Interpersonal Interaction Map - Beta concept

    I played my first game of Starfinder a few nights ago.  I don't have any deep thoughts about the system, it pretty much felt like playing Pathfinder again.  But one thing did jump out at me.  The party was trying to negotiate with a gangster and things got very complicated.  I'm a veteran role-player, I've been playing RPGs since I was a kid (which was a very long time ago).  But in the party I was the tank, an Android Soldier with a -1 Charisma mod, a racial penalty to Sense Motive checks, and no skill ranks in any interpersonal skills.  I am just in the party to shoot stuff.  Thus, I was sitting back and listening to the negotiations.  The ones talking were two friends who are new role-players, they've been playing with some of my other friends for a few years now, so they aren't totally green.  While I was listening I was struck by how badly the scene was going.  After a few minutes I had to jump in and try to get things on track so that we could wrap up this side quest and get on to the main story.  But what really struck me was not that my new players were having trouble - no, I was really hit by the fact that the game does not give any help to players about how to handle talking to NPCs.  Really, no game I've ever played does a very good job of helping the players with conversations.
    It's taken a few days, but this morning I woke up with a crazy idea: what if I created a map for talking to people?  I have a rough draft that I'd like to share with everybody in case this is a useful tool for someone out there.

The Interpersonal Interaction Map
    Yeah, the name is a work in progress :)   Here is the image file you can print out:

    I want this to be system-neutral, so I'm going to describe how to use this, but you'll have to customize it to your game.
    We start at the top, there are two sections for Incentives and Obstacles.  An Incentive is a reason for the NPC to do whatever it is the PCs want.  Each incentive is rated from +1 to +5.  A +1 incentive is a small reason to help, while a +5 is a very big/ compelling/ forceful reason to help.  Opposing the incentives are Obstacles, which are rated on the same scale but as negative numbers instead of positive.  Now, it's very possible that an NPC will not have any incentives at the start of the conversation - but almost every conversation should have at least one Obstacle, or else why are we bothering to play this out?
    Incentives and Obstacles combine to create the Co-operation Level.  This is a statement about what the NPC is willing to do for (or to) the PCs.  The edges ("Extreme Opposition" and "Total Support") mean that the NPC is willing to engage in behavior with significant risk to themselves for or against the party.  That may mean risking jail or death to help or stop the party (so a fight could break out at that level).  Moving a step inside, the "Active Hindrance" and "Willing Aid" means the NPC will take action for or against the party, but only if there is relatively little risk to themselves.  "Passive Resistance" means the NPC will not help at all, and will attempt to flee the PCs or call for help if possible/ necessary.  "Secret Assistance" means the NPC will help, but only in a way that will not draw attention to them - this could be a tip, or a pointer to someone else to talk to.
    What Co-operation Level the party needs and where they start is something the GM needs to think about when setting up the encounter, of course.

    The NPCs do not start at the level the PCs want, if they did there wouldn't be a need to play this out, so how do the PCs change the Co-operation Level?  Well, they use their skills/ role-playing.  That side of things is covered by the bottom half of the map.
    Rapport and Authority represent the NPCs outlook towards the PCs.  This is kind of the "reaction roll" of D&D/ Pathfinder, but I want to break it into two parts and explicitly give it a measurement.  Rapport is personal, how the NPC feels towards the PCs.  Authority is impersonal, how the NPC views the PCs position, reputation, or connections to other people.  Both are measured as positive or negative numbers.  The exact values are going to depend on your game system - a +1 in Pathfinder is a trivial bonus, it's a little more useful in D&D 5th ed, but it's a big deal in Fate.  So exactly how to measure this you'll need to work out for your rules.
    These can be negative, if the PCs are elves and the NPC hates elves, then Rapport could be a -3.  Likewise if the PCs are police officers, usually that would be a bonus to Authority, but it may be a penalty to some criminals (or 20-year-olds with laptops and authority issues, to quote Nate Ford).  The scores for Rapport and Authority are combined, and they are a modifier to the PCs rolls (or weighed by the GM in diceless or skill-less systems).
    Finally we have the NPC themselves.  While the Incentives and Obstacles talk about the NPC's motivations, weather they want to help or not, the final section of the map talks about the NPC's personality.  There are 6 broad action types, which you should be able to map to your skill system (if you have one), and the PCs need to choose one to roll/ use to change the NPCs mind.  This can take 4 forms.  The PCs can...

