Chess In D&D 3.5

[Bartmanhomer]

What are the rules of playing chess in D&D 3.5? I know chess is a fun and complex game depending on the skill level for each person has. And also chess has been play since medeval times. And I think chess grandmasters are considered epic character depending on the Intelligence ability score plus their Level 21+. I gave it an example my level 1 male drow fighter which I named Patrick is playing chess with a level 1 female drow wizard named Sarah. Patrick Int. score is 12 and Sarah is 20. So chances are Sarah will beat Patrick in a game of chess Intelligence-wise. So what kind of rules when you play chess in D&D 3.5? And how can you handle chess grandmaster in a game of chess at D&D 3.5?

[Thurbane]

I once asked a similar quesiton: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?53483-Playing-chess-ingame

Dragon issue 70 had an article on it, but this was for AD&D 1E.

http://i18.tinypic.com/53jwpsg.gif

[Âmesang]

Considering that there's a "Profession (gambler)" skill (used as a prerequisite for a prestige class), I'd imagine there'd be a "Profession (chess player)" or similar, perhaps less specific variant.

Alternatively one could just have the characters actually play chess. :smalltongue: In comparison to the game "gem snatcher" from the Shackled City Adventure Path.

[Bakkan]

I would make it simply an opposed Profession (chess player) or Profession (strategy gamer) check, but with these skills based on Intelligence, not Wisdom. This way, a more intelligent person has an advantage, but experience and practice (represented by skill ranks) will usually be the deciding factor.

However, this method will probably create an unrealistic amount of randomness in the outcomes. For instance, a character with 4 ranks in Profession (chess player) and Skill Focus (Profession (chess player)) will still lose 22.75% of the time against a character of equal intelligence with no resources devoted to playing chess.

Perhaps a better way would be to make one character roll against a DC of 11+the other character's modifier. This would reduce the chance of the less skilled player winning to 15% in the above scenario, but has the disadvantage of appearing asymmetric (even though it's not).

[Thurbane]

Here's what I proposed at the time (although I really dislike the whole sleight of hand stuff, it just seems ridiculous to me unless you are playing against a 5 year old):


Each player makes an opposed INT check, with the following modifers -

Synergies:

Bluff 5 ranks: +2
Concentration 5 ranks: +2
Intimidate 5 ranks: +2
Knowledge (History) 5 ranks: +2
Profession (Gambling): +2
Profession (Tactician): +2
Sense Motive: +2

========

Bardic knowledge check: a successful DC25 check allows you to recognise a gambit and add +4 to your opposed roll

Profession (Chess Player): add ranks to opposed roll

Sleight of Hand: move a piece illegally, opposed by a Spot check. If successful, add a +4 bonus to your opposed roll. If unsuccessful, you forfeit the game and face any other consequences.

========

Opposed roll difference:

* 20 or more: game lasts 1 minute
* 15-19: game lasts 2d6 minutes
* 10-14: game lasts 4d6 minutes
* 5-9: game lasts 2d6x10 minutes
* 2-4: game lasts 4d6x10 minutes
* 1: game lasts 1d6 hours
* tie: roll again - if a second tie is indicated, the game lasts 1d6 hours and ends in a stalemate. Otherwise game lasts 1d6 hours plus the result of the second roll

[Afgncaap5]

It's an odd note, but I recall the Explorer's Handbook discussing a game called Conquer, which is a game very much like chess. I believe the skill for playing it is specifically listed as Knowledge (History), a skill likely chosen for how it would give exposure to tactical information about military maneuvers and possibly trivial information on certain opening, midgame, and endgame strategies and famous matches. It's not an exact match, but I like it.

Now, whether or not that should actually translate to Chess is up for debate.

[Waazraath]

What are the rules of playing chess in D&D 3.5? I know chess is a fun and complex game depending on the skill level for each person has. And also chess has been play since medeval times. And I think chess grandmasters are considered epic character depending on the Intelligence ability score plus their Level 21+. I gave it an example my level 1 male drow fighter which I named Patrick is playing chess with a level 1 female drow wizard named Sarah. Patrick Int. score is 12 and Sarah is 20. So chances are Sarah will beat Patrick in a game of chess Intelligence-wise. So what kind of rules when you play chess in D&D 3.5? And how can you handle chess grandmaster in a game of chess at D&D 3.5?

The only time my group used it, we made it a ´game within a game´ - that is, we took out a chess board, and the DM played against the rest of the players (fortunately, the DM was quite a bit better than the rest, but being able to play as a group, and discuss possible flaws in strategy and having 'extra eyes' to spot traps, made it a very interesting match up. You need a group that at least knows the rules though (and it works on player knowledge, not character knowledge - but we didn't mind it, to do something like this as an exception).

