A Basic Chess System [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Basic Chess System [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kingside_Bishop
04-25-07, 12:36 PM Chess came up in a game of mine recently, so I developed this really basic system. Nothing too special -- just thought I'd share. It grossly overemphasizes the differences between white and black, and might not take Intelligence and Wisdom into as much an account as perhaps it should. I know the randomness of a d20 roll's probably not a great factor in chess, either, but I kept it in for variety -- that way, games between players won't always end up the same, and can actually be pretty variable, depending on who plays what and how they roll.

~-~-~

Chess:
In each period of the game (the opening, the midgame, and the endgame), each player rolls an ability or skill check that varies according to whether that player is playing black or white, and for what period the roll is being made, according to the table below:

_________White_______Black_______
Opening__Bluff_______Sense Motive
Midgame__Intimidate__Concentrate
Endgame__Int+Wis_____Int+Wis

Rolls for the opening are made first; the winner of this opposed check receives a +5 bonus to the check during the midgame, and a +2 bonus to the check made during the endgame. The winner of the midgame receives a +5 bonus on the opposed check for the endgame. The winner of the opposed check in the endgame wins that game of chess. Ties result in a stalemate.
swallowyersoul
04-25-07, 12:41 PM That's actually a really good system. Most chess resolutions I've seen are either too simple or rely too much on the player's mastry of chess.

My constructive criticism:

+5 may be a bit too much of a bonus for winning a round - that's huge, especially in the third round where you're dealing with ability checks. +2 is the standard circumstance bonus and probably more appropriate.

You may also want to consider how somebody with actual ranks in profession(gamer) or profession(chess) interacts with these rules.

But overall, very well done sir.
ArcTan
04-25-07, 01:48 PM Chess came up in a game of mine recently, so I developed this really basic system. Nothing too special -- just thought I'd share. It grossly overemphasizes the differences between white and black, and might not take Intelligence and Wisdom into as much an account as perhaps it should. I know the randomness of a d20 roll's probably not a great factor in chess, either, but I kept it in for variety -- that way, games between players won't always end up the same, and can actually be pretty variable, depending on who plays what and how they roll.

~-~-~

Chess:
In each period of the game (the opening, the midgame, and the endgame), each player rolls an ability or skill check that varies according to whether that player is playing black or white, and for what period the roll is being made, according to the table below:

_________White_______Black_______
Opening__Bluff_______Sense Motive
Midgame__Intimidate__Concentrate
Endgame__Int+Wis_____Int+Wis

Rolls for the opening are made first; the winner of this opposed check receives a +5 bonus to the check during the midgame, and a +2 bonus to the check made during the endgame. The winner of the midgame receives a +5 bonus on the opposed check for the endgame. The winner of the opposed check in the endgame wins that game of chess. Ties result in a stalemate.

While it's not a bad system for generally simulating whether or not your character wins the game, any occurrence of a game of chess in a D&D context needs to have a way for you to make a "horrible blunder" or "brilliant gambit" that wins the game right then and there (either by actually forcing a surprise checkmate or by creating an obviously unretrievable situation).

Say that at any time, if you win the opposed check by 10 or more, it counts as an instant win for your side.
ArcTan
04-25-07, 01:52 PM Also, I agree that it does overemphasize the difference between White and Black -- these rules make Chess a game that you win in a totally different way if you're White and a totally different way if you're Black, so that there are some characters who always lose if they're Black and win if they're White, and vice versa. (Basically, a high-Cha Rogue always wants to be White.)

A better way to do it would just be to emphasize that "White goes first" -- have the system work as it is right now, but roll each "phase" *twice*, and switch White and Black -- *with the current set of modifiers gained by the last phase* -- and roll the phase again.

So if I'm playing White and you're Black, then first I roll my Bluff against your Sense Motive, and if I win, then *you* roll your Bluff against my Sense Motive, only I keep the +2 from the last phase (I agree that +5 is too high a bonus to ever give, especially with my "instant win" rule). This way we have more checks, which I think is more fun, and the game is more fair to both sides.
RobbyPants
04-25-07, 02:08 PM Not a bad idea you have here...