• Try to create or increase an Incentive - making a new Incentive should be harder (higher DC), either way you add one point to an Incentive (max is still 5).
• Try to decrease an Obstacle - this removes a point from an Obstacle (min is zero of course).
• Increase Rapport - this adds to Rapport, by an amount that will vary depending on your system.
• Increase Authority - as with Rapport above.

Of course, the PCs need to describe a logical way they can do one of these actions.  Then, they need to choose one of the 6 methods of interaction...

• Threat/ Intimidate - this does not have to be a direct threat of violence, it can be anything that points out how not co-operating will hurt the NPC physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually or socially.
• Offer/ Entice - with this method the PC is going to offer some reward for co-operation, either directly (like a bribe) or implied (the princess will like you if you save her, and she's rich).
• Prey Upon/ Manipulate - this is an appeal to the NPCs weakness, using an NPCs greed is this method.  The Offer/ Entice is for NPCs who are not signficantly greedy.  This can also be an attempt to prey upon the NPCs fears or sense of duty.
• Reason/ Convince - this is an attempt to calmly and rationally lay out why the NPC should help the PCs.
• Negotiate/ Exchange - while Offer/ Entice is giving something to the NPC, this is a quid-pro-quo exchange (or you scratch my back I'll scratch yours).  It could also be negotiation between other parties (help me and I'll get my friend to help you).
• Flatter/ Promote - this attempts to show how the NPC will be a better person, or be seen as a better person, for helping.

Right now these definitions are works in progress, and the area where I'd appreciate feedback the most.  The idea though is that this method sets the DC or target number for the roll, how hard it's going to be to convince the NPC.  Trying to bribe a loyal and honest guard is pretty hard (even perhaps impossible), but a shady guard might go for it.  A part of the challenge for the players is to assess the NPCs (either through the GM's description or by researching an NPC they know they'll have to interact with) and pick the method that would have the best chance of success.  And then, in skill-based games, the question also becomes how good the players are at those interaction types.
    Also, there may be outside elements that could help a certain method.  For example, if the party has found some blackmail information about the NPC then they should get a bonus to Threat/ Intimidate (or, if they can find a way to give the NPC more of what they want, a bonus to Prey Upon/ Manipulate).
    I would love for the system to track the NPCs future reaction (while a threat may work to elicit co-operation it's going to leave a bad taste in the NPCs mouth and may make a future enemy).  Generally speaking the top row of methods are not going to make the NPC like the PCs much (even giving a bribe just makes you a source of money, not a friend) - while the bottom row is neutral to potentially favorable.  That's up to you about how you want to use any future repercussions or not.

    Finally, along the left side there is a track for the number of failures.  No one wants to talk forever, you only get so many chances to change someone's mind.  I'm currently thinking of tracking that by failures.  As long as the party is succeeding at their rolls I'd figure the conversation is going well.  And giving the group 10 failures is pretty generous - you could say that the NPC is in a bad mood or caught at a bad time and thus starts with 1 or more failures.  Or, you could track it in turns, and give the party a maximum of 10 turns (or fewer) to change the NPCs mind.

Conclusion
    I know this is pretty rough, I have some ideas on how I want to refine the system so you'll see an update to this sooner or later.  This might be way too much detail for some tables, but I think for some groups - in particular new players - having different factors laid out and clear/ easy to see might help them formulate a plan on how to talk to people.  Let me know what you think in the comments below :)

