I have considered using a computer and letting the player of the character in question play against a certain difficulty level, but none of us are good at chess, so I can't gauge the difficulty at all, and he wouldn't be able to reflect his character's knowledge of the game.
I considered only describing occasional moves where pieces are taken, and basing my description on a series of opposed intelligence checks. Seemed kinda flat.
Again, I know very little about chess. I know how the pieces move, the relative value of a piece in a given situation, but the knowledge I have is casual at best, and looking info up online is not helping me figure this out.
I thought about somehow incorporating BAB and other skills somehow for different maneuvers, possibly? Say my NPC wanted to bait the PC with a sacrifice and take his knight. Bluff check? My NPC has a negative Cha mod (old man, barely knows who he is anymore, but is a damn good chess player) so I am leery of that route. Anyone got any cool ideas to keep this little role play encounter from stagnating very quickly? It doesn't have to drag on for more than 10-15 minutes in play-time, but I would like for it to simulate at least a couple of hours in game time, maybe even a days long game while the player stays at the tavern.
Perhaps you can do a sort of mind-based combat maneuver where your CMB is your BAB + Int and your CMD is 10 + BAB + Int + Wis.
A successful bluff check could give you a bonus to your CMB.
BAB has nothing to do with chess. What you are looking at would probably be a Professional skill check, maybe gambler. Also the skill Bluff, and Sense Motive do not really fit either. If the characters do not have the skill you could let them use a WIS check at a penalty say maybe -2.
I don't see how BAB is remotely related.
Int, and Bluff/Sense Motive if you have to.
If I were other players, I would prefer it not take up any game time and the win or loss be decided by probability modified by bonuses granted by Int, Bluff, Sense Motive, anything else actually relevant (like not BAB)
I'd go with a combination of opposed Int, Bluff/Sense Motive, and BAB checks.
I'd tend to agree with this except I'd replace BAB with CMB vs. CMD. Since that mechanic is specifically named Combat Maneuver Bonus and Defense, I think it would play well into a person's ability to read the "combat" of a chess board. I think I'd run a range of 3-5 checks under each of the headings, and whichever player won the most of those checks would win the match. I also think using all three mechanics provides a pretty equal playing field, all things considered.
I'd go with a combination of opposed Int, Bluff/Sense Motive, and BAB checks.I'd tend to agree with this except I'd replace BAB with CMB vs. CMD. Since that mechanic is specifically named Combat Maneuver Bonus and Defense, I think it would play well into a person's ability to read the "combat" of a chess board. I think I'd run a range of 3-5 checks under each of the headings, and whichever player won the most of those checks would win the match. I also think using all three mechanics provides a pretty equal playing field, all things considered.
This is my logic with an mind based CMB/CMD.
CMB = BAB + Int
CMD = 10 + BAB + Int + Wis
A successful bluff check adds +2 to your CMB for the round +1 per 5 you beat the DC. Unsuccessful bluffs give a culmulative +2 bonus to the DC.
Perhaps grappling effects could come into play but this gets complicated. I'd just stick to a best of 3-5 series like mendedwall suggests.
Will some one please tell me how BAB is related?
Use a chess engine on a computer and set the strength level according to the NPC's skill. PC plays versus the engine. If the PC's chess skill is higher than the player's, fire up another engine, set the level accordingly, and let them play each other.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of that either.
If you wanted to introduce some suspense into a solution like mendedwall's, you could break the game out into three parts: the opening, the middle game, and the end game. Roll for the opening, winner gets +1 on the middle game roll. Roll for the middle game, winner gets +2 on the end game roll. Roll for the endgame, tie is a stalemate (which should be considered a victory of sorts for black, since white has half a move advantage starting out).
You could factor in a +1 bonus to white on the opening roll for starting first. I suppose Knowledge: Chess Openings would give you an edge too, especially if it is a timed/speed game.
Will some one please tell me how BAB is related?
