Playing chess ingame

[Thurbane]

Quick question: how would you folks resolve a game of chess played ingame in D&D?

We could do it as a real game, with the player vs DM, but that is a test of our skill, not the characters.

Would opposed INT rolls be the way to go? Any skills or feats that would modify this? Any way to resolve how long the game runs?

My basic idea so far is an opposed INT check with situational modifiers of +2 to -2 depending on how experienced the character is with chess. The length of the game is based on the difference in the checks: if it's close, the game will be quite long. If it's a huge difference, the game will be quite short. A difference of 15 or more would be a 5 minute game, while a difference of 1 might run for much lONGER> (The longest real world games was 269 moves, from memory).

This is al relevant as I have a major plotline coming up that depends on the outcome of a chess game.

Thanks, Thurbane.

[Quietus]

Quick question: how would you folks resolve a game of chess played ingame in D&D?

We could do it as a real game, with the player vs DM, but that is a test of our skill, not the characters.

Would opposed INT rolls be the way to go? Any skills or feats that would modify this? Any way to resolve how long the game runs?

My basic idea so far is an opposed INT check with situational modifiers of +2 to -2 depending on how experienced the character is with chess. The length of the game is based on the difference in the checks: if it's close, the game will be quite long. If it's a huge difference, the game will be quite short. A difference of 15 or more would be a 5 minute game, while a difference of 1 might run for much lONGER> (The longest real world games was 269 moves, from memory).

This is al relevant as I have a major plotline coming up that depends on the outcome of a chess game.

Thanks, Thurbane.

I'd say make it a Profession check - wisdom represents forethought, and the best chess players in the world are thinking many, many moves ahead. The game isn't won on tactics alone, but on forethought. Perhaps if a player has ranks in an appropriate Knowledge skill (Tactics or something similar if you have it), or can pass an Int check, give them a bonus on their roll.

[Arang]

If you really want to take it all the way, you could also consider adding Bluff somewhere. I'm not sure if it's the way world championships are won, but it's usually useful to have someone prepare for something else than what you're doing.

[Dhavaer]

I made some rules for in-game chess once; I think it was opposed Int checks. You either made five checks, or made checks until someone had won five, I don't recall. Succeeding on a check gave a bonus to subsequent checks depending on the magnitude of the success, but I don't recall exactly how it was worked out.

[Glyphic]

"Before his game with X, Lasker approaches the tournament director, pleading with him to ask X to refrain from smoking cigars during their game. The tournament director goes to X and requests his compliance and X agrees. The game begins and shortly thereafter X removes a cigar from his pocket and places it on the table. A few minutes go by and then Nimzovich again approaches the tournament director, who notices that the cigar is just sitting on the table and says to Nimzovich: "What's the problem? X is not smoking." Nimzovich: "Yes, but he is threatening to smoke, and any fool knows that the threat is more powerful than the execution""

[Xefas]

Fortunately, I think can beat all my players in chess

However, at one point in a previous campaign, I had someone play a game of chess against an awakened iron golem with 18 intelligence (who, incidentally, ran a pancake house) to determine the price of an item they desperately needed. It was the golem's form of haggling, pretty much. Anyways, to save time, and because I didn't have a chess board handy, I came up with a simple way of doing it without the whole game being decided in one single roll.

First there was a thing like this:
Golem - | - | - | - Tie - | - | - | - Player

And a marker of some kind (like a glass bead or something). The marker starts at Tie, and the two make opposing intelligence checks. Whoever won moved the marker one vertical line towards their own name to represent the game flowing in their favour. Each victory could represent a single defining move, or a demoralization on one side, or maybe one becoming distracted- anything that would have one gaining an advantage. The game ends when the marker lands on someone's name, and that person wins.

I don't know if it's entirely accurate or even a necessary ordeal, but it's how I did it.

[ArmorArmadillo]

It takes too long to play it out IRL; I wouldn't make one Profession check, here's my system for games:
There is a "Lead," which starts at 0 and can go to 3 (Player wins) or -3 (DM wins)

It goes in rounds; each round the player and DM secretly choose and reveal their strategy:
Play/Bet Defensively (Sense Motive) has the advantage over:
Play/Bet Offensively (Profession) has the advantage over:
Feint/Trick (Bluff) has the advantage over Play/Bet Defensively.
Each player rolls a check with the listed skill, and if his strategy has the advantage over his opponent's he gains a +5 bonus. If the player wins, add 1 to the lead, +1 for each 10 by which you beat the DM's roll. If the DM wins, subtract 1, -1 for each 10 by which he beats the player's roll.