Looking at the 5th Edition SRD - part 11 - Skill Descriptions

    Having looked at how to roll, let's look at when to roll - so what skills does the 5e SRD have?  Although, as the Angry GM pointed out there are not really skill checks, they are attribute checks that can be increased by skill.  There is no "unskilled" concept, that is there are not any activities that the rules say you cannot do without proficiency.  So you can do open heart surgery without being proficient in "Medicine".  Another weird thing is that some actions one might think of as being "skill" are instead "tool proficiency" in the rules.  Like crafting - being a blacksmith means being proficient in balcksmith tools.  This is weird, but it does make a kind of sense.  You can't forge metal without, well, a forge, right?  And while everybody has a voice to sing with, you need a harp if you want to play the harp.  So if you don't have the tools (or at least improvised tools) then you can't do the action.  So it isn't as weird on reflection as I first thought (still feels weird though).
    By not having an "unskilled" concept the 5e SRD tries to work for a more "old school" game feel, where any character can do anything the player can make a case to the GM for.  Which is good for players who like that style of play that is more open to negotiation between the players and GM then more "rules heavy" players who use the details in the rules to handle player/GM interactions.  This is a matter of taste, whatever style you prefer is your preference, there is no absolute right or wrong (though it sucks when you and your GM or other players have different preferences).  The rules as written (or RAW in gamer slang) do lean towards that old school play-style though since they do not give very detailed guidelines for what each skill can be used for.
    In fact, let me list what the rules have to say about each skill.  I am going to re-organize the skill list though, the SRD puts each skill with a specific attribute which is stupid.  The easy example is Intimidation, which is under Charisma, but that makes no sense for a high Strength low Charisma Fighter.  Their bulging muscles, heavy armor and weapons and skill at killing do not make them scary at all (insert irony here).  That's an obvious place to add Strength instead of Charisma.  On the other hand, threatening someone with your powerful friends or that you'll cast a curse on them would totally be Charisma.  Likewise a sprint might be Strength, an obstacle course or hurdles Dexterity, and a marathon Constitution - even though all are the same skill of running/ athletics.  So for the list below I'm going to put the skill under the action categories I've been using (though not for a while now).  Also, I'm going to bullet point what each skill is good for, because frankly the SRD wastes a lot of words when describing the skills.  So let's look at the skill and what the SRD says to use them for...

Exploring

Athlethics

• climbing
• jumping
• swimming

Acrobatics

• keep your balance
• dive, tumble, roll or flip

Stealth

• hide from soneone
• move without being noticed
• (hiding does have a detailed breakdown in a sidebar)

Animal Handling

• calm an animal
• maneuver a mount
• intuit animal's intentions

Perception

• spot, hear or otherwise notice something in the environment

Survival

• hunt
• guide/ navigate
• predict weather
• avoid hazards

Investigating

Arcana

• identify spells
• identify magic items
• knowledge about the planes

History

• past events, people and civilizations

Investigation

• look around for clues and make deductions from clues

Nature

• terrain
• plants and animals
• weather

Religion

• dieties
• religious hierarchies
• secret cults

Manipulating

Sleight of Hand

• planting or lifting an object on/from another person
• concealing an item on your person

Medicine

• stabilize a dying companion
• diagnose an illness
• (I find it a little odd that healing is not mentioned at all)

Talking

Insight

• determine the true intentions of a creature

Deception

• hide the truth from another

Intimidation

• influence another's actions through threats/violence

Performance

• "delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling or some other form of entertainment"

Persuasion

• influence with "tact, social graces, or good nature"

Fighting
There are no skills for fighting, exactly, rather you have the weapon proficiencies and such that are scattered throughout the rules


    Okay, I'm not listing the full descriptions here, but if you read them please tell me if you think they suck.  I really don't like the way the SRD describes the skills at all.  There are no examples of actions that might be more difficult - that whole Easy, Medium and Hard DC chart that opened this section of the rules - which is the kind of thing that a more "rules heavy" table could use, and the descriptions get overly specific for what a "rules light" table needs.  I think in trying to accommodate both play styles they ended up being useful to neither.  And the tools/ tool proficiency do not really have any descriptions.  If you have a Herbalism Kit it is used when you "identify or apply herbs."  Wow, how helpful.  So if I want to heal someone by using herbs, how many HP can I heal?  Doesn't say.  If I want to remove a condition like exhausted by giving someone an all-natural Red Bull, can I and what's the DC?  Again, there is nothing there for "rules heavy" play, and even "rules light" GMs don't have a lot of guidance (for example, should herbs be allowed to remove conditions at all? should herbal and magical healing stack? that's a more rules light guidance on "should you let your players do this or will it screw up the game" the designers could point out).
    Also, a pet peeve, tool proficiencies are basically skills and weapons/ armor proficiency are basically skills, but they are not listed with the skills - instead the same basic concept is scattered in different locations.  I like more structure in the rules layout, listing and describing similar things in the same place.  Makes it easier to find a rule you forget at the table if you know everything skill-like is in the same chapter (and the fact that the pdf does not have a table of contents really, really, pisses me off).