It's not particularly but I'm thinking that if you want to use already established mechanics to do this, CMB vs. CMD is a pretty fair one. If you aren't going to just use INT checks, or just use Bluff/Sense Motive, then I think CMB vs. CMD is a fair alternative. Likewise, I think chess can sometimes be a game of experience more than intelligence (not that intelligence isn't necessary in order to even start practicing, but after a certain amount of practice even a less intelligent player can beat a more intelligent player who has less chess time under their belt). CMB vs. CMD provides the "experience" factor specifically (at least in my mind) through BAB which is adjusted for combat specific experience by character by level. It's not a perfect system. If you want a perfect system we'll have to come up with a mechanic that uses INT, WIS, Bluff, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Chess), Profession (Gamer), and maybe even a little DEX for moving pieces swiftly on the board.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's rare that the GM would need to simulate a tabletop gaming experience within Pathfinder, but there are times in literature where the hero and his rival measure each other up over some game or another, or the villain arranges for lives to hang in the balance over a game in which he is an undefeated master. In those cases, detailing the boardplay might be necessary.
A common game is chess.
I wanted to design a simulation of chess in the Pathfinder system, that allowed the players to get a good feel for how the game was progressing, and allowed character attributes and skills to play a part. Within those parameters, I wanted the mechanics to be simple. (But that was a secondary concern. If you don't need this level of detail -- and you usually don't -- just make an opposed Knowledge (Nobility) roll.)
--
Why Knowledge (Nobility)? Because chess is a game played as social interaction by well-bred people. Knowing the rules of chess is a question of etiquette. Having said that, the original game rules I designed these for was a d20 system that had a Knowledge (tactics) skill. I find that more natual for chess.
--
Each player (designated White and Black) begins with 6 chits, representing his positional strength. A player might handicap herself by volunteering to begin a game with only 5 or 4 chits.
In all phases of the game, a player has the opportunity to make Knowledge (Nobility) skill rolls. [From here on in, I'll abbreviate this as "Tactics".] If a player ever succeeds with a natural 20 on his Tactics roll, his opponent must immediately make a Perception or Concentration check (her choice), DC 20. If she fails, the player who made the Tactics roll immediately wins the match.
The goal of the opening (roughly the first 4-20 moves) is to develop the pieces and set the board for battle.
This phase of the game is simulated by three rolls:
1) White's Development: The player with the White pieces makes a Tactics roll (DC: Black's INT score) If White meets the DC, he gains 3 chits. For every 3 points by which White exceeds the DC, he earns an extra chit.
2) Black's Development: and vice versa.
3) Control of the Center: Players make a contested Tactics roll. If either player's total is greater by 5 points, she has taken control of the center squares and has a positional advantage, important later in the game.
Gambit: Each player may, before the game begins, declare that he is playing an opening gambit, which sacrifices material in an attempt to gain some other benefit. The player attempting the gambit offers 1 or 2 chits to his opponent, who may accept the gambit, or decline. If the opponent accepts, the gambit player loses the offered chits but gains a corresponding +2 or +4 DM on the "control of the center" roll.
The pieces are out, and the game is in motion. This phase of the game is a series of little combats on two battlefields.
Each player commits her chits to three areas: kingside, queenside, and reserve. The play alternates between White and Black taking the role of attacker:
- The attacker declares which side of the board he's attacking on: kingside or queenside.
- He commits up to three chits from his forces on that side of the board. His opponent commits up to the same number of chits from her forces there.
- If the opponent has control of the center, she may choose to pull defensive chits from her reserve.
- The attacker may choose to feint. He attempts a Bluff roll against his opponent's Sense Motive. If he's successful, the defender places one of her committed chits into her reserve.
Players roll a d6 for each chit committed to combat, and match the rolled results, strongest against strongest, the same way combat is simulated in the boardgame RISK.
- Either player may choose to make a Concentration check against DC 15. If successful, he may reroll one of his own dice.
- Afterwards, either player may choose to make a Tactics check against DC 15. If successful, he may select one of his opponent's dice and force her to reroll it.
- As in RISK, each player pays one chit for each failed die. Unlike RISK, however, only the highest tie goes to the defender. Remaining ties eliminate both chits.
