House Rules, Ideas and the Like

[MacLeod]

Hello everyone!

I am new to BFRPG but I really like what I see. The game is just begging to be hacked!

So I have a few ideas of my own, the prominent and game-changing of which would be Skills and Feats.
Don't get angry yet, these aren't the 3.X- or 4e-styled Skills/Feats but my only lil' attempt at a simple system driven greatly by input of those at the table.

I would like feedback, critical and otherwise...


Skills
Actions not tied to other mechanics in the game are now tied to this Skill system. Skills are linked to a specific Ability Score(s) but may be used with any Ability Score those at the table agree to. Whenever a character attempts to perform an action that falls under the purview of a Skill, he rolls D20 and compares the result to the appropriate Ability Score. If the result is equal to or less than the Ability Score, success is achieved. 1 is always a success while 20 is always a failure.

• Difficulty
  The GM may modify the Ability Score for the duration of the Skill Check, often in increments of +2/-2 based on how difficult he believes the action to be. Difficulty can come from the simple fact that an action requires specific training and anyone attempting guesswork has to be very lucky. For instance, a Fighter attempting to disarm a trap with the Devices Skill would likely require a penalty of a decent value.

• Gaining Skills
  PCs begin with Skill bonuses based on their Race and Class. Additionally, every Level allows the character to gain a +1 on one Skill. Skills that have bonuses applied to them increase the appropriate Ability Score during Skill Checks. Skills may not be increased beyond +5.

• Race Skills
  Each Race begins with certain Skills…
  Dwarf +1 Athletics
  Elf +1 Perceptions
  Halfling +1 Stealth
  Human Choose 1 Skill at +1

• Class Skills
  Each Class begins with certain Skills…
  Cleric +1 Religion Knowledge
  Fighter +1 Martial Arts
  Magic-User +1 Arcane Knowledge
  Thief +1 Acrobatics, +1 Devices, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth. +1 for two more.

• Sample Skill List
  Acrobatics [Dex]
  Arcane Knowledge [Int]
  Athletics [Str, Dex, Con]
  Communicate [Cha]
  Devices [Int]
  First Aid [Wis]
  Lore [Wis]
  Martial Arts [Str, Dex, Con]
  Mercantile [Cha]
  Perceptions [Wis]
  Perform [Cha]
  Religion Knowledge [Int]
  Sleight of Hand [Dex]
  Stealth [Dex]
  Survival [Wis]
  Torture [Str, Dex]

Feats
Feats allow characters to perform special actions that require a high level of ability. These actions provide additional effects to otherwise normal maneuvers. Feats are most often performed in battle. In some cases, the Feat rules override certain 'official rules' such as Charge.
Feats are performed via a Skill Check but more often than not have a penalty applied to the Ability Score. If a Feat Check is failed, the character fails to perform any action for his turn.

• Example Feats
  Feint Thief attempting to fake out an intelligent opponent in order to perform a Backstab; Stealth (Charisma), Difficulty is equal to the difference between the thief's Level and the opponent's HD.
  Gruesome Kill Attempt to horrify opponents upon killing a foe; Torture (Strength) for melee attacks or Torture (Dexterity) for ranged attacks. Success requires each opponent to make a Morale check.
  Multi-Strike Fighter trying to hit more than one enemy with a single sword stroke; Martial Arts (Dexterity), -2 per opponent beyond the first.

[MacLeod]

Not a whole lot of traffic 'round here, eh?

Anyone have any thoughts about the table I posted on Dragonsfoot?

Or, rather... how do you folks handle generating monsters on the fly?

[SmootRK]

There isn't a lot of traffic at really any of the old school forums... even at Dragonsfoot, the traffic is light most of the time.

But, to address your skills mechanic. I don't have much critique of it, as I mostly prefer a background sort of mechanic. Characters do 'skills' based upon an attribute check, or the basic resolution found in the core rules. I allow backgrounds to modify these checks. Thus a Farmer background would have various bonuses when dealing with crops, growth, farmyard animals, etc. I think it encourages more innovative skill attempts than when players simply think "I don't have that skill, so I can't do that".