I know the randomness of a d20 roll's probably not a great factor in chess, either, but I kept it in for variety -- that way, games between players won't always end up the same, and can actually be pretty variable, depending on who plays what and how they roll.
One option would be to use 2d10 for this. Granted, it seems to take away from the d20 feel of the game, but it will have less variation. One consideration is that success will be strongly determined by the modifiers as opposed to the rolls.
dokesa
04-25-07, 04:12 PM I like how you split up the phases. I'd probably do something like this:
opening: opposed intelligence-based profession (chess) checks.
midgame: opposed wisdom-based profession (chess) checks.
endgame: opposed (int+wis)-based profession (chess) checks.

The opening is intelligence-based because it's a memory issue of how deep into each opening you can correctly remember the moves. The midgame is wisdom-based because you need the experience of pattern recognition and an understanding of the principles. Resolve the game in three checks. Winning in each round grants a cumulative +2 bonus on the following rounds. Give white a +2 circumstance bonus for the opening check. Give each player a +2 bonus on the midgame and endgame checks for having 5 or more ranks in concentration. Natural 1s can be game-ending blunders and natural 20s can be game-ending sacrifices. Since white plays first, a tie on natural 1s and 20s is played as if white were the only one to roll a natural 1 or 20. I prefer 3d6 over d20 to make it less swingy.
Scribbler
04-25-07, 04:32 PM I might switch midgame to Concentrate checks for both sides, maybe modified by Int instead of Con (or Concentrate + Int mod maybe).

I agree that Bluff vs. Sense Motive is good for representing the differences in starting the game for the white and black player (and disagree with dokesa that going first is necessarily an advantage, if you're better at figuring out your oponent than manipulating him/her), but I don't think it makes much difference which you are once the game has been going for a while (except in the repercussions, represented by the bonuses for winning earlier rounds).

Sure, characters will ask to get to play the color that they're best at, but real people do that too.

I like ArcTan's instant win suggestion (although I might raise it a bit). If you want skill level to have more regular effects on winning, then the bell-curve rolls (3d6, 2d10, etc) are a good idea.
Kingside_Bishop
04-25-07, 07:30 PM That's actually a really good system. Most chess resolutions I've seen are either too simple or rely too much on the player's mastry of chess.

My constructive criticism:

+5 may be a bit too much of a bonus for winning a round - that's huge, especially in the third round where you're dealing with ability checks. +2 is the standard circumstance bonus and probably more appropriate.

You may also want to consider how somebody with actual ranks in profession(gamer) or profession(chess) interacts with these rules.

But overall, very well done sir.Thanks.

Yeah, I thought +5 might be a little too excessive, as well. The decision came from campaign circumstances. The characters that want to play have widely varrying mental statistics -- one is the dashing rogue mentioned above, and the other is a consumate mentalist. The high bonus is to keep the rogue-types (who have an edge early on) competitive with the intellectual sorts in the endgame. Maybe a reduction to +4, though... that's more in line with the rule system (since it's double the standard bonus).

As to the mentioned profession scores, I could see profession (gamer) having an impact. Maybe a character could roll that instead of the indicated skill in the opening and midgame, if his profession modifier is higher than the relevant skills. I'd probably keep the Int+Wis check, though -- that way, professional gamers can't get too far ahead of their casual contemporaries (even though in real life, they'd totally whip us).

While it's not a bad system for generally simulating whether or not your character wins the game, any occurrence of a game of chess in a D&D context needs to have a way for you to make a "horrible blunder" or "brilliant gambit" that wins the game right then and there (either by actually forcing a surprise checkmate or by creating an obviously unretrievable situation).

Say that at any time, if you win the opposed check by 10 or more, it counts as an instant win for your side.I like the "critical miss / hit" idea you mentioned. I think we've all made that stupid move and gotten our silly hides checkmated in three turns. It might be easier simply to go with the same rules as the rest of the d20 system, though -- that is, 1's and 20's are automatic successes and failures, respectively, as mentioned by dokesa, above. That's more familiar than introducing more arbritary rules, and keeps the game simple.