In a game where it's possible: you can also try to Cheat.
Roll a Sleight of Hand check opposed by opponent's Spot. If you win, you get a +4 bonus on one of your rolls. If you fail, you get caught and lose. If your opponent suspects you, he gets a +2 bonus on his Spot check.

[PMDM]

Would you believe that the 2ed had a whole page dedicated to this? Anyway, I like a hybrid of game playing and rolls. Every 5 moves or so, each player rolls. Then they play accordingly. A person who rolled poorly wouldn't see certain moves.

[Thurbane]

Would you believe that the 2ed had a whole page dedicated to this? Anyway, I like a hybrid of game playing and rolls. Every 5 moves or so, each player rolls. Then they play accordingly. A person who rolled poorly wouldn't see certain moves.

Did it? I should dig out my 2E DMG then...

[Recursive]

Xefas and the Armadillo said pretty much everything I wanted to suggest for rules mechanics. So just a couple additional notes:

Real chess games, especially between skilled players, often end in draws; you might say that if no winner emerges after a set number of rolls, the game is tied. Or you could ignore this possibility if it detracts from the mood you're trying to set.

I also wouldn't tell the players exactly how you're modeling the game. Just have them make their rolls and describe how well the game is going:

"Just as the old chess master had warned you, the Baron plays a strong opening game. A dozen moves in, neither of you have a material advantage, but he is beginning to edge you out for control over the center of the board. He slides a pawn into place, shoring up the one weak spot you had spotted in his structure, and smirks slightly over steepled hands as he awaits your next move."

can be more fun than

"The Baron has one step of lead on you; two more and he wins."

And if it fits the mood you're setting, be sure to leave plenty of time for trash talk, veiled threats, subtle or unsubtle distractions by allies, and other fun circumstance modifiers to liven up the duel of wits.

[PMDM]

Did it? I should dig out my 2E DMG then...

It's actually the Player's Guide.

[goat]

Intelligence (both), Concentration (player1), Bluff (player2 against 1's concentration roll), Sleight of Hand (player2), Spot (player1), Bluff (player2), Sense Motive (player1), Intimidate (player2), Roll Initiative (everyone in the room).

In that order.

[Thurbane]

looking up my Dragon Magazine Archive CD-rom, found an article called "The Game Within a Game" in issue # 70 that details it quite well.

[Thurbane]

OK, after reading the recommendations here and that article, here's my 3.5 take on chess:

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

[Skjaldbakka]

I would play it out, with the following modification:

Before taking your turn, make an opposed Int check, with above synergies.

If you win (by 5 or more), take two moves, if you tie(within 5), take one move, if you lose(by 5 or more), make no moves.

The game will move fast, and it represents skill, because a more skilled player can set things up without the poorer player noticing. Meanwhile, the added randomness really messes up a skilled (OOC) player, because chess is about thinking several moves ahead- if you don't know how many moves each player will take, it is harder to do.

[MrNexx]

I don't know if it's entirely accurate or even a necessary ordeal, but it's how I did it.

I like this; its a good way to represent such a game. I might, however, have a couple of odd twists to the mechanic. For example, untrained players would use an Intelligence check (since they're trying to logic out what the best move would be), whereas trained characters would use Profession (or the Games skill, from Rokugan), which is based off Wisdom.

[ByeLindgren]

I don't like the idea that the spoony bard could just illegally move a piece against a grandmaster so long as he isn't seen doing it. A good enough player knows the board better than that.

[Draz74]

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

If it were me, I'd whittle this list down a bit. Perhaps just Sense Motive, Concentration, and Knowledge (Tactics) synergies. Plus, in cultures where chess is actually popular (Russia in the real world comes to mind, in some time periods), Gather Information should definitely offer a synergy. (I guess that's kind of the same as your "Profession (Gambling)" skill. Which is also logical, in cultures where chess tends to be played side-by-side with more luck-based games.)

[Kyace]

I don't like the idea that the spoony bard could just illegally move a piece against a grandmaster so long as he isn't seen doing it. A good enough player knows the board better than that.

A grandmaster likely has Profession (Chess Player) maxed. After level 1, the illegal move won't even break them even, just makes it closer. You might even get a dang good bonus to your spot check if you are very alert to the board.

Cheating is +4 to roll if you succeed, automatically losing the chess game if you fail.

