more than replacing one roll with another, but the replacement has the benefit of the character's being able to improve through the purchase of skill ranks, so it allows for more experienced characters to be better than lower level character at the same sort of rolls.
This is the main reason that made me use categories instead of stat rolls.
7) Approximately the same thing could be done by giving the characters a +1 to stat rolls for each level that they have, and another +1 per level if the stat is one of their prime stats for their profession.
Good idea... but this would not remove Stat Manuevers ;D
On a second tought, this would almost as giving free ranks in certain actions. Could be an idea for handling skills/capabilites which are secondary for the scope of a campaign. So you could have a large list of skills, from which GM and players can choose what skills will be important for their campaign. These skills will cost DPs to develop, all other skills/actions will not cost anything (since they will not be used in the game very often or will not have a great impact in it) and all characters will have a bonus of Stat+ x/level in them. A character could still pay a little amount of DPs to have little bonus in a "secondary" skill of his choice (to reflect background/training/etc.).
-
So you could have a large list of skills, from which GM and players can choose what skills will be important for their campaign. These skills will cost DPs to develop, all other skills/actions will not cost anything (since they will not be used in the game very often or will not have a great impact in it) and all characters will have a bonus of Stat+ x/level in them. A character could still pay a little amount of DPs to have little bonus in a "secondary" skill of his choice (to reflect background/training/etc.).
This could perhaps work for a GM who is able to run things with loose guidelines for rules, but I doubt it would work for GMs who need a bit more structure. I think your broad skill category suggestion would work for most people, though. I certainly prefer it to skill rolls based on a stat bonus alone. In some situations, you could perhaps take the average of two skills/skill categories to handle certain situations not fully covered by a single skill/category. If this still does not cover every situation, the GM could use a stat-action formula like the one I suggested, or the simplest solution of all; the GM just rules that, for instance, 'this chain can only be broken by a person with a Strength bonus of +25 (or a person with a huge sledge hammer ;))'
-
Sorry, I am of course talking about +25 according to RMC/RM2. I guess that would mean about +10 in RMSS/FRP.
-
The reason to use categories is to me that profession bonuses and similar will be added into the mix. If you go by pure stat bonus you miss that professions are supposed to be better on certain types of actions.
-
The reason to use categories is to me that profession bonuses and similar will be added into the mix. If you go by pure stat bonus you miss that professions are supposed to be better on certain types of actions.
If you do do it that way I like your logic about the profession bonus.
MDC
-
The reason to use categories is to me that profession bonuses and similar will be added into the mix. If you go by pure stat bonus you miss that professions are supposed to be better on certain types of actions.
Yet another reasons to use them ;D
I was also thinking of linking RRs to categories, but then I changed my mind, as it would change too many things (in the past I've tried to make skills for RRs but I didn't like it very much).
-
I've never liked skills for RRs either. It doesn't make much sense to me that they would be something you can train for. On the other hand, I don't like level based RRs either. For lack of a better system I use the existing mechanic for RRs vs magic but Poison and Disease everyone resists as if Level 5.
-
I've never liked skills for RRs either. It doesn't make much sense to me that they would be something you can train for. On the other hand, I don't like level based RRs either. For lack of a better system I use the existing mechanic for RRs vs magic but Poison and Disease everyone resists as if Level 5.
I agree, I really would like to find a better way of handling RRs ???
BTW for poisons I usually have them having some effect even if the character pass the RR (the more potent the poison is, the worst is the effect). But maybe this is a subject for another topic ;D
-
For poisen and disease RR's I use the PC Con bonus as thier level, I think it works well.
MDC
-
I've never liked skills for RRs either. It doesn't make much sense to me that they would be something you can train for. On the other hand, I don't like level based RRs either. For lack of a better system I use the existing mechanic for RRs vs magic but Poison and Disease everyone resists as if Level 5.
Never thought about this very simple rule. I love it, consider it stolen ;D
-
I've never liked skills for RRs either. It doesn't make much sense to me that they would be something you can train for. On the other hand, I don't like level based RRs either. For lack of a better system I use the existing mechanic for RRs vs magic but Poison and Disease everyone resists as if Level 5.
Vroom, or anyone, what do you use for RRs Vs Influence?
-
Do you mean like Influence skills? I've never really RRs for skills before. If there are two appropriate, conflicting skills in use by both parties then I'd do skill roll vs skill roll. Otherwise I'd just assign a difficulty as normal.
-
Do you mean like Influence skills? I've never really RRs for skills before. If there are two appropriate, conflicting skills in use by both parties then I'd do skill roll vs skill roll. Otherwise I'd just assign a difficulty as normal.
So do I: I just give a standard difficulty or make a Influence check vs Self Control (cat) or an applicable skill (whoever gets the higher result "wins").
-
Yes, I meant influence skills.
What sort of skills would you use as appropriate 'resistance' skills versus duping, interrogation, seduction, public speaking, diplomacy, etc etc?
-
I wouldn't use the RR mechanic for those types of skills. I'm not sure what I would use if I used the RR mechanic for them. When I said skills for RR's I meant the rules that you take skill in "Essence Resistance" for instance in order to raise your level for RR's vs Essence. This idea and variations on it have appeared in the original Companions and also SoHK (I think?)