- A player may choose to cheat with Sleight of Hand. If the Sleight of Hand is successful, the player avoids paying one chit, but it's hard to pull off. Not only does the cheater need to make a successful Sleight of Hand roll opposed by the other player's Perception, but the opponent can tell what happened by making a DC 12 Intelligence check.
- Then the attacker may move chits from the reserve to either side, and then from either side into the reserve.
- When an attacker has cleared all her opponents chits out from one side of the board or the other, the victor earns two chits, and the match proceeds to the endgame. (If an attacker cleared all of his own chits out from one of the battlefields, then he might be advised to shore up that side with chits from his reserve.)
There are few pieces on the board now, and one player may have a decided advantage.
The players make contested Tactics checks. The loser of each check pays one chit.
(On ties, both players pay a chit.) If a player's forces are reduced to a single chit, she can no longer win. If a player loses her last chit, and her opponent has at least two chits remaining, she loses the game.
It's rare that the GM would need to simulate a tabletop gaming experience within Pathfinder, but there are times in literature where the hero and his rival measure each other up over some game or another, or the villain arranges for lives to hang in the balance over a game in which he is an undefeated master. In those cases, detailing the boardplay might be necessary.
A common game is chess.
I wanted to design a simulation of chess in the Pathfinder system, that allowed the players to get a good feel for how the game was progressing, and allowed character attributes and skills to play a part. Within those parameters, I wanted the mechanics to be simple. (But that was a secondary concern. If you don't need this level of detail -- and you usually don't -- just make an opposed Knowledge (Nobility) roll.)
--
Why Knowledge (Nobility)? Because chess is a game played as social interaction by well-bred people. Knowing the rules of chess is a question of etiquette. Having said that, the original game rules I designed these for was a d20 system that had a Knowledge (tactics) skill. I find that more natual for chess.
--Each player (designated White and Black) begins with 6 chits, representing his positional strength. A player might handicap herself by volunteering to begin a game with only 5 or 4 chits.
In all phases of the game, a player has the opportunity to make Knowledge (Nobility) skill rolls. [From here on in, I'll abbreviate this as "Tactics".] If a player ever succeeds with a natural 20 on his Tactics roll, his opponent must immediately make a Perception or Concentration check (her choice), DC 20. If she fails, the player who made the Tactics roll immediately wins the match.
** spoiler omitted **...
That is one seriously involved mechanic. If I were running a game where the players didn't mind sitting through that I would most definitely use it. If I were in a session with a more fast paced group I'd probably have to forgo this.
I must possibly be the only person who disapproves of attempting to actually simulate a board/tabletop game inside another tabletop game.
I still have to push for a percentage based outcome. Generate some sort of target that the player must roll a percentile dice to overcome and modify using relevant modifiers. Or use that to mimic a real outcome: loss stalemate, loss checkmate, win stalemate, win checkmate, draw "this game is really long and we are equally good at chess, let's quit." Modify the ranges on the percentile those results cover based on modifiers.
I should probably add that this is a solo session. The character was left behind/went his own way for a while [for whatever reason] and is now on his way to meet back up with the main group. His character has an interest in chess, and so for that reason, I wanted to add it in partly as a filler, but also to help develop his character, who, until now has been rather flat. So other players are not a concern on the time scale. I don't want to overcomplicate the matter however, as I don't expect it will happen with any relative frequency beyond a casual game at a tavern, which I can just roll a few checks for. This time is just special and I want to create tension.
My logic with incorporating BAB has to do with my interpretation of the statistic itself. A higher BAB represents to me a greater understanding of tactical situations (therefore allowing martial characters more 'openings' in melee combat). This is not a great stretch into the game IMO. Chess was used to teach war strategy, which is larger in scale than tactical, but I'm sure you know that. It seems like a fair idea. A 20-th level fighter should have enough battle experience by that time to be able to give a genius chess player a run for his money. He may not win if chess and strategy aren't his forte, but the game shouldn't be a wash just because his Int is only 14 and he has no points in some other relevant skill. I believe BAB is relevant.
Whether or not it is something that I WILL use, is yet to be seen.