    So, looking at skills overall - need a breakdown by DC levels, I think it would be good to have examples of how each attribute could be used with each skill (which might inspire "rules light" players in how to think in each skill in different ways too), put tools with skills (or just make them a kind of sub-set of skills) and fold in the weapons and armor since they are basically the same thing (or should be at least).  Some things I would change in the existing system.  As is, this is better than nothing, but more skilled and experienced players and GMs who like the "rules light" style will get the most from this I think.  18 skills is at least better than the 30+ of the 3.5 SRD, I do like the more focused skill list.  There is fairly good coverage.  Using skills at the table though, in particular for mysteries and NPC interactions seems like a problem since there is no guidance on the roll dice vs role-play minefield.  Off the cuff I think the skill system mostly sucks, but this was just a first look - next week I'm going to keep poking around the skills and how you'd use them at the table, along with some other checks.

Looking at the 5th Edition SRD - part 10 - One Roll To Rule Them All

You can find links to the previous articles here.

    One of the things I like about the 5e SRD is how it's pretty simple mechanically.  There is one core mechanic for most rolls, which is easy to remember, and it has enough depth (I feel) that you can adjust it to the ever-changing circumstances (and player ingenuity).  There are 4 parts to a check:

⦁    The d20 Roll
⦁    Attribute Modifier
⦁    Proficiency Bonus
⦁    Other Modifiers


The d20 Roll
    All checks use a d20 roll, but there are 3 ways you could roll the dice.  A normal roll is just 1d20 and take the result.  If you have Advantage then you roll 2d20 and take the best.  If you have Disadvantage you roll 2d20 and take the worst.  Pretty simple to remember, but does it really matter?  Well, let's turn to our friend, AnyDice.com, and see...

    So Advantage basically doubles your odds of getting a 20 and drops the odds of a 1 to "very rarely."  Disadvantage works the same in reverse.  So it's a pretty hefty change in the odds.  In combat a 1 is an automatic miss and a 20 an automatic hit, so it can really matter then.  Some GMs I've known have done the same with skill checks, or given some bonus on a 20 and penalty on a 1, but that's a house rule.
    While some abilities give Advantage (can't think of any that impose Disadvantage off the top of my head) what I like about it is using it as a GM tool.  Offering Advantage can be a nice way to reward a player for clever thinking, or to tempt a player into doing something stupid.  It's important to convey to the players that this is a pretty significant bonus/ penalty (something I don't think the SRD does a good job of) though.  Even a poor character, with low stats or no proficiency bonus, has a moderate chance of success if they can gain Advantage - which is something the players need to know to encourage them to think of how to generate Adv when they have to roll something they are bad at.
    According to the rules any number of Adv and Dis cancel each other out.  So if 3 different things gave you Dis and 1 thing gave you Adv, then you would roll normally.  I'm not so fond of this.  Given how little there is to mechanically effect a roll, I'm okay with having the players try to stack up bonuses to overcome penalties.  That gets kinda meta-gamey, but it also works from a role-playing sense, and I think it can encourage the players to get creative and figure out how to turn a negative situation into a positive one, or can be fun when the GM turns a positive situation into a negative one :)


Attribute Modifiers
    Every roll adds one attribute modifier (subtracting if it's a negative modifier of course, adding a negative number is the same as subtraction after all) (honestly though, I've seen few negative mods overall).  The SRD usually lists an attribute, but you could use any if common sense says a different one would be more appropriate.
    The highest you could start with is a score of 20, for a +5 modifier (if I remember right).  The highest the attribute table goes up to is 30, for a +10 modifier.


Proficiency Bonus
    Depending on what you're doing, you might also add your proficiency bonus from a skill, tool or saving throw.  The SRD lists which skills go with which attributes, which is just stupid and should be ignored.  Use whatever skill and attribute combination that makes sense, the game is too unpredictable to hard-code these things.  The proficiency bonus is fixed to the character's level, though a few abilities will increase it (usually by 150%), it starts at +2 at 1st level and goes up to +6 at 17th level (which still baffles me that it doesn't hit the highest at 20th level, the pinnacle of your development).
    These compare fairly evenly to the ability modifiers.  Most players will have at least a +2 at their key attributes, and while the +5 is the highest possible starting modifier, it's fairly unlikely.  A +2 or +3 would be the most common, +4 for that focused character (or lucky roller).  So the odds of success between someone with good attributes and poor attributes is usually about a 10-15% difference.  It takes a change of both attributes and proficiency to swing the odds by 20-40%.  This is a big change from previous editions and some other games.  The fairly flat math of the 5e SRD means that every character has a decent chance at any activity, generally speaking.  It would be pretty rare to have no chance of success, especially when you add in the possibility for your GM to give you Advantage from a clever idea.  Players again need to know this, and possibly be encouraged to roll on something they might see as outside their specialty.