[Ashtagon]

I'd go for a series opposed checks of Knowledge (strategy games) (or whatever you decide to name the skill). Add support for relevant skills (Bluff, Intimidate, etc.) as they are used. These should NOT be automatic; encourage PCs to role-play a verbal cut & thrust as their characters play the game. Think of the chess matches in TV and film history (eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWBahvjEUps, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4yXBIigZbg)

Any time a player wins the opposed check by 15+, that's an immediate win. If this happens in the first round, you maybe got checkmate in six moves.

Otherwise, each round, the winner takes his check result and adds that number to his running total. The loser takes half his check result (round down) and adds that to his running total.

If one player reaches a running total of 100+, the game ends with a win for him. If both players reach that number in the same round, its a draw.

Each round should by default be considered to take 10 minutes.

[Dravda]

I believe the PHB mentions that in a pure contest where chance plays no factor (like arm-wrestling), the character with the higher modifier will win every time. So in a game of chess, I'd say the higher-Int character (or the one who put points into the skill) will win every single time. Only roll to determine the outcome if both characters have the same skill bonus.

Alternatively, being a great fan of chess, I recommend you just pull out a chessboard and play the game. =p

[Mystral]

What are the rules of playing chess in D&D 3.5? I know chess is a fun and complex game depending on the skill level for each person has. And also chess has been play since medeval times. And I think chess grandmasters are considered epic character depending on the Intelligence ability score plus their Level 21+. I gave it an example my level 1 male drow fighter which I named Patrick is playing chess with a level 1 female drow wizard named Sarah. Patrick Int. score is 12 and Sarah is 20. So chances are Sarah will beat Patrick in a game of chess Intelligence-wise. So what kind of rules when you play chess in D&D 3.5? And how can you handle chess grandmaster in a game of chess at D&D 3.5?

I don't think that a game of chess requires rules, just roleplay it and decide who would win.

In the case of a life and death chess game (like in the first harry potter book), I would suggest a series of intelligence rolls. Whoever wins a lead of 3 rolls on his opponent wins the game. If X rolls are exceeded without someone gaining a clear lead, the game ends in a draw.

Alternatively, if you want to get really immersive, have two chess computer programs play themselves and decide on the ELO of the characters, based on their Intelligence and their roleplaying.

I guess you could also introduce a "knowledge chess/board games" skill.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is the sort of thing that I feel should probably be settled by more than a single roll. Use some variation on the 4E skill challenge rules, for example.

[Kid Jake]

The players in my Pathfinder game organized a chess tournament with the reward being a position as an advisor in their burgeoning government. I just ran it as a best of 3 intelligence check. Seemed to work out alright.

[Segev]

Depending on how much time IRL you want to spend on it, you could go for a simple series of opposed rolls, trying to build up "advantage." Each character starts at 0, and rolls an opposed check. The winner chooses whether to increase his own advantage or reduce his opponent's advantage by the amount by which he won. First character to 30 (or whatever you decide is the winning score) advantage wins. (Reducing your opponent's advantage rather than increasing your own is playing to prolong the game, hoping to prevent him from getting a lucky win. Increasing your own is playing for a quicker victory for yourself.)


Alternatively, for a more immersive but longer time spent on it, play an actual game of chess. Each turn, the characters playing are allowed one relevant roll. Various rolls do different things.

Sense motive vs. bluff: The player whose turn it is can ask for a truthful answer as to what his opponent is trying to maneuver to do, if his sense motive wins.
Opposed intelligence (or relevant gameplaying skill): The player whose turn it is can demand that the other player take back his last move, and make a different one, if he wins the opposed roll.
Sleight of hand vs. perception: The player whose turn it is may, if his sleight of hand beats the opponent's perception, cheat by adding or removing a piece from the board, or by moving any one piece one square. The perception roll gets a bonus of +5 if the change would expose a piece to immediate capture without retaliation.

[Deophaun]

Take out a chess board and play the game. Give the players opposed Int checks to figure out what you are planning. Works best if you actually understand chess, as you can warn them against poor choices. Also, works worst if you actually understand chess, as they're likely to lose against you even with the help. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Works best if you actually understand chess... Also, works worst if you actually understand chess...


https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/puzzle.png

[gorfnab]

I once asked a similar quesiton: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?53483-Playing-chess-ingame

Dragon issue 70 had an article on it, but this was for AD&D 1E.

http://i18.tinypic.com/53jwpsg.gif
Dragon 358 also has a chess article, but it's more of chess pieces as monsters.

[Scorponok]

I play a lot of chess, and can come up with a way you can simulate this without getting too complicated or consuming too much time.

You can think of it as each side has 8 pawns, 4 tertiary pieces (knights and bishops) 2 secondary pieces (2 rooks) 1 primary piece (queen) plus a king.

