How would you reflect in game a mastery level with Chess? (or similar tactical wargame?)
Profession: Chessmaster?
With a new skill, modified by one's INT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Perform (chess)
Likely, a GM-level chess player would have a high Intelligence and Wisdom, plus considerable ranks in Knowledge: Chess.
I would write in the character background "master of chess" and then proceed to roleplay them as being very interested in strategy games. Pathfinder generally only supplies the rules for adventuring situations and then assumes that characters may have other hobbies or interests.
Unless it's likely to affect the outcome of adventuring situations, then having a skill for it isn't really the way pathfinder works. Also any time you invent a new skill, feat or other trait within a game you're not only defining that this character can perform the matching task. You're also defining that everyone who lacks the trait cannot. It's one of the big problems with system-bloat.
I had a look through the pathfinder core book, and honestly I'd never realized before just how sparse it is on advice for roleplaying and adjudicating non-adventuring circumstances. I suppose they assumed that most people reading the book were familiar with 3.5 and just needed the rules update (plus page limits for combining the PHB and DMG into the core rules). Even the gamemastery guide doesn't touch on this much.
However I'd go with the 3.5 DMGs solution for this sort of thing and base it on an attribute check, granting a circumstance bonus for a character who is all about chess. The furthest I would go in bringing this into creating anything new is allowing the character to take a campaign trait that grants a +2 bonus to all attribute roles for games of strategy (maybe +4 since it's so specific and not relevant to most situations).
I would go with a Profession (Chessmaster) (Int based).
Profession
(Wis; Trained Only)
You are skilled at a specific job. Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks. While a Craft skill represents ability in creating an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge. The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.
Note that Profession (Gambler) is used to represent expertise in games of chance (typically cards and dice).
Profession (Chessmaster) would cover not only the background of chess (and variants), but how to play, including openings, gambits, and strategies. A more general Profession (Board Games) is also possible; see Ultimate Equipment, Entertainment and Trade Goods.
|
You could have it as a skill, though I feel chess is a more intelligence based game than wisdom. For instance, openings are often memorized, checkmate positions and if the "trade" is in your favor are calculated. I could see someone putting ranks into it... but at the same time it's a game. What else does your character do in his free time? Though if you wanted your character to roll dice to see if he won against an opponent, make it a skill.
hmmm... almost universally seen as a skill. Another reason Fighters are never Generals, eh?
*sigh*
I could see the base skill using INT or WIS, because it takes some 'logical understanding' of the game itself, as well as 'intuitive leaps' into the opponents behavior.
|
|
Eh, chess really isn't about understanding an opponents behavior though, it's more calculation of the "What ifs". What is the best move he can take, what move would I do, his move, my move etc... Wisdom implies sense motive for me, and honestly a person's motive in chess is constantly changing to the point where that kind of information is unreliable.
So, kind of like producing and understanding military intelligence? The ebb and flow of battle requires attention to the details, commanders personalities included. It is just as important as understanding an enemy's logistics, doctrine, equipment and morale. *Comprehending* and *Understanding* are not always the same thing :)
An example is a Computer that is better at Chess than a Human. The computer can do it because it can run the permutations and likely outcomes so fast nowadays. But, when people play, attitudes mean a lot. This is especially true with deeper, more free form games/wargames than chess. :)
Especially in trickier situations, a Grand Master might not be able to tell WHY he chose the move that he did, even if it wins him the game.
lol Gad! I hope he can explain it, or he will drop games to the Master that *can* explain it!
I am not saying WIS WIS WIS, I am saying there is a valid argument for either. Maybe a PC could choose either Knowledge: Games/Tactics, or Profession: Chess.
:)
Profession: Gaming. Or an Int check. Or a series of opposed checks of Int vs. Will Save until one person accumulates x number of successes.
I would use that third method for games where the outcome is dramatically important.
But please keep in mind:
hmmm... almost universally seen as a skill. Another reason Fighters are never Generals, eh?
*sigh*
Well that's kind of true to life, isn't it? I mean I don't want to knock Eisenhower as a general, but I think maybe even an amateur street tough could take him in a brawl or a knife-fight.
|
|
I guess you can narrow it down to both intelligence and Wisdom.
If anyone else has ever REALLY played the game (Such as spending hours in books and playing the game to become better and better) correct me if I'm wrong:
Intelligence: When you can force a checkmate, intelligence will let you know that. It also lets you know when a trade is in your favor. Helps a lot with anything standard, such as the standard openings. Also used to calculate a series of moves.
Wisdom: Knowing whether or not a gambit is worth it, or recognizing that your opponent is using a gambit. Wisdom is more for positional play, rather than material play.
A good game of chess, in my opinion, takes a lot of intelligence and a bit of wisdom.
I enjoy playing tactical games, Chess included.
I would suggest if you play a Character who enjoys chess, make it show, Roleplay your character's internal thoughts [such as referring to the Ranger as a Bishop(long range, but not a frontline fighter), and the Fighter as a rook (predictable movement, but very useful) The wizard as a Queen(powerful in all directions) or a king (weak and a must protect unit) whilst envisioning himself as a Knight (good at surgical strikes and quick retreats)]
and if you are insisting to turn a fun tactical game into a series of die rolls then I would recommend that you each roll 16d20 (representing 16 pieces on the board) and then add the total with a bonus to each side being their INT Score (plus miscellaneous bonuses, (Such as background traits))
example
[average intelligent character]
[Chess Master]
and then you go on to say something along the lines of: Due to the master underestimating his young opponent, his queen and two knights were captured early game, and his white bishop fell soon after, and though he put up a strong fight, his losses were too great and he was defeated..
I watched all of this year's World Championship match, and the commentators frequently mentioned that top-level GMs would almost immediately have 1-3 moves in mind that would be good in the situation, and then they would spend time thinking through which of those would be best.
I'd say that the first part of that (instantly recognizing a good move) is Wisdom-based, while the second part (analyzing each move before deciding) would be Intelligence-based.
In addition to that aspect, obviously knowing openings and the theory behind them, plus the theory of end game positions, would be Intelligence-based.