[MacLeod]

There isn't a lot of traffic at really any of the old school forums... even at Dragonsfoot, the traffic is light most of the time.

So it seems. At least we have friendly folks like you around, though.

I think it encourages more innovative skill attempts than when players simply think "I don't have that skill, so I can't do that".

I agree completely. One of the things that isn't immediately apparent* is that Skill acquisition is only meant to cover adventuring abilities.

* Which is entirely my fault

However, non-adventuring skills like farming and calligraphy aren't usually part of what makes the game dramatic or exciting. Those kinds of actions and events, in my games, are usually up to the whims of the folks at the table. So if a player wants his character to knit a sweater while hanging out in town, generally speaking I allow that PC to craft a sweater if given enough time. No roll, no calculations, just... Yes or no. Likely informed by the character's background. I know that if a situation came up that did require a roll to create the tension/drama that a randomizer is known to hold, I would apply a quick +2 if the character's background made it likely.

In any event... this has been very helpful because I didn't articulate ANY of this in the text.

[Argamae]

Hi MacLeod,

I do feel that immediate itch to establish some sort of skill system in a game that does not have one. So, to a certain extent I go along with you. But with BFRPG... I don't know, but I think I would refrain from doing so. Since it is already some sort of amalgam made from old and new parts of the same progenitor I certainly feel that adding skills, however slightly, would open a gap that will beg to be stuffed with more and more additions which in turn will only widen the gap. However, if certain adventuring "skills" need to be quantified I would turn to level and/or ability checks, modified by circumstance and common sense. Or just set a percentile chance and roll some dice.

There is one problem with this approach, and that is the "collision" with some thieving skills. Foremost amongst them is Move Silently. If you allow some characters ability checks to see if they can stealthily avoid some sort of danger or monster, then how will you quantify the thief's chance of making the check? Does everyone but the thief roll a d20? And what if the thief's chance is still quite low, like 30% on 2nd level? How do you correlate different chances of success?

A possible solution would be to make all possible "adventuring skills" percentile-based. I chose this approach once with D&D "Classic". I gave every character some skills with percentile chances equal to double the governing ability; this amounted to success chances of around 20-30% for starting characters. While this gave certain high DEX characters better Move Silently chances than a beginning thief I felt this was okay, since the thief's skills would no longer be provided by the table according to level but were based on his abilities, too. Then, every additional level, characters could try to improve on their skills, gaining d6 percentiles on every skill if they failed the level-up skill check (lifted almost verbatim from RuneQuest). Thieves received a fixed amount each level to spend on their thieving skills only (30 percentiles, like the optional rule from BFRPG).

But in the end, I don't know, it was just additional book-keeping for diversity's sake. It never felt like part of the overall rules' system, it was "artificial" and "constructed" and shifted away attention from other parts of the game and rules. Much like the skill system introduced with the Gazetteers and later in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I never liked it.

So I'm coming back to what I said earlier. If you absolutely must quantify something, so that players can make a roll, use existing structures: ability checks or just some set percentile number, with a careful eye towards plausibility, common sense and, most important of all, how the player describes his character's actions.

[MacLeod]

So I'm coming back to what I said earlier. If you absolutely must quantify something, so that players can make a roll, use existing structures: ability checks or just some set percentile number, with a careful eye towards plausibility, common sense and, most important of all, how the player describes his character's actions.

Sorry I am replying so late, I didn't figure anyone would bother. :p

Anyways.

The problem is I don't like the existing system. When formatted properly the system I devised is about 3/4 of a page so it can be easily printed and kept at the table for reference (though this isn't likely to be a necessity). This Skill system uses mostly existing numbers thus the only notations required are what skills the character has bonuses for.