Other Modifiers
    The SRD does not explicitly say this (at least that I can remember), but it's not unreasonable to think that a GM might want to award a smaller modifier than Adv/Dis, something like a +/-2.  That's only about a 10% shift, enough to add up, but not a big deal.  Kind of a consolation prize, but it's still something.
    Along with this, I don't remember the SRD addressing it, but it's only logical to say that some things will be automatic success or failure.  That's an important thing for everybody to keep in mind.  The rules are meant to encourage creating a logical and consistent world, but they are not, and cannot be, perfect and cover every situation.  There will be times when the GM has to step in and say something just logically can't be done, or logically will work.  It's also very, very important that the GM make this clear to the players.  If the players come up with a really clever or amazing idea, let them win.  Don't drag out the dice, just narrate how their awesomeness saves the day and give them all a pat on the head.  That's not something you always want to do, but if you keep your eyes open you'll find those moments when the players need to be rewarded for working (and thinking) hard.  Likewise, whatever the rules might say there will be times when something just should not be possible to roll, and make sure you tell the players that before they commit to a course of action.


The Check
    Okay, having gone over the general outline of how to roll, let's break it down and start looking at the probabilities.  Again, with the help of AnyDice.com I've got the odds of success for each of the 6 difficulties in the SRD, with Adv and Dis, from a +0 to a +16...

    Okay, looking at the table what strikes me?  Overall I like it.  I think you get a good spread of results, Adv and Dis make a nice difference, I think it's a pretty good system overall.  I'm not sure about the Easy DC, granted it would only come into effect at the lowest levels but it kind of seems like if something was this easy you should just go ahead and say the character succeeds.  It's interesting that Adv/Dis has the biggest impact in the middle.  If you had a 5% chance of success Adv would make that 10% (which may be double in absolute terms, but still sucks), but if you had a 45% Adv would make it 70% (going from 'iffy' to 'reliable').
    From a beginning character standpoint, let's look at 3 lines: the +0 for someone with no proficiency and no attribute mod, +2 for only one of those, and +4 for both...

Modifier    Very Easy (5)        Easy(10)    Medium(15)        Hard(20)
+0               64 80 96                30 55 80      9 30 51              1 5 10
+2               81 90 99                42 65 88      16 40 64            2 15 28
+4               Win Win Win        56 75 94      25 50 75            6 25 44

So having both, with the +4 modifier (or the max starting attribute mod), is a pretty good edge on the others.  You auto-succeed at the Very Easy challenges, you've got a 75% on Easy and a 50% on Medium.  Get Adv on either of those and they get pretty reliable.  Your 25% on a Hard sucks, but might still be enough to risk.  Given that's a character with an above-average attribute and is proficient, those seem like the odds you'd expect.  The character with a +2, only proficiency or a 14-15 attribute, is not as good but still not bad.  With the 90% chance of a Very Easy I'd just let the player have it as a GM (unless there was a really, really bad potential consequence for failure).  The 65% chance of an Easy is not great, so getting Adv is pretty important.  The 40-65% on a Medium are not great at all, but worth risking if the stakes are fairly low.  At a +0 modifier it's even more critical to get Advantage, getting 80% for Easy makes it pretty reliable and even the 51% Medium is again worth trying if the stakes are fairly low.  For the +0 and the +2 you wouldn't want to think about a Hard challenge unless you can get Advantage and the stakes were low.