Edited for readability.
I must possibly be the only person who disapproves of attempting to actually simulate a board/tabletop game inside another tabletop game.
I still have to push for a percentage based outcome. Generate some sort of target that the player must roll a percentile dice to overcome and modify using relevant modifiers. Or use that to mimic a real outcome: loss stalemate, loss checkmate, win stalemate, win checkmate, draw "this game is really long and we are equally good at chess, let's quit." Modify the ranges on the percentile those results cover based on modifiers.
Didn't WOTC have a card game specifically designed for play at the gametable? Like three dragon ante or something if I remember correctly. It was a game that could be played by itself or incorporated into your roleplay.
Didn't WOTC have a card game specifically designed for play at the gametable? Like three dragon ante or something if I remember correctly. It was a game that could be played by itself or incorporated into your roleplay.I must possibly be the only person who disapproves of attempting to actually simulate a board/tabletop game inside another tabletop game.
I still have to push for a percentage based outcome. Generate some sort of target that the player must roll a percentile dice to overcome and modify using relevant modifiers. Or use that to mimic a real outcome: loss stalemate, loss checkmate, win stalemate, win checkmate, draw "this game is really long and we are equally good at chess, let's quit." Modify the ranges on the percentile those results cover based on modifiers.
Which was generally popular enough to be played by itself. However, I imagine it involved - or at least could - involve all players and was only played when they all agreed. As opposed to chess which may "only" take up 10-15 minutes of game time to allow a single player to wax romantic about his character background.
EDIT: If it's a solo session, who cares at that point; just play chess if the player inexplicably wants to play chess instead of D&D.
BAB generally represents a better ability to hit people, not tactical assessment capability. How does it represent a better ability to hit people? I don't know. I would say it is related to weapons training, but Rogues, Monks, and other 3/4 BAB characters use weapons just as much and what training did a Barbarian receive? Therefore, BAB is an arbitrary number and unrelated.
Which was generally popular enough to be played by itself. However, I imagine it involved - or at least could - involve all players and was only played when they all agreed. As opposed to chess which may "only" take up 10-15 minutes of game time to allow a single player to wax romantic about his character background.Didn't WOTC have a card game specifically designed for play at the gametable? Like three dragon ante or something if I remember correctly. It was a game that could be played by itself or incorporated into your roleplay.I must possibly be the only person who disapproves of attempting to actually simulate a board/tabletop game inside another tabletop game.
I still have to push for a percentage based outcome. Generate some sort of target that the player must roll a percentile dice to overcome and modify using relevant modifiers. Or use that to mimic a real outcome: loss stalemate, loss checkmate, win stalemate, win checkmate, draw "this game is really long and we are equally good at chess, let's quit." Modify the ranges on the percentile those results cover based on modifiers.
Totally true, I wasn't arguing your point. I agree, if you're sitting at at table and watching one player play chess with an NPC it better darn well happen pretty fast, or I'm bored right now. Your post just made me remember that sometimes putting other games into the game can be fun and useful if done the right way. :)
Which was generally popular enough to be played by itself. However, I imagine it involved - or at least could - involve all players and was only played when they all agreed. As opposed to chess which may "only" take up 10-15 minutes of game time to allow a single player to wax romantic about his character background.
I should probably add that this is a solo session. The character was left behind/went his own way for a while [for whatever reason] and is now on his way to meet back up with the main group. His character has an interest in chess, and so for that reason, I wanted to add it in partly as a filler, but also to help develop his character, who, until now has been rather flat. So other players are not a concern on the time scale. I don't want to overcomplicate the matter however, as I don't expect it will happen with any relative frequency beyond a casual game at a tavern, which I can just roll a few checks for. This time is just special and I want to create tension.