Pawns are worth 1 pt. each
Bishops and Knights are worth 3 pts. each
Rooks are worth 6 pts. each
Queens are worth 12 pts.

It helps if you have a picture of a chess set in front of you so you can cross off the killed pieces.

You start by make opposing rolls against each other and add INT modifiers or Profession: chess player/strategy game player to the roll (whichever is higher) Beating an opponent by 3 means you kill off his knight/bishop while a roll that beats an opponent by 6 means you kill one of his rooks. Beating an opponent by 12 means you have killed his queen. Any remaining points is the number of pawns of your opponents' you have killed. Example: If both players are at +0 bonus, and I roll a 20, and my opponent rolls a 10, I have beaten him by 10. It means I kill his rook (6 pts.) and a knight/bishop (3 pts.) and 1 pawn (1 pt.) You must kill his pieces in order of points from highest to lowest. I cannot choose which pieces to kill. If an opponent runs out of pawns, the point totals go towards the checkmate roll, (see below) regardless of how many other pieces he still has in play at the time. If at any time, you beat your opponent by 20 or more, you checkmate him.

Once all of a player's pieces are gone, the player who has some pieces left can now start to make checkmate rolls. He must accumulate a total of 10 points against the opposing king to checkmate him.

The player who is left alone with his king (and not even a single pawn) must now make survival rolls. If he beats his opponent by 20 or more at this point, he stalemates the game. If he beats his opponent by less than that, remove the corresponding enemy pieces until only both kings remain and it becomes a stalemate.

It's not a perfect representation of chess by any means, but this game takes around 3 to 5 minutes to play and lasts between 10 to 12 rounds, so not unreasonable as a game within a game.

[Shpadoinkle]

After a couple minutes of thought, this is probably how I'd handle it: Opposed relevant skill checks. Probably something like 'Profession: Chess Player,' if for some reason they took it.

- If nothing of consequence or note is on the line then I'd just rule that each player is taking 10 on the check- if they're evenly matched I'd probably compare Wisdom modifiers, and if those are ALSO evenly matched then I'd just flip a coin to get it over with.

- If there IS something of consequence on the line, then I'd probably make it a series of opposed rolls (maybe four or five,) with the loser of any given check being given a penalty for the rest of the game, determined by how disparate the checks are, to represent losing pieces, being put into bad positions, not seeing the other player's plan until it's too late to thwart it, etc.

[Thurbane]

Chess is rarely a 100% thing. I've been playing chess on-and-off since I was about 5. When I was about 7, I beat my great-grandfather, who was a state champion in his day.

I'd say I'm a pretty good chess player.

While teaching my fiance to play, one time I made a really stupid move through lack of concentration, which led to her checkmating me (admittedly, prior to that point I had given her a couple of "take-backs" to let her learn the game).

Good players can have an off-day, and beginners can get lucky.

Having said that. I'd be very surprised if I could EVER beat an internationally ranked champion unless they had a crippling bout of influenza accompanied by a migraine...

[Âmesang]

…come to think of it, wouldn't Supra-Intelligent characters be playing that three-tiered Chess-like game from Star Trek? :smalltongue:

X-Treme™ Chess! It's Chess… to the 4th Dimension!

[Tiktakkat]

Take out a chess board and play the game. Give the players opposed Int checks to figure out what you are planning. Works best if you actually understand chess, as you can warn them against poor choices. Also, works worst if you actually understand chess, as they're likely to lose against you even with the help. :smallbiggrin:

Actually . . .

When talking with the author about designing a chess puzzle for a Living Greyhawk adventure, I stressed that it couldn't derail the adventure for people who didn't know chess, and he fully agreed.
A week later, he had the solution:
He took a chess puzzle from a book, and moved one piece.
As a "chess" puzzle, it was completely unsolvable.
The "puzzle" was to find a way to convince the person with the chess set, who really didn't know the game very well anyway, that you could "win", be it by sleight of hand, bluffing about the rules, or some other scheme.

Players loved it.
And there was extra amusement when my friend, who is a good enough chess player to be ranked, realized it was impossible to solve in 15 seconds and said so, much to the shock of the DM running the event for him, but which I had been waiting for.

[atemu1234]

I believe the PHB mentions that in a pure contest where chance plays no factor (like arm-wrestling), the character with the higher modifier will win every time. So in a game of chess, I'd say the higher-Int character (or the one who put points into the skill) will win every single time. Only roll to determine the outcome if both characters have the same skill bonus.

Alternatively, being a great fan of chess, I recommend you just pull out a chessboard and play the game. =p

My only problem with that solution is D&D takes long enough as is, let alone when you throw in another, entirely different, game.

Opposed checks sound more like a good method. Because even a skilled player can lose to a new one, however (highly improbable) it is.