Overview
    Looking at the system, it does a good job and is simple to use.  Instead of chasing a million modifiers getting Advantage, or avoiding Disadvantage, becomes the focus of a challenge.  That does nicely reduce a challenge to the one or two most important elements.  And while the overall spread is pretty narrow, given that a +16 is the highest you could get at level 20 (or, 17 actually).  In the 3.5 SRD/ Pathfinder a +40 modifier is not impossible, or even that hard, at 20th level.  So I like the simpler but not simplistic system.  So to speak :)  Actually, after laying out all the numbers I like the resolution system even more than my first impression.  This is a good mechanic, IMHO, and one I can build on.  The only thing I think is missing at all is a discussion of risk.  Saying how hard something is an important step, but the even more important question is what's at stake?  If it's a matter of life and death, like a save or die effect, then a 25% chance is not something you want to take.  But if it's a wager of a few copper pieces, or a few hit points out of hundreds, then 25% is not a big deal.  No game that I know of really talks about risk though, it is a hard thing to codify given all the variables, but it's still a key part of considering a course of action.
    Another thing the SRD does not address is hidden vs explicit target numbers.  I'd say the general advise I've heard is to hide the numbers a player needs, but I'm actually not a big fan of that overall.  I think it's a good thing for players to know what they need, it lets them make intelligent decisions, and my compromise for unpredictability is that I'll usually hide the DC for the first attempt, and then say what they need.  So the first swing is blind, but after that roll (hit or miss) I'll just give out the enemy's AC.  On other attempts I'll give a ballpark, like "you think it'll be a 10 or 15" since the character should be able to assess the situation to some degree that I can't communicate as well to the player.  Same thing with hit points, I'll say "it looks like the enemy is down to half their HP" during a fight.  Or, "you think 1 or 2 more attacks will finish them."  I want the players to know the odds, so that if they see they have really bad odds they can stop and think about how to change the situation.  Which is what I love about the Adv/Dis mechanic.  Getting Adv can turn bad odds into decent ones, in a lot of cases, and I'll gladly give Adv to a player who can think creatively.  That gives me some narrative flexibility, and anybody can get Adv on anything with a good enough reason, so that gives the players something they can mostly measure and is always an option (not necessarily easy or cheap, but there).
    While the strange progression of the proficiency table looks weird to me, I have to admit that overall I think the system hangs together pretty well.  I also think it would greatly benefit every player to look at these tables and get a feel for the odds.  Knowing when the odds are in your favor and you should charge ahead, or when things are going against you and you need a new plan, can be critical to survival.

    Okay, we've taken a pretty good look at a lot of the 5e SRD so far.  I'm not sure what I want to look at next, but we'll continue our journey through the rules next week.
   

Limiting Results To Represent Experience

    In most games a character's growing experience and skill are presented by an increasing modifier.  So in the 5e SRD I've been looking at there is the "proficiency bonus" that starts at +2 for a beginning level 1 character and goes to +6 for the supreme level 20 character.  In addition the 5e SRD, like many other games, adds a die roll to represent uncertainty and randomness to that modifier.  In this case it's the d20.  This is a pretty common system, though the size of the dice and modifiers varies.
    But I had a thought- what if instead of adding a modifier for experience/ skill we just changed the dice?
    The idea came from another thought.  I believe that one of the key differences between the amateur and the professional is reliability.  An amateur is unpredictable, they may perform wonderfully one day and terribly the next.  By contrast the master is consistent, they regularly perform at a high level.  They may have bad days, like anybody, but they will not swing as wildly as the beginner.  This can be represented easily in dice.  A single d20 is wild, it has the same odds (5%) of rolling a 1 as it does of rolling a 20.  Add in dice however, make it 2d10, and things change.  With 2d10 you lose the lowest result, the 1.  But at the new extremes, 2 and 20, you only have a 1% chance of rolling either.  But in the middle, at 11, you have a 5% chance of rolling that on a d20 but a 10% chance on 2d10.  This can be easily seen at the great website Anydice...

    So by changing from 1d20 to 2d10 for being "skilled" (let's call it) we've changed the odds quite a bit.  Our less skilled character has a 10% chance of rolling a 1 or 2, while the more skilled as a 1% chance of rolling a 2 and can't roll a 1.  So the more skilled has less critical failure than the less skilled.  That works.  On the opposite end, the less skilled has a 10% chance of rolling a 19 or 20, while the more skilled has a 3% chance - whoa, wait a minute, the more skilled has less opportunity for critical success?  That doesn't seem right.  Well, okay, but let's look at overall success.  The less skilled has a 50% chance of rolling an 11+, while the more skilled has a 55% chance.  So while they get fewer critical successes, they also get fewer critical failures and a slightly better overall chance of success.