Which was generally popular enough to be played by itself. However, I imagine it involved - or at least could - involve all players and was only played when they all agreed. As opposed to chess which may "only" take up 10-15 minutes of game time to allow a single player to wax romantic about his character background.I should probably add that this is a solo session. The character was left behind/went his own way for a while [for whatever reason] and is now on his way to meet back up with the main group. His character has an interest in chess, and so for that reason, I wanted to add it in partly as a filler, but also to help develop his character, who, until now has been rather flat. So other players are not a concern on the time scale. I don't want to overcomplicate the matter however, as I don't expect it will happen with any relative frequency beyond a casual game at a tavern, which I can just roll a few checks for. This time is just special and I want to create tension.
EDIT: If it's a solo session, who cares at that point; just play chess if the player inexplicably wants to play chess instead of D&D.
BAB generally represents a better ability to hit people, not tactical assessment capability. How does it represent a better ability to hit people? I don't know. I would say it is related to weapons training, but Rogues, Monks, and other 3/4 BAB characters use weapons just as much and what training did a Barbarian receive? Therefore, BAB is an arbitrary number and unrelated.
EDIT: If it's a solo session, who cares at that point; just play chess if the player inexplicably wants to play chess instead of D&D.
BAB generally represents a better ability to hit people, not tactical assessment capability. How does it represent a better ability to hit people? I don't know. I would say it is related to weapons training, but Rogues, Monks, and other 3/4 BAB characters use weapons just as much and what training did a Barbarian receive? Therefore, BAB is an arbitrary number and unrelated.
I don't find any of your comments helpful.
The player doesn't want to play chess. His character bio says that the character likes to play. I want to make an encounter out of a SPECIFIC EVENT rather than roll a couple of d% and say "you win" or "you lose."
I asked for advice on pulling this off, not for criticism on how I choose to run my game.
TL;DR - If you don't have anything constructive to add to this thread, go away.
Maybe just opposed int checks will work with keeping a score and each 2 consequitive wins you get a plus one bonus to your check to represent the enemy having less pieces so it does not take forever. IF the opponents modifer is 10 greater than the other player you basically are hopeless and you get in a checkmate. If you beat the opponent by more than 10 you take an important piece like a queen or a rook but this can only happen 3 times and you get a +2 bonus on your check to simulate really getting outsmarted and falling into a trap. This is how I would run it.
Now I sort of want a galorian chess set.
EDIT: If it's a solo session, who cares at that point; just play chess if the player inexplicably wants to play chess instead of D&D.
BAB generally represents a better ability to hit people, not tactical assessment capability. How does it represent a better ability to hit people? I don't know. I would say it is related to weapons training, but Rogues, Monks, and other 3/4 BAB characters use weapons just as much and what training did a Barbarian receive? Therefore, BAB is an arbitrary number and unrelated.
I don't find any of your comments helpful.
The player doesn't want to play chess. His character bio says that the character likes to play. I want to make an encounter out of a SPECIFIC EVENT rather than roll a couple of d% and say "you win" or "you lose."
I asked for advice on pulling this off, not for criticism on how I choose to run my game.
TL;DR - If you don't have anything constructive to add to this thread, go away.
I provided something constructive. If you don't want to hear suggestions you don't like, I suggest you make up a game yourself and don't ask for advice from the public.
Wasn't there a Dragonchess game in one of the Adventure Paths. Age of Worms, maybe?
The two of you could always just play a simpler game like checkers and call it chess.
I provided something constructive.
Hardly. Your first and second posts provided nothing substantial except to show everyone your disapproval of some of the concepts others had proposed. Your third post was the closest to anything useful, and when I declined, stating that I'd rather make something more out of it, you followed with snark and have since. Thanks for jacking the thread, btw.
Perhaps you can do a sort of mind-based combat maneuver where your CMB is your BAB + Int and your CMD is 10 + BAB + Int + Wis.
A successful bluff check could give you a bonus to your CMB.
BAB doesn't belong there. Fighters aren't better chess players than wizards.
I can't help you with that one, however I have run a session where the PCs were the "pieces" on a giant chessboard, and limited to the same movements as chess pieces.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
KaeYoss:
BAB + STR helps in melee.
BAB + DEX helps in missile fire.
BAB is whatever overlap exists for down-and-dirty wrestling, sword-and-shield fighting, and shooting arrows at people 50 yards away. I can see a case that BAB + INT would work in Chess. Add 10, and it would serve very well as the "tactics" check I keep mentioning.