-
I don't like Skill vs Level RRs for spells, poison etc.
I don't really like Ranks vs Level RRs for influence skills.
I do think different characters should have different levels of resistance, and should (to some extent) be able to develop their level of resistance (either directly, or as a result of development in other related skills).
For poison/disease I can see how RR at 5th level (or based on CO bonus) can work.
For spells and influence (in fact all resistance type circumstances) I would rather have a Skill vs Skill roll than the existing RR system, but I think that will mean adding 'resistance' skills.
The problem is that adding in resistance skills for spells, influence and poison type attacks will affect DPs (either causing a hit in available DPs, or requiring extra DPs to be assigned to cover the new skills - which would tend to result in something similar to level based RRs if the extra DPs are used for the resistance skills).
So my questions are:
How does everyone resolve Influence Skill attacks? (does the defender get some kind of RR or Skill vs Skill roll?)
Do you think that the introduction of resistance skills would work in the way I describe? If not, how? What are the other options?
-
I think that if I was going to use a RR system for social skills I would use the following, SD bonus + either Me bonus or Re bonus + special factors. Or you could use the will stat defined in the TC.
MDC
-
If I were doing skill versus skill for social skills, I'd have the "target" defend with the same social skill being used to try to influence him. When you know all the moves yourself, you can more easily spot when you are being played. Although in some cases, the skill contest would be between two individuals who are both active, in order to see which sways the audience. A public speaking contest of skills to see which speaker wins over the crowd, a test of diplomacy to see which ambassador sways the King of Gildenvesse to support his nation in their dispute, or a seduction contest between two adventurers to see who woos the willing, winsome barmaid's company would all be skill-against-skill even if one didn't adopt that as one's standard model.
-
I like that idea. I think it would work better for some skills more than others. Or should I say some situations more than others.
I'm not completely sure that good liars are also good at spotting a lie, good interrogators good at resisting interrogation etc, but it is a good starting point.
Diplomacy is a great example.
Maybe I'd use Detect Lie Vs Duping
-
In the case of RR verses influence skills I dont use any at all. If successfull the character or NPC influences the target in the manner specified. I have the characters use Lie Detection to see if they are being lied to, success or fail. If someone is lying you generally dont respond to them well, if they are telling the truth you tend to respond favorably unless there is a reason not to ( like leaked information etc). I award role playing bonuses for people who play being influenced by factors in the game well. If they dont and use player knowlage to influence a character decision they are penalized and i tell them so. Its a role playing game of pretend, if you dont play along you ruin the fun. Game mechanics cant replace a good player.
-
Roleplaying definitely plays a big part in dealing with influence skills, but I am interested in the 'game mechanics' side of things.
The main question is: When dealing with unwilling targets of influence maneuvers, how do you reflect, in game terms, the fact that different characters have different levels of resistance (remembering that a player and their character often have different skills and abilities)?
-
I increase the level of difficulty to make a successful influence skill.
Angry, distracted, etc = hard
steadfast against the idea = very hard
Violenty against the idea = sheer folly
In the midst of combat = Absurd
-
I increase the level of difficulty to make a successful influence skill.
Angry, distracted, etc = hard
steadfast against the idea = very hard
Violenty against the idea = sheer folly
In the midst of combat = Absurd
OK, that covers differing circumstances nicely. :)
What about different characters? ??? (one character is stubborn, another is easily led etc) Do you modify the roll using SD or some other stat?
As a general rule, I find that players like to have an opportunity to roll their resistance, in a similar way to say spell resistance or poison resistance. I guess your players are not too fussed when it comes to influence.
(I'm unsure of the best way forward at this stage - hence all the questions)
-
As a general rule, I find that players like to have an opportunity to roll their resistance, in a similar way to say spell resistance or poison resistance. I guess your players are not too fussed when it comes to influence.
True, so while for NPCs I generally just increase maneuver difficulty, I tend to give PCs a chance of resistance, either by having them make an awareness roll or using another appropriate skill. I would really like to have a simple and clear method for handling this in the rules, I think this is an area in which RM is very lacking... and probably the whole skill vs skill thing could be need some fixing.
I also remember that the "influence" question was arised a lot of times in the past, but I don't recall if someone came up with a satisifng answer.
Maybe you'll get more response if you post the question in the general RM area...
-
Personally, I don't dislike the idea of stat based rolls, but I don't like the way the system presents them (3 x Stat bonus). Some time ago, I started a thread (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=4707) on the subject. My conclusion was this :
Another way to get past this problem could be to use the moving maneuver chart and using the result of the roll to generate a final % chance. So our warrior rolls 56, adds his +30 and compares his 86 to the HARD column of the table : 60% Not bad at all. With the same roll, the hobbit would have a 20% chance. Hard. He can still make it, but it'll take a bit of luck to make that roll.
Read the thread for context, but you get the idea.
A more simple way to do it would be to give a +50 bonus to every stat roll. That way, a normal character (0 stat bonus) performing a medium stat roll you have a 50/50 chance of succeeding.
But I like the idea of using skill categories. Nice.