Also, I agree that it does overemphasize the difference between White and Black -- these rules make Chess a game that you win in a totally different way if you're White and a totally different way if you're Black, so that there are some characters who always lose if they're Black and win if they're White, and vice versa. (Basically, a high-Cha Rogue always wants to be White.)

A better way to do it would just be to emphasize that "White goes first" -- have the system work as it is right now, but roll each "phase" *twice*, and switch White and Black -- *with the current set of modifiers gained by the last phase* -- and roll the phase again.

So if I'm playing White and you're Black, then first I roll my Bluff against your Sense Motive, and if I win, then *you* roll your Bluff against my Sense Motive, only I keep the +2 from the last phase (I agree that +5 is too high a bonus to ever give, especially with my "instant win" rule). This way we have more checks, which I think is more fun, and the game is more fair to both sides.I'd tend to disagree with the statement that the game is won in entirely different ways depending on what color you play, because, in the end, it's always opposed Intelligence + Wisdom checks. Granted, with modifiers that have a great deal of differentiation depending on what color you play -- but still, the same checks are being made in the end.

Plus, characters would ideally switch colors after every game, so each character would get a crack at whatever their most advantageous side of the board happens to be, anyway, without ever introducing rules for more checks.

One option would be to use 2d10 for this. Granted, it seems to take away from the d20 feel of the game, but it will have less variation. One consideration is that success will be strongly determined by the modifiers as opposed to the rolls.Hmm... I like that idea a lot. It's a nice hybrid between keeping the randomness, but giving the skill more of an affect upon that randomness. That's definitely a good idea. You're right -- it does take away from the d20 feel, which is part of what I was going for, but that might be worth the lost streamlining of the system.

I like how you split up the phases. I'd probably do something like this:
opening: opposed intelligence-based profession (chess) checks.
midgame: opposed wisdom-based profession (chess) checks.
endgame: opposed (int+wis)-based profession (chess) checks.

The opening is intelligence-based because it's a memory issue of how deep into each opening you can correctly remember the moves. The midgame is wisdom-based because you need the experience of pattern recognition and an understanding of the principles. Resolve the game in three checks. Winning in each round grants a cumulative +2 bonus on the following rounds. Give white a +2 circumstance bonus for the opening check. Give each player a +2 bonus on the midgame and endgame checks for having 5 or more ranks in concentration. Natural 1s can be game-ending blunders and natural 20s can be game-ending sacrifices. Since white plays first, a tie on natural 1s and 20s is played as if white were the only one to roll a natural 1 or 20. I prefer 3d6 over d20 to make it less swingy.Thanks. If I could, though, I'd really like to avoid Black and White making the same checks in the initial rounds, so that every game doesn't turn out being played with the same modifiers for each player. Different modifiers, depending on who's playing what, makes for a more variable experience, and makes it feel less like "just" dice rolling, I think.

I do like the ciritical hit / miss idea, though -- that's definitely very cool. We've all been there.

I might switch midgame to Concentrate checks for both sides, maybe modified by Int instead of Con (or Concentrate + Int mod maybe).

I agree that Bluff vs. Sense Motive is good for representing the differences in starting the game for the white and black player (and disagree with dokesa that going first is necessarily an advantage, if you're better at figuring out your oponent than manipulating him/her), but I don't think it makes much difference which you are once the game has been going for a while (except in the repercussions, represented by the bonuses for winning earlier rounds).

Sure, characters will ask to get to play the color that they're best at, but real people do that too.

I like ArcTan's instant win suggestion (although I might raise it a bit). If you want skill level to have more regular effects on winning, then the bell-curve rolls (3d6, 2d10, etc) are a good idea.Yeah... the fact that Concentration is based on Constitution is a bit of a drawback, since constitution shouldn't have much to do with chess. But, I'll probably keep it Con based, just to make the system easier to pick up and play. If you don't mind messing with the system, though, it'd probably be a good idea.

At any rate, like I said above, I like for the first two rounds to be based on different skills, so that it really makes a difference if you're playing black or white. Intimidate's a bit of a stretch, I know, and the differences aren't really that important.

