Aux-Ash
2011-04-10, 10:19 AM
In most roleplaying games that I have played non-combat skills usually consist of little more than a single skill check. Rolling once against a situational difficulty with eventual modifiers added to them. Combat on the other hand is usually a lot more involved, as is expected. It is after all usually very complex interactions and movements involved.
Recently however, I've been thinking if one couldn't make non-combat skills a little more involving by making the system of resolving non-combat challanges a little more like how combat is resolved. That is to say including more than a single step and adding some ability to choose which method to solve the challange with.
The idea is not for any specific system but rather a general idea for resolving non-combat systems.
Let's call each challange a "Task" for clarity's sake. A task could be something like climbing a wall, swimming, convincing another person of something, jumping a chasm, searching a room or similar.
Each task, with a few special exceptions, consist of at least two skill check. With a maximum of five or something. If I want to swim across a narrow and calm river, that could be two swim checks. If I succeed "perfectly" on both I swim over very quickly, if I succeed normally I'll cross it in the time I expected. If I fail one it takes longer than expected and if I fail both it takes much longer than expected.
I could however, as a player choose to try to jump across and swim the distance I miss with. Replacing the first swim check with a jump check instead.
If the river is wider and/or there is a strong current on the other hand. The same task would consist of more skill checks. I can still replace the first one with jump and if a friend tosses out a rope to me I could use climb as my last one. But the more checks I'd fail the further away from my intended destination the current will take me and the longer time it takes.
This idea would also make collaboration possible. If me and my friend for instance set out to search a room that would be one task in which we both could roll. If it is 3 checks, then the first person in the room would get two checks to roll and the second one check to roll.
Social interactions would benefit the most from this I think.
If I need to convince a guard to betray his master then that might be a 4-check task. As the player attempting this I could then tailor the conversation in an attempt to be the most effective. I could begin with warming him up diplomatically twice, then make a subtle threat and finish up with the offer of a bribe. If one of my party-members is a big, thuggish and scary character I could let him do the threatening in a much less subtle manner.
If I succeed in all my rolls he'll do it, if I succeed three rolls I have to increase the bribe/ensure his protection, half my rolls then he won't do it but wishes me luck, just a single roll then he'd refuse but probably not report me and if no rolls then I can expect a heightened security.
If I am no good at small talk though, I could change those checks for something else. Like opting for nothing but threats and bribes.
What do you think of this idea? Does it have merit? Is there something I've failed to consider?
Recently however, I've been thinking if one couldn't make non-combat skills a little more involving by making the system of resolving non-combat challanges a little more like how combat is resolved. That is to say including more than a single step and adding some ability to choose which method to solve the challange with.
The idea is not for any specific system but rather a general idea for resolving non-combat systems.
Let's call each challange a "Task" for clarity's sake. A task could be something like climbing a wall, swimming, convincing another person of something, jumping a chasm, searching a room or similar.
Each task, with a few special exceptions, consist of at least two skill check. With a maximum of five or something. If I want to swim across a narrow and calm river, that could be two swim checks. If I succeed "perfectly" on both I swim over very quickly, if I succeed normally I'll cross it in the time I expected. If I fail one it takes longer than expected and if I fail both it takes much longer than expected.
I could however, as a player choose to try to jump across and swim the distance I miss with. Replacing the first swim check with a jump check instead.
If the river is wider and/or there is a strong current on the other hand. The same task would consist of more skill checks. I can still replace the first one with jump and if a friend tosses out a rope to me I could use climb as my last one. But the more checks I'd fail the further away from my intended destination the current will take me and the longer time it takes.
This idea would also make collaboration possible. If me and my friend for instance set out to search a room that would be one task in which we both could roll. If it is 3 checks, then the first person in the room would get two checks to roll and the second one check to roll.
Social interactions would benefit the most from this I think.
If I need to convince a guard to betray his master then that might be a 4-check task. As the player attempting this I could then tailor the conversation in an attempt to be the most effective. I could begin with warming him up diplomatically twice, then make a subtle threat and finish up with the offer of a bribe. If one of my party-members is a big, thuggish and scary character I could let him do the threatening in a much less subtle manner.
If I succeed in all my rolls he'll do it, if I succeed three rolls I have to increase the bribe/ensure his protection, half my rolls then he won't do it but wishes me luck, just a single roll then he'd refuse but probably not report me and if no rolls then I can expect a heightened security.
If I am no good at small talk though, I could change those checks for something else. Like opting for nothing but threats and bribes.
What do you think of this idea? Does it have merit? Is there something I've failed to consider?