Fighters are trained to look at a situation tactically and make good choices fast. Most wizards have a good Intelligence to make up for that lack, but a smart fighter will probably out-play a wizard.
KaeYoss:
BAB + STR helps in melee.
BAB + DEX helps in missile fire.BAB is whatever overlap exists for down-and-dirty wrestling, sword-and-shield fighting, and shooting arrows at people 50 yards away. I can see a case that BAB + INT would work in Chess. Add 10, and it would serve very well as the "tactics" check I keep mentioning.
Fighters are trained to look at a situation tactically and make good choices fast. Most wizards have a good Intelligence to make up for that lack, but a smart fighter will probably out-play a wizard.
+1
What level fighter (or even cavalier) would you say a general would have to be? I believe that the Int score of a wizard can easily make up for the experience of a trained professional, setting considered. Nowadays? Eh, a general may not know squat about chess, but back in the day, he had to.
I'd really rather move away from the whole "this is wrong" aspect of the discussion and instead take it to a more "this is how I think it should be handled" direction. That would definitely be more productive I think.
|
I'd go with a combination of opposed Int, Bluff/Sense Motive, and BAB checks.
BAB? I don't agree with that at all. Being able to hit someone doesn't equate to being able to play chess.
Quick and dirty I would do opposed Int, maybe knowledge local if it was a local variant.
Poker I may use bluff and sense motive, but chess probably not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have PCs roll a series of opposed rolls for things like this. Not just one roll.
If you win the Opening opposed (INT) check you get a +2 bonus for the Middle Game -- if you win it by more than 5 you get a +4 bonus for the Middle Game opposed roll. If you win the Middle Game you get a +4 bonus for the End Game. If you win it by more than 5 you get a +8 bonus for the End Game.
Also, you can create NPCs with Profession: Gaming (Gambling is for games of chance; Gaming is for games of skill) who could use their Profession check vs the PC's INT check, obviously making a professional player (NPC) better than the amateur player (PC Wiz).
-----------------------------------------
The other thing I've done a couple times -- when I felt the Players would enjoy it -- is create a position on a board and see if they could find the correct move. In your case, since you don't know chess well, find a position in a book at your local library with its solution. Just try to get a chapter for easy-level positions.
More often, cuz not many D&D players are strong chess players -- or at least, finding a table of gamers where ALL of them would enjoy that -- I've solved my rubik's cube and then gone two turns backwards and given it to the Players to solve, letting them know it can be solved in two turns.
I do that for magical puzzle boxes and such. I'll give my Players a hint if a PC gets a good INT roll check or Spellcraft or something.
The other thing I've done a couple times -- when I felt the Players would enjoy it -- is create a position on a board and see if they could find the correct move. In your case, since you don't know chess well, find a position in a book at your local library with its solution. Just try to get a chapter for easy-level positions.
This is an excellent idea. I will definitely add this to the encounter. Thanks!
|
|
Absolutely.
The last time I did this was the most successful.
The PCs had just arrived in Ravenloft and during their "interview" with Strahd -- he always wants to meet people when the Mists wisk them to the Demiplane of Dread -- they first saw him staring down at a chess position. Strahd was playing the game with an NPC over many months (Every so often the other NPC would come to the castle to play a couple moves before leaving.)
I allowed the Players to look at the position for a few minutes as Strahd "looked at them" and offer up suggestions on the next move.
I purposely did not have Strahd say if he was playing the Black or White pieces. And I made absolutely sure Strahd gave NO details of the other NPC who was occasionally invited to his castle.
It was a great intro for Strahd -- and for the PCs. It also let the Players know that there are at least some people in my Ravenloft sandbox campaign that Strahd isn't out to kill (always important to not Turtle your Players and that's hard to do in Ravenloft!).
