What's Your "Sweet Spot" for a Skill system?

[Crimson Longinus]

Regarding the number of skills, I rather like pretty broad skills. It bothers me less when characters are somewhat implausibly broadly competent (i.e. tech guy being to able fix basically anything) than the opposite phenomenon on narrow skill systems where people are utterly helpless in areas one might imagine to be related to their specialisation. Like a vet will still do way better in human medicine than an untrained person would, a master samurai will still be pretty effective with an European longsword etc. Also games tend to be about small group of people solving problems, so it is good that you're likely to have someone with revenant skill in any situation.

Now it of course is another matter if the game focuses more narrowly on one subset of human experience. For example a game about medical doctors probably would be better served by more nuanced breakdown than just having one "medicine" skill.

And a system where you have broad base skills and then you can choose to have narrower specialisation that makes you slightly better in that area is a pretty decent middle ground.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It was not my example!

I know. I’m saying that your interpretation of it stinks! If you need a logical explanation, why dismiss the one that is and choose the one that’s not?

You’re choosing the illogical thing!

This whole thing would have worked much better in a system like Star Wars/Genesys, where "creating rations" would have been a matter of success/failure on the roll, while "summons bandits" would have been an appropriate thing for the GM to spend Threat on. Ah, 2D task resolution, it's a wonderful thing.

Ah but how is threat gained by the GM?

I imagine that process would likely be deemed illogical by many.

There’s no escape from the illogicalness of if all!!!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know. I’m saying that your interpretation of it stinks! If you need a logical explanation, why dismiss the one that is and choose the one that’s not?

You’re choosing the illogical thing!

I am not. The original example did not contain such logical explanation, it was specifically made to point out that one doesn't need to exist.

 

[pointofyou]

I know. I’m saying that your interpretation of it stinks! If you need a logical explanation, why dismiss the one that is and choose the one that’s not?

You’re choosing the illogical thing!



Ah but how is threat gained by the GM?

I imagine that process would likely be deemed illogical by many.

There’s no escape from the illogicalness of if all!!!

That's because you're looking at it backward. If you were calling for a test to see if the PCs could avoid drawing the attention of bandits known to be in the area would the first skill you called for be cooking?

 

[Staffan]

Ah but how is threat gained by the GM?

I imagine that process would likely be deemed illogical by many.

There’s no escape from the illogicalness of if all!!!

In Star Wars/Genesys, you roll dice with various symbols on them. "Good" dice are granted by your attributes, your skills, and beneficial circumstances (e.g. good equipment), and mostly produce Success and Advantage symbols (there's also a Triumph symbol, which acts both as a Success and an extra-good Advantage). "Bad" come from task difficulty and negative circumstances, and mostly produce Failure and Threat symbols (and possibly a Despair symbol which is the negative version of Triumph). Successes/Failures cancel, and if you have successes remaining you have succeeded in your task. You've gotten the information you wanted from the system, you've hit your target, you managed to provide nutrients to your companions. Additional Failures don't matter, but additional successes make you succeed more – you found the information faster, you hit for more damage, you provide more food. Similarly, Advantages and Threats cancel, but the remainder make things happen that are tangential to the endeavor. If you were hacking a system for information, advantages could let you find other useful information you weren't looking for, while threats might set off alarms. If you're shooting, advantages can either trigger special weapon effects or provide incidental benefits such as destroying cover, or giving the next person shooting a bonus die. Similarly, threats might mean you had to stretch out of cover to take the shot and thus lose your own cover, or you might become stressed from the fighting, and so on. And when surviving in the wilds, advantages might mean you find something else that's beneficial, while threats might mean you attract something you'd rather not.

The fun stuff here is that the two axes are sort of orthogonal: you can fail with advantages, you can fail with threats, you can succeed with threats, and you can succeed with advantages. This creates a two-dimensional outcome, as opposed to the linear outcome most systems offer.

Edit: The axes are only sort of orthogonal, since the symbols come from the same dice. So if you roll a Success on a die, you didn't also roll an Advantage on that die (unless the die shows both a success and an advantage on that face). So there's a thing where more successes usually mean fewer advantages, and more failures usually mean fewer threats, so results tend slightly toward success with threats and failure with advantages. But that's a fairly slight tendency.

 

[Thourne]

That's because you're looking at it backward. If you were calling for a test to see if the PCs could avoid drawing the attention of bandits known to be in the area would the first skill you called for be cooking?

I think this fails to capture what occurs in games when that never happens. In some of the games we play I wouldn't call for a test for that. I would ask the players what their characters were doing/working on/attempting to accomplish. They would say what and how. Then they would choose the appropriate roll dependent on the action they choose to do and how. Once they establish the goal they make the roll (if even necessary). Failure would result in the goal not being reached. How it was not reached could be narrated by myself or the player dependent on
the particulars of the interaction as deemed by the rules.

 

[pointofyou]

I think this fails to capture what occurs in games when that never happens. In some of the games we play I wouldn't call for a test for that. I would ask the players what their characters were doing/working on/attempting to accomplish. They would say what and how. Then they would choose the appropriate roll dependent on the action they choose to do and how. Once they establish the goal they make the roll (if even necessary). Failure would result in the goal not being reached. How it was not reached could be narrated by myself or the player dependent on
the particulars of the interaction as deemed by the rules.

So in those games do you think players in an area where bandits or other threats are known to be active would start by wanting to test cooking? Why wouldn't they start by finding or making a secure or hidden place to spend the night?

 

[Thourne]

So in those games do you think players in an area where bandits or other threats are known to be active would start by wanting to test cooking? Why wouldn't they start by finding or making a secure or hidden place to spend the night?

After 40+ years of gaming I have learned never to assume in advance what any party might choose to do.
Players are slippery and prone to go the opposite direction on one way streets.

 

[pointofyou]

After 40+ years of gaming I have learned never to assume in advance what any party might choose to do.
Players are slippery and prone to go the opposite direction on one way streets.

Nice dodge.

 

[Thourne]

Nice dodge.

Not a dodge. You asked me to tell you what others think. I can't.
Do you want to know some things I might do? I can answer that.

I might decide since we are low on edibles to cook.
I may decide to spend the night mapping the stars to better navigate our way through the area.
I may decide to scout for other people in the area.
I may decide to scavenge for resources.
I could decide to perform to raise the spirits of my comrades.
There are lots of things I might decide to do.