Granted, the Feat system adds a layer of complexity... but Feats are meant to encourage colorful and evocative narration. Sure, players can do this stuff without an incentive. However, I'd rather reward their efforts. Plus, I just absolutely love the idea of clever narration becoming a viable strategic option.

[MacLeod]

I was thinking... ... ... Saving Throws are kind of wonky when set next to the skill/feat system I devised.

So I'm going to replace them with Feat checks. Races that receive bonuses against specific types of saving throws will have to be modified a bit but nothing that a few lines of text won't accomplish.

[actingkeith]

I was thinking... ... ... Saving Throws are kind of wonky when set next to the skill/feat system I devised.

...wonky.

The following are my opinions and carry exactly as much weigh as one would expect:

1 When you look at designing a game, basically setting up the laws of the universe your characters will inhabit, you have to have a given point of view, a focus for your efforts... and you have to stick with it.

2 The very first word in the name of this gaming system pretty much sums up the creator's point of view... this is a basic game.

3 Skills/Feats and all the rules and considerations that go with them are not basic. They tend to come from a point of view that seeks to add a touch of realism... that with a bit more complexity we can have a lot more flavor.

4 Based on all that, I feel that Skills/Feats of any kind are not basic and thus don't belong. Yes, they are simple and easy to implement. But they are not basic. Yes, Saving Throws are wonky. They are basic ways of dealing with a world.

5 Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief... Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Illusionist, Druid, Assassin. It doesn't need to be more complex than that.

6 I feel that if you want a game with more realism than BFRPG provides, there are games that fit your bill. The thing that is beautiful about BFRPG is that it is basic. It is wonky. If you want to accomplish something, tell the GM... the GM will tell you to make a roll... basic.

7 Adding complexity defeats the design paradigm.

Thanks for listening.

[SmootRK]

While I prefer a simpler game than the OP is apparently shooting for, I enjoy the fact that BFRPG can be molded to fit anyone's particular taste. Just layer on what you want to add. It is all workable within BFRPG... anything from Oe, 1e, 2e, 3e, and more from other games can easily be added to one's game.

[MacLeod]

Skills/Feats and all the rules and considerations that go with them are not basic. They tend to come from a point of view that seeks to add a touch of realism... that with a bit more complexity we can have a lot more flavor.

Let's just get this straight, bucko, your definition of Basic is different from mine. For a game to achieve a basic level of functionality (to me) it needs to have a resolution system that covers all of the interesting and dramatic moments that can happen in a game. Now, such a resolution system need not be complex. It can be as easy as; roll a dice and compare it to a number, if the result of the die is higher you failed, otherwise you succeed.

I feel that if you want a game with more realism than BFRPG provides, there are games that fit your bill.

So... at this point of your post, I was actually getting kind of mad. Pretty much insulted, actually. I hate realism. It bores me. What I want (which may be different from what you want) is a fantasy game of slaying monsters, grabbing loot and doing cool, cinematic and sometimes heroic things. Not at all realistic. I just also happen to want the mechanics to support it a little better.

In closing... I feel like my house rules exist to encourage a style of play that I enjoy. I want folks to differentiate their fighters by more than pure narrative abstraction and equipment choice. I want folks to come up with cool feats that dramatically shift the flow of a combat scene. And you know what? I think these things should be considered a Basic feature of a game.

While I prefer a simpler game than the OP is apparently shooting for

Is it really that complex...? Or am I just horrible at writing? Seriously, I really feel like I didn't write up a complex mechanic at all. Additionally, I thought that folding the Saving Throws mechanics into the Feat system actually made the game simpler by eliminating a (wonky) mechanic. Plus, unlike the attribute check in the core rules... you don't have a table to look up. The numbers are literally right in front of you unless you keep your character sheet under your chair during play for some reason.

I enjoy the fact that BFRPG can be molded to fit anyone's particular taste. Just layer on what you want to add. It is all workable within BFRPG... anything from Oe, 1e, 2e, 3e, and more from other games can easily be added to one's game.

Agreed. I love games that provide a framework on which I can build things to fit my own style of play.