But, I think I'm more interested in keeping this an interesting d20 minigame than copying the feel of chess to d20.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kingside_Bishop 04-25-07, 12:36 PM	Chess came up in a game of mine recently, so I developed this really basic system. Nothing too special -- just thought I'd share. It grossly overemphasizes the differences between white and black, and might not take Intelligence and Wisdom into as much an account as perhaps it should. I know the randomness of a d20 roll's probably not a great factor in chess, either, but I kept it in for variety -- that way, games between players won't always end up the same, and can actually be pretty variable, depending on who plays what and how they roll. ~-~-~ Chess: In each period of the game (the opening, the midgame, and the endgame), each player rolls an ability or skill check that varies according to whether that player is playing black or white, and for what period the roll is being made, according to the table below: _________White_______Black_______ Opening__Bluff_______Sense Motive Midgame__Intimidate__Concentrate Endgame__Int+Wis_____Int+Wis Rolls for the opening are made first; the winner of this opposed check receives a +5 bonus to the check during the midgame, and a +2 bonus to the check made during the endgame. The winner of the midgame receives a +5 bonus on the opposed check for the endgame. The winner of the opposed check in the endgame wins that game of chess. Ties result in a stalemate.
swallowyersoul 04-25-07, 12:41 PM	That's actually a really good system. Most chess resolutions I've seen are either too simple or rely too much on the player's mastry of chess. My constructive criticism: +5 may be a bit too much of a bonus for winning a round - that's huge, especially in the third round where you're dealing with ability checks. +2 is the standard circumstance bonus and probably more appropriate. You may also want to consider how somebody with actual ranks in profession(gamer) or profession(chess) interacts with these rules. But overall, very well done sir.
ArcTan 04-25-07, 01:48 PM	Chess came up in a game of mine recently, so I developed this really basic system. Nothing too special -- just thought I'd share. It grossly overemphasizes the differences between white and black, and might not take Intelligence and Wisdom into as much an account as perhaps it should. I know the randomness of a d20 roll's probably not a great factor in chess, either, but I kept it in for variety -- that way, games between players won't always end up the same, and can actually be pretty variable, depending on who plays what and how they roll. ~-~-~ Chess: In each period of the game (the opening, the midgame, and the endgame), each player rolls an ability or skill check that varies according to whether that player is playing black or white, and for what period the roll is being made, according to the table below: _________White_______Black_______ Opening__Bluff_______Sense Motive Midgame__Intimidate__Concentrate Endgame__Int+Wis_____Int+Wis Rolls for the opening are made first; the winner of this opposed check receives a +5 bonus to the check during the midgame, and a +2 bonus to the check made during the endgame. The winner of the midgame receives a +5 bonus on the opposed check for the endgame. The winner of the opposed check in the endgame wins that game of chess. Ties result in a stalemate. While it's not a bad system for generally simulating whether or not your character wins the game, any occurrence of a game of chess in a D&D context needs to have a way for you to make a "horrible blunder" or "brilliant gambit" that wins the game right then and there (either by actually forcing a surprise checkmate or by creating an obviously unretrievable situation). Say that at any time, if you win the opposed check by 10 or more, it counts as an instant win for your side.
ArcTan 04-25-07, 01:52 PM	Also, I agree that it does overemphasize the difference between White and Black -- these rules make Chess a game that you win in a totally different way if you're White and a totally different way if you're Black, so that there are some characters who always lose if they're Black and win if they're White, and vice versa. (Basically, a high-Cha Rogue always wants to be White.) A better way to do it would just be to emphasize that "White goes first" -- have the system work as it is right now, but roll each "phase" twice, and switch White and Black -- with the current set of modifiers gained by the last phase -- and roll the phase again. So if I'm playing White and you're Black, then first I roll my Bluff against your Sense Motive, and if I win, then you roll your Bluff against my Sense Motive, only I keep the +2 from the last phase (I agree that +5 is too high a bonus to ever give, especially with my "instant win" rule). This way we have more checks, which I think is more fun, and the game is more fair to both sides.