I have played in a few chess tournaments myself, so maybe I can offer some input. The game is about tactics, strategy, and knowledge. Tactics would most likely fall under Intelligence; quickly and accurately assessing the position, and finding the most probable continuations of any given move. Strategy would involve Wisdom along with knowledge of chess principles and theory. (Bluff is a poor choice here -- in social situations you're trying to convince someone of something, but in chess, it's just another piece move.)
Use a series of opposed rolls, adding INT, WIS, and Knowledge (Nobility) modifiers, along with a special accumulating penalty. (After all, once the position tips in the favour of one player or the other, it tends to continue in that direction unless both players blunder often.) A natural 1 would represent a blunder, adding a large penalty to successive rolls.
It might work like this:
The PC has a total modifier of +5 (+2 INT, +1 WIS, +2 Knowledge (Nobility))
The opponent has a total modifier of +7 (+3 INT, +2 WIS, +2 Knowledge (Nobility))
Roll 1: [1d20+5] = 13 vs. [1d20+7] = 16. The PC made a poor choice of opening, so he gets a -1 penalty on successive rolls.
Roll 2: [1d20+4] = 18 vs. [1d20+7] = 12. The PC used solid play to regain equality, so the penalty from the previous roll is removed.
Roll 3: [1d20+5] = 15 vs. [1d20+7] = 8. The opponent blundered, so he gets a -5 penalty on successive rolls. The next roll will therefore be +5 vs. +2.
The player who manages to win three rolls in succession wins, and two tied rolls in succession is a draw. Continue until the game is decided.
In Shadowrun, there are "secondary skills" which don't contribute much to regular "adventurer tasks" like most of the PF skills do - needs to say, you get some amount of secondary skill points you can not put into primary skills. For example there are "elven wines", "italian opera", "botany" or "troll trash metal" as skills, also chess would count as on.
Apply that to PF, give the PCs some free skill points (int?) they can spend on "hobby skills" that may become in handy in very rare occassions (for example, "troll trash metal" comes in handy when talking to a guard who is a total fan of troll trash metal) (one could even allow to handle profession skills as secondary ones, I mean, it's not like you would have a huge advantage as an adventurer by having "profession: cook" as skill)
|
|
We should have a Thread where we see who is the highest rated player on the Boards.
I'm a solid Class A player.
1865
But I haven't trained or played other than skittles in several years. (probably a B player with all my rust)
(Ooh, if anyone has the issue of Chess Life from 2002 with Ray Charles on the cover, there's a picture in there of me playing Szusza Polgar!)
BAB doesn't belong there. Fighters aren't better chess players than wizards.
BAB doesn't belong there. Fighters aren't better chess players than wizards.Not always true.
...:O Whaaaaaa...t? Ow. That makes my brain AND body hurt.
Anyone got any cool ideas to keep this little role play encounter from stagnating very quickly? It doesn't have to drag on for more than 10-15 minutes in play-time, but I would like for it to simulate at least a couple of hours in game time, maybe even a days long game while the player stays at the tavern.
The 1968 movie The Thomas Crowne Affair has an interesting chess game. However, that game has very little to do with chess. . . .
KaeYoss:
BAB + STR helps in melee.
BAB + DEX helps in missile fire.BAB is whatever overlap exists for down-and-dirty wrestling, sword-and-shield fighting, and shooting arrows at people 50 yards away.
Be that as it may, it is not whatever overlap exists for wrestling, sword-fighting, shooting, and CHESS.
BAB is about figthing. Not carefully considering stuff. It's the down and the dirty, heat of battle stuff. Killing some sucker before he kills you.
Few chess matches involve acute mortal danger. And no, that scene from Harry Potter doesn't count.
Fighters are trained to look at a situation tactically and make good choices fast.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
And barbarians are rarely the tactic types. They're foaming at the mouth and hitting enemy hordes with huge phallic symbols.
Same BAB.
We should have a Thread where we see who is the highest rated player on the Boards.
I'm a solid Class A player.
1865But I haven't trained or played other than skittles in several years. (probably a B player with all my rust)
(Ooh, if anyone has the issue of Chess Life from 2002 with Ray Charles on the cover, there's a picture in there of me playing Szusza Polgar!)
Well, I can't beat Deep Blue at chess, but I kick his ass at boxing.