    Those results are not terrible, but also not great, just changing the dice doesn't really give the kind of results I'd had in mind.  But then something else came to me: what if we changed the dice a lot?  Let's say we had 6 different skill levels: d20, d12+8, d10+10, d8+12, d6+14 and d4+16.  That's a lot, likely more than we'd want to use, but it gives us a good spread to choose from and just uses the typical RPG dice.  Let's compare these rolls to target numbers.  Let's see the odds of success for each against a DC: 10, 15 and 20...

d20:        55%  30%  5%
d12+8:    92%  50%  8%
d10+10:  100%  60%  10%
d8+12:   100%  75%  13%
d6+14:   100%  100%  17%
d4+16 :  100%  100%  25%

    There are a couple of things I like about this system, and a concern.  the biggest concern is working with only a few target numbers, like I did above.  I think for something like this I'd use more and closer target numbers like 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20.  Which would give:

d20:       45%  35%  25%  15%  5%
d12+8:  75%  58%  42%  25%  8%
d10+10:  90%  70%  50%  30%  10%
d8+12:  100%  88%  63%  38%  13%
d6+14:  100%  100%  83%  50%  17%
d4+16:  100%  100%  100%  75%  25%

    The extra granularity would help I believe.  I do like how higher levels of skill remove the possibility of lower results, in a way.  The idea that a master will never fumble or do something requiring a low roll has a good feeling of accomplishment, even though it eliminates some dramatic possibilities.
    Another thing that I think would be good about this system is modifiers.  Since the different dice create different possibilities I don't think you'd need many modifiers, and the ones you used would have a different effect.  With a +1 modifier the numbers would change like this (a partial table for brevity's sake):

unskilled- d20+1:  50%  40%  30%  20%  10%  (+5% to each)
medium skill- d10+11:  100%  80%  60%  40%  20%  (+10% to each)
high skill- d6+15:  100%  100%  100%  67%  33%  (+17% to each)

    So as you can see modifiers become more important at higher levels, which has the right feel to me.  I think the more skilled should have more draws, that every little thing should be more vital.  This also means that the +1 sword you got at first level (when you were unskilled) is literally 3 times more useful at 20th level, so again you can keep the modifiers down and make your equipment more valuable.  That will hopefully encourage players to hang on to their early items and grow with them instead of discarding them for some new shiny.

    I'm not sure if this is a worthwhile at all, but I think it has potential.

Perception is not a skill

    Why this came to mind yesterday I do not know (well, kinda - it's a little related to another project I'm working on).  This comes from my own real-life experiences, so let me tell you a story...

    Many, many years ago I had an old Pontiac Sunbird.  It was used when I got it, and it had been very extensively used.  Still, it worked overall.  Until the day in question - when I was driving down the freeway, in the middle of the desert between Arizona on my way to New Mexico.  Everything seemed fine until all the gauges on my dashboard spiked, then dropped.
    So, instead of having a speedometer needle at the 65 mph I was driving (or 70 - I actually almost always drive the speed limit, I'm weird), it was sitting at 0.  My gas gauge, the oil temp, RPM, everything was at 0.

    Here, to drop out of real-life and into a theoretical RPG, my Perception kicked in.  I saw that something had changed.  And I knew it was not something normal or that, in fact, it had ever happened before while I've driven a vehicle.

    The next part, back to IRL, is why this post is being written: I had no idea what that meant!
    Why had my gauges all dropped?  The engine was still running, I was still moving (at a now-unknown speed), everything else seemed to be completely normal.  So what had happened?  And, what should I do?  There was no other traffic, so nobody around me was in danger.  But the thought hit me - if I pull over, will I be able to start again?  I'm several miles away from Santa Fe and the only nearby mechanic(s).  So what happened and what do I do?
    Well, I did make it to civilization - and I did find a mechanic, actually it took two, who was able to inform me that my electrical system had a short, which killed my gauges and my alternator.  It amusingly turned out to be a stupidly-easy fix.

     And that is why perception is not a skill.  Just because you see/ hear/ notice/ discover something means nothing if you can't put it in a useful context.  It's the difference between a signal and communication.  If you're sitting in the library next to me and I shout "AAAAAAHHHHHHaaahhhhhahahahah!!!!!!!!"  I have 'signaled' that there is something abnormal (hopefully) going on.  But I have not communicated anything.  If, instead of the random noise, I shouted, "Oh God help me there's a giant wombat chewing on my leg!!!"  I have now communicated, I have passed on information (granted, strange and difficult to comprehend information).

    Perception is a signal - something has changed in the environment (either an existing thing has altered, or something has been added, or something has been taken away).
    Knowledge, or Skill is communication.  This-kind-of-thing happens on the surface when these-kinds-of-things happen out of sight/ perception-range.

    Ergo: perception is not a skill.