RobbyPants 04-25-07, 02:08 PM	Not a bad idea you have here... I know the randomness of a d20 roll's probably not a great factor in chess, either, but I kept it in for variety -- that way, games between players won't always end up the same, and can actually be pretty variable, depending on who plays what and how they roll. One option would be to use 2d10 for this. Granted, it seems to take away from the d20 feel of the game, but it will have less variation. One consideration is that success will be strongly determined by the modifiers as opposed to the rolls.
dokesa 04-25-07, 04:12 PM	I like how you split up the phases. I'd probably do something like this: opening: opposed intelligence-based profession (chess) checks. midgame: opposed wisdom-based profession (chess) checks. endgame: opposed (int+wis)-based profession (chess) checks. The opening is intelligence-based because it's a memory issue of how deep into each opening you can correctly remember the moves. The midgame is wisdom-based because you need the experience of pattern recognition and an understanding of the principles. Resolve the game in three checks. Winning in each round grants a cumulative +2 bonus on the following rounds. Give white a +2 circumstance bonus for the opening check. Give each player a +2 bonus on the midgame and endgame checks for having 5 or more ranks in concentration. Natural 1s can be game-ending blunders and natural 20s can be game-ending sacrifices. Since white plays first, a tie on natural 1s and 20s is played as if white were the only one to roll a natural 1 or 20. I prefer 3d6 over d20 to make it less swingy.
Scribbler 04-25-07, 04:32 PM	I might switch midgame to Concentrate checks for both sides, maybe modified by Int instead of Con (or Concentrate + Int mod maybe). I agree that Bluff vs. Sense Motive is good for representing the differences in starting the game for the white and black player (and disagree with dokesa that going first is necessarily an advantage, if you're better at figuring out your oponent than manipulating him/her), but I don't think it makes much difference which you are once the game has been going for a while (except in the repercussions, represented by the bonuses for winning earlier rounds). Sure, characters will ask to get to play the color that they're best at, but real people do that too. I like ArcTan's instant win suggestion (although I might raise it a bit). If you want skill level to have more regular effects on winning, then the bell-curve rolls (3d6, 2d10, etc) are a good idea.
Kingside_Bishop 04-25-07, 07:30 PM	That's actually a really good system. Most chess resolutions I've seen are either too simple or rely too much on the player's mastry of chess. My constructive criticism: +5 may be a bit too much of a bonus for winning a round - that's huge, especially in the third round where you're dealing with ability checks. +2 is the standard circumstance bonus and probably more appropriate. You may also want to consider how somebody with actual ranks in profession(gamer) or profession(chess) interacts with these rules. But overall, very well done sir.Thanks. Yeah, I thought +5 might be a little too excessive, as well. The decision came from campaign circumstances. The characters that want to play have widely varrying mental statistics -- one is the dashing rogue mentioned above, and the other is a consumate mentalist. The high bonus is to keep the rogue-types (who have an edge early on) competitive with the intellectual sorts in the endgame. Maybe a reduction to +4, though... that's more in line with the rule system (since it's double the standard bonus). As to the mentioned profession scores, I could see profession (gamer) having an impact. Maybe a character could roll that instead of the indicated skill in the opening and midgame, if his profession modifier is higher than the relevant skills. I'd probably keep the Int+Wis check, though -- that way, professional gamers can't get too far ahead of their casual contemporaries (even though in real life, they'd totally whip us). While it's not a bad system for generally simulating whether or not your character wins the game, any occurrence of a game of chess in a D&D context needs to have a way for you to make a "horrible blunder" or "brilliant gambit" that wins the game right then and there (either by actually forcing a surprise checkmate or by creating an obviously unretrievable situation). Say that at any time, if you win the opposed check by 10 or more, it counts as an instant win for your side.I like the "critical miss / hit" idea you mentioned. I think we've all made that stupid move and gotten our silly hides checkmated in three turns. It might be easier simply to go with the same rules as the rest of the d20 system, though -- that is, 1's and 20's are automatic successes and failures, respectively, as mentioned by dokesa, above. That's more familiar than introducing more arbritary rules, and keeps the game simple. Also, I agree that it does overemphasize the difference between White and Black -- these rules make Chess a game that you win in a totally different way if you're White and