Just as with arm wrestling and the Strength score, the person with highest Intelligence score in the chess match automatically wins. If the opponents have the same score, then you make opposed Intelligence checks until someone wins.
Easy, and with an established precedent.
I'd probably have the player outline his strategy in very broad terms. Then I'd narrate certain in game events leading to skill checks in the areas of bluff (misdirection), sleight of hand (cheating), profession: gambling/gaming, sense motive (ability to counter opponent's strategies), concentration (not a skill, but in long games of intense concentration, I'd use it), and intimidate (rattle a player with how good you are). Frankly, I'd handle it like a skill challenge from 4e: win more than you lose in skill checks and you win the game.
|
|
Skills I would personally allow to influence an in-game chess game:
Knowledge (nobility)
Knowledge (local) [especially if speed chess is popular]
Profession (gambler)
Profession (soldier)
Profession (officer)
Sense Motive
Bluff
Intimidate
The last three are especially viable if you're playing the player vs. playing the game, or if the game is speed chess. A deceitful person can often fool even a superior player into making stupid moves. This won't work against the greats because they're really good at chess (which they use instead of sensing your motive).
Can't think of any others. I wouldn't allow BAB to factor in - being a wizard or sorcerer vs. being fighter or cavalier shouldn't actually make a difference.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just as with arm wrestling and the Strength score, the person with highest Intelligence score in the chess match automatically wins. If the opponents have the same score, then you make opposed Intelligence checks until someone wins.
In simple circumstances ("I play chess to earn a living; how many people do I beat in a day?") that works.
But the lich has captured your colleagues and has imprisoned them in a demiplane that is collapsing. He challenges you to a game of chess, promising to take no more time on his moves than you do on yours. You can't tell if he's smiling or not, but there's some gimmick to the whole set-up. Nonetheless, there's a board set up between the two of you, and it's the only way to rescue your friends. Trembling, you make a cautious first move, sliding your king's pawn forward only one square. Perhaps you can play on his overweening pride, get him to over-reach ...
...and he wins, automatically, because you have an Intelligence of 18, and he has an Intelligence of 20. Everybody's dead. Seems unsatisfying.
Here are some ways I would consider this:
1) Set a DC according to the opponent's skill (10, 15, 20, 25, 30). The PC makes a series of skill checks, his choice between Bluff and Sense Motive. He needs to make 3 successful checks before he fails 3 checks.
2) Round 1: Whoever is white makes a Bluff or Intelligence check. Opponent counters with Sense Motive or Intelligence.
Round 2: Whoever is black does the same thing.
Do this for 6 rounds. The player with the most successes wins. If there is a tie, then go another round until there are no more ties.
3) Have the player make a single skill or ability check against a static DC based on the opponent's skill.
As for the usefulness of BAB in all of this, I know that I would find it very handy as I throw the board and pieces at my opponent. I find chess to be boring.
Just as with arm wrestling and the Strength score, the person with highest Intelligence score in the chess match automatically wins. If the opponents have the same score, then you make opposed Intelligence checks until someone wins.In simple circumstances ("I play chess to earn a living; how many people do I beat in a day?") that works.
But the lich has captured your colleagues and has imprisoned them in a demiplane that is collapsing. He challenges you to a game of chess, promising to take no more time on his moves than you do on yours. You can't tell if he's smiling or not, but there's some gimmick to the whole set-up. Nonetheless, there's a board set up between the two of you, and it's the only way to rescue your friends. Trembling, you make a cautious first move, sliding your king's pawn forward only one square. Perhaps you can play on his overweening pride, get him to over-reach ...
...and he wins, automatically, because you have an Intelligence of 18, and he has an Intelligence of 20. Everybody's dead. Seems unsatisfying.
Or perhaps your 18 Intelligence is enough to tell you that the lich is just delaying so that the plane can finish collapsing thereby killing all your friends.
The whole premise you provide is just plain silly.
That being said, if a GM wants to put more emphasis on an in-game event such as a chess match than just a comparison of ability scores, all the more power to 'em.