Topic: Using skill ranks for passive skill resolution

[pantsorama]

Has anyone ever tried something like this? 

I am interested in a system where the character simply knows basic things assuming they have the training.  Say for example, 5 ranks of the pertinent Region Lore means you know who the King is, where the cities are, where major players are usually found.  For similar skills take away one rank for every -5 penalty.

Conversely, I wonder about restricting certain skills to only those who have training according to the campaign (eg Advanced Math, Engineering, Science skills, etc. in a Traditional Fantasy Setting).

Just trying to reduce rolls, and hand out info to characters who invest in skills without making them do conspicuous rolls.  It is fun to drop a player a note with what they know and they get to tell their team in character as if the character knew this all along.

[jdale]

Languages largely work that way. It's a little more trouble for you up front to decide what information is at how many ranks (or maybe, better, what bonus), but there are some advantages to being able to say "you know these things" rather than the player needing to know to ask to roll.

[rdanhenry]

It's always up the GM to decide if something is challenging enough to need a roll.

[Hurin]

Was going to say use the languages model before JDale beat me to it. Should work fine.

[MisterK]

I do it for most skills. I also use a (very) different scale for those skills, where 1 is basic knowledge, 2 is all-around general knowledge, and 3+ is increased levels of expertise. It's basically a variant of the Gumshoe system for investigation skills.

[RandalThor]

The Shadow World Player's Guide has that for a variety of Lore skills. I believe it can be adapted. In there it goes:

# Ranks = Skill Level Description (Difficulty level they are likely able to deal with, I believe) [I hope there isn't a problem posting this info.]
1-5 = Novice (Routine, Easy)
6-10 = Student (Light, Medium)
11-15 = Scholar (Hard, Very Hard)
16-20 = Expert (Extremely Hard, Sheer Folly)
21+ = Sage (Absurd)

For myself, I prefer:
# Ranks = Skill Level Description
1-5 = Apprentice-level
6-10 = Novice Professional
11 - 20 = Full Professional
21-40 = Expert
41+ = Elite


So, you can use something like this to determine what they might automatically know/be able to do without rolling. Though, for certain difficulty levels (Hard+) I don't think you should ever not roll, by definition they are risky and should carry that risk when performed.

[MisterK]

So, you can use something like this to determine what they might automatically know/be able to do without rolling. Though, for certain difficulty levels (Hard+) I don't think you should ever not roll, by definition they are risky and should carry that risk when performed.

This is completely context-dependent. If you try to pick a lock, for instance, the risk is not in the lock difficulty itself, but in the chance of being discovered (and more accurately, of being discovered while picking it). If there is no chance of being discovered, then it's a fairly boring yes/no proposition and you can avoid a roll - if the character *could* do it, they will be able to.
On the other hand, if there *is* a chance of active consequences, rolling is interesting, but the interpretation of the result is even more interesting. A failure might not be indicative of the lock not being picked. Rather, it might be indicative of someone noticing the picked lock, either while it is being picked, or after it has been picked and the characters have gone through the door (and hopefully closed it behind them). Or an incoming patrol forces them to find a spot to hide, leaving the lock sort of half-picked (and maybe the picks still inside the lock...).
The same logic can safely be applied to most actions that are not actively resisted : if the only consequence is that the intended benefit is not obtained and there is no personal risk, then the yes/no proposition can be resolved without rolling: the character tries their best, and their best is either enough or not. Failure is interesting when it makes the lives of the characters more interesting. An Investigation roll is interesting in what happens in case of failure: does the PC attract attention ? Do they ask too much carelessly and trigger people who don't like busybodies ? Do they draw the attention of the watch ? Of rivals ? They might get the information they seek, but be unable to do anything useful with it because they inadvertently triggered events that cancel its usefulness.

Rolling is not an end in itself. If you don't need the "more interesting" part, then you can safely skip it and use a 'best effort' result.

Of course, if there is active opposition, then all bets are off.

[netbat]

It is fiddly, but you could use something like the SoHK lore knowledge level rules for something like this. For example, you could rule that for any task where the difficulty plus obscurity is less than half the characters knowledge level does not require a roll. It seems like a lot of work, but I guess you could do it.

[tbigness]

I have been using the Language scale for a while now for lores, especially region lores. Most players do not develop these past 1st level any way.

[RandalThor]

So, you can use something like this to determine what they might automatically know/be able to do without rolling. Though, for certain difficulty levels (Hard+) I don't think you should ever not roll, by definition they are risky and should carry that risk when performed.

This is completely context-dependent. If you try to pick a lock, for instance, the risk is not in the lock difficulty itself, but in the chance of being discovered (and more accurately, of being discovered while picking it). If there is no chance of being discovered, then it's a fairly boring yes/no proposition and you can avoid a roll - if the character *could* do it, they will be able to.
On the other hand, if there *is* a chance of active consequences, rolling is interesting, but the interpretation of the result is even more interesting. A failure might not be indicative of the lock not being picked. Rather, it might be indicative of someone noticing the picked lock, either while it is being picked, or after it has been picked and the characters have gone through the door (and hopefully closed it behind them). Or an incoming patrol forces them to find a spot to hide, leaving the lock sort of half-picked (and maybe the picks still inside the lock...).
The same logic can safely be applied to most actions that are not actively resisted : if the only consequence is that the intended benefit is not obtained and there is no personal risk, then the yes/no proposition can be resolved without rolling: the character tries their best, and their best is either enough or not. Failure is interesting when it makes the lives of the characters more interesting. An Investigation roll is interesting in what happens in case of failure: does the PC attract attention ? Do they ask too much carelessly and trigger people who don't like busybodies ? Do they draw the attention of the watch ? Of rivals ? They might get the information they seek, but be unable to do anything useful with it because they inadvertently triggered events that cancel its usefulness.

Rolling is not an end in itself. If you don't need the "more interesting" part, then you can safely skip it and use a 'best effort' result.

Of course, if there is active opposition, then all bets are off.

Just tossing out ideas to the OP, as they asked for.