a totally different way if you're Black, so that there are some characters who always lose if they're Black and win if they're White, and vice versa. (Basically, a high-Cha Rogue always wants to be White.) A better way to do it would just be to emphasize that "White goes first" -- have the system work as it is right now, but roll each "phase" twice, and switch White and Black -- with the current set of modifiers gained by the last phase -- and roll the phase again. So if I'm playing White and you're Black, then first I roll my Bluff against your Sense Motive, and if I win, then you roll your Bluff against my Sense Motive, only I keep the +2 from the last phase (I agree that +5 is too high a bonus to ever give, especially with my "instant win" rule). This way we have more checks, which I think is more fun, and the game is more fair to both sides.I'd tend to disagree with the statement that the game is won in entirely different ways depending on what color you play, because, in the end, it's always opposed Intelligence + Wisdom checks. Granted, with modifiers that have a great deal of differentiation depending on what color you play -- but still, the same checks are being made in the end. Plus, characters would ideally switch colors after every game, so each character would get a crack at whatever their most advantageous side of the board happens to be, anyway, without ever introducing rules for more checks. One option would be to use 2d10 for this. Granted, it seems to take away from the d20 feel of the game, but it will have less variation. One consideration is that success will be strongly determined by the modifiers as opposed to the rolls.Hmm... I like that idea a lot. It's a nice hybrid between keeping the randomness, but giving the skill more of an affect upon that randomness. That's definitely a good idea. You're right -- it does take away from the d20 feel, which is part of what I was going for, but that might be worth the lost streamlining of the system. I like how you split up the phases. I'd probably do something like this: opening: opposed intelligence-based profession (chess) checks. midgame: opposed wisdom-based profession (chess) checks. endgame: opposed (int+wis)-based profession (chess) checks. The opening is intelligence-based because it's a memory issue of how deep into each opening you can correctly remember the moves. The midgame is wisdom-based because you need the experience of pattern recognition and an understanding of the principles. Resolve the game in three checks. Winning in each round grants a cumulative +2 bonus on the following rounds. Give white a +2 circumstance bonus for the opening check. Give each player a +2 bonus on the midgame and endgame checks for having 5 or more ranks in concentration. Natural 1s can be game-ending blunders and natural 20s can be game-ending sacrifices. Since white plays first, a tie on natural 1s and 20s is played as if white were the only one to roll a natural 1 or 20. I prefer 3d6 over d20 to make it less swingy.Thanks. If I could, though, I'd really like to avoid Black and White making the same checks in the initial rounds, so that every game doesn't turn out being played with the same modifiers for each player. Different modifiers, depending on who's playing what, makes for a more variable experience, and makes it feel less like "just" dice rolling, I think. I do like the ciritical hit / miss idea, though -- that's definitely very cool. We've all been there. I might switch midgame to Concentrate checks for both sides, maybe modified by Int instead of Con (or Concentrate + Int mod maybe). I agree that Bluff vs. Sense Motive is good for representing the differences in starting the game for the white and black player (and disagree with dokesa that going first is necessarily an advantage, if you're better at figuring out your oponent than manipulating him/her), but I don't think it makes much difference which you are once the game has been going for a while (except in the repercussions, represented by the bonuses for winning earlier rounds). Sure, characters will ask to get to play the color that they're best at, but real people do that too. I like ArcTan's instant win suggestion (although I might raise it a bit). If you want skill level to have more regular effects on winning, then the bell-curve rolls (3d6, 2d10, etc) are a good idea.Yeah... the fact that Concentration is based on Constitution is a bit of a drawback, since constitution shouldn't have much to do with chess. But, I'll probably keep it Con based, just to make the system easier to pick up and play. If you don't mind messing with the system, though, it'd probably be a good idea. At any rate, like I said above, I like for the first two rounds to be based on different skills, so that it really makes a difference if you're playing black or white. Intimidate's a bit of a stretch, I know, and the differences aren't really that important. But, I think I'm more interested in keeping this an interesting d20 minigame than copying the feel of chess to d20.