[Thurbane]

Perhaps the opponent should receive a circumstance bonus to his Spot depending on his competence as a chess player, from -2 for a complete novice up to +6 for a grandmaster?

Also remember, it's not just about catching a cheat, it's also proving he cheated. Not to mention that all observers would also get spot checks to notice his cheating.

[Paragon Badger]

Personally, to minimize complexity, I'd handle it as opposing checks of (Total Wisdom+Total Intelligence)+1d4 (The Element of luck, which is still there... but not as big as say, a 1d20)

Intelligence for knowing and memorizing the moves that counter certain moves by the opponent, and the moves that get you where you want to be. Wisdom for improvising, 'fail-safe' maneuvres, and forethought.

Whoever gets the higher check, wins.

Besides, isn't it really hard to cheat in Chess against someone who knows the rules? You generally have your eyes on the board the whole time, and should be keeping a close eye on the opponent when he makes his move.

[ByeLindgren]

A grandmaster likely has Profession (Chess Player) maxed. After level 1, the illegal move won't even break them even, just makes it closer. You might even get a dang good bonus to your spot check if you are very alert to the board.

Cheating is +4 to roll if you succeed, automatically losing the chess game if you fail.

My concern was less that the grandmaster might lose; hell, if I was allowed to move pieces wherever I wanted, I'd be able to beat a grandmaster. It's that sleight of hand (to my knowledge) is a test of how skilled the character is at hiding his own actions. The character can't hide what he's changed on the board. I was thinking that, along with a spot check against Mr. Bard's sleight of hand, there should also be a check with a flat DC to notice the moved piece on the board.

[Kyace]

I don't think its so much moving the pieces and the grandmaster not noticing, but rather catching them in the act so you can disqualify them.

"Ref, I just saw X cheat and moved his knight" holds more weight than "Ref, I think X moved his knight illegally."

[MrNexx]

Perhaps Sleight of Hand opposed by either Pro: Chess/Games, or Spot?

[Fualkner Asiniti]

It takes too long to play it out IRL; I wouldn't make one Profession check, here's my system for games:
There is a "Lead," which starts at 0 and can go to 3 (Player wins) or -3 (DM wins)

It goes in rounds; each round the player and DM secretly choose and reveal their strategy:
Play/Bet Defensively (Sense Motive) has the advantage over:
Play/Bet Offensively (Profession) has the advantage over:
Feint/Trick (Bluff) has the advantage over Play/Bet Defensively.
Each player rolls a check with the listed skill, and if his strategy has the advantage over his opponent's he gains a +5 bonus. If the player wins, add 1 to the lead, +1 for each 10 by which you beat the DM's roll. If the DM wins, subtract 1, -1 for each 10 by which he beats the player's roll.

In a game where it's possible: you can also try to Cheat.
Roll a Sleight of Hand check opposed by opponent's Spot. If you win, you get a +4 bonus on one of your rolls. If you fail, you get caught and lose. If your opponent suspects you, he gets a +2 bonus on his Spot check.

Best rules ever. Great idea.

[Deepblue706]

If there's any cheating happening, the cheater would have to make sure to do it right, too. Moving your White Bishop to a Black square will undoubtedly get noticed - especially if you still have your Black Bishop. Those trying to cheat should have a -4 penalty against those with ANY ranks in a Chess skill, because experienced players know HOW pieces can move, and can quite easily make it known how cheated plays are impossible.

But, Chess hardly stands as a skill in D&D. In GURPS, it works fine, because it's low cost and easily grabbed for flavor reasons. In D&D, you're detracting from abilities you depend on, and characters with few skill points (poor Fighter!) will suck at other things if they play chess. Not possible to have played during, say, downtime, after the day's training was finished? If you feel the need to make it a skill, have it cost 1/2 or maybe even 1/4 the skill points per rank.

I'd say opposed rolls should be something simple, like (Int Mod + Wis Mod)/2 + 1d6 + (1d4 for every year of regularly playing the game)

[Matthew]

Would you believe that the 2ed had a whole page dedicated to this? Anyway, I like a hybrid of game playing and rolls. Every 5 moves or so, each player rolls. Then they play accordingly. A person who rolled poorly wouldn't see certain moves.

Did it? I should dig out my 2E DMG then...

It's actually the Player's Guide.

Hmmn, Player's Guide to what? As far as I can see, there is no such page in the 2e Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide. The Gaming Proficiency mentions Chess, but that's about it.

[Hallavast]

I'd say opposed INT checks are the way to go. If one opponent is more experienced at the game than another, give them a circumstance bonus.