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

[pemerton]

My Runequest and 5e hacks have 50 skills. I consider this the minimum number of named proficiencies for a skill-based game. If you're going to have fewer than 50, then the game should be attribute based. Some people might think it's obvious that I run a lot of Burning Wheel.

Torchbearaer has 33 in the core book, 8 more in the LoreMaster's Manual, 1 more in the Scavenger's Suplement, and then 5 more non-joke ones in the NPC lists in the Scholar's Guide (Beekeper, Brewer, Glazier, Miller, Potter). That's 47 in total.

Prince Valiant has 14 basic skills and 15 advanced skills, or 29 in total. In our game we ignore Spoken Language as a skill, so that leaves us with 28.

In the Classic Traveller ruleset that I use, I have the 23 (it might be 24 if you break Ship's Boat out from other Vehicle skills) skills of the 3 core books, plus another 20 from the various supplements, or 43 in total (Although there are more than that if you count all the options for weapon skills and Vehicle skill as cascade skills).

I think all of these are fully functional as skill-based games. Of course so is Burning Wheel - but one thing that I think makes BW's long skill list is that it has a decent rule for synergy/augmentation, namely, FoRKs.

It seems to me that designers of a game should figure out about a dozen() distinct things that are *actually rolled in the game and make 'skills' for them. If it's not rolled often, fold it into another 'skill' and make that beefier.

(*) Actual number can range, but I think a dozen is about right, give or take, depending on the game.

I think that nearly every RPG system that I play has more descriptors than this: as well as the ones I've mentioned there is 4e (combat rolls, plus 17 skills), and Marvel Heroic RP (19 categories of power, plus 13 "specialties" which are a bit like skills). The only exception I'm thinking of at the moment is Agon, which as I posted upthread has 4 "domains" of competence.

 

[JAMUMU]

Torchbearaer has 33 in the core book, 8 more in the LoreMaster's Manual, 1 more in the Scavenger's Suplement, and then 5 more non-joke ones in the NPC lists in the Scholar's Guide (Beekeper, Brewer, Glazier, Miller, Potter). That's 47 in total.

I think all of these are fully functional as skill-based games. Of course so is Burning Wheel - but one thing that I think makes BW's long skill list is that it has a decent rule for synergy/augmentation, namely, FoRKs.

It's the FoRKing that makes BW-derived skills so much fun/flexible and useful in the hands of players. Every time I play a game with non-FoRKable skills, I sit around wishing I was FoRKing my character's skills.

Imagine if your 5e character could stack Perception, Insight and Insight into one roll to solve the mystery? And another player could argue that their Survival skill could grant you bonus dice?

 

[Staffan]

For sure, the decoupling of skills and abilities is a step forward. But I submit that this character would be just as competent with the Medicine skill by itself .

It depends on the rest of the game, I think. In Star Trek Adventures, there are only six "skills", so crossing them over with the six stats helps bring some more definition to the characters. The Troubleshooters on the other hand has a skill list that's 25+ skills long, so that's already quite a bit of differentiation. Both games also have other mechanical bits that specialize a character in various ways or provide non-skill abilities.

There's also the way Storypath (e.g. Trinity Continuum) does it, where the player can choose which stat to use (within reason) when rolling for a skill, determining how they intend to solve a thing. For example, the character needs to drive across town before something bad happens. The natural roll would perhaps be Pilot + Dexterity, to drive through traffic like a demon. But maybe the player suggests using Pilot + Intelligence instead, to figure out various shortcuts instead. They're going to need a pretty good explanation if they're planning to use Pilot + Might, though.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm sorry, but is SWADE a Star Wars RPG system?

edit: Oh gosh! I just figured it out - Savage Worlds! I even own that system! LOL

Sorry, too much time on the Pinnacle Entertainment forums. Yes, SWADE is Savage Worlds ADventure Edition.

And, for the record, it would make a great system for Star Wars.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think that nearly every RPG system that I play has more descriptors than this: as well as the ones I've mentioned there is 4e (combat rolls, plus 17 skills), and Marvel Heroic RP (19 categories of power, plus 13 "specialties" which are a bit like skills). The only exception I'm thinking of at the moment is Agon, which as I posted upthread has 4 "domains" of competence.

Even 5e has 18 actual skills, plus the combat skills and a STACK of tool proficiencies (26 in all, not counting specializations). And it's worth noting that spellcasting has no specific skill behind it.

 

[JAMUMU]

Even 5e has 18 actual skills, plus the combat skills and a STACK of tool proficiencies (26 in all, not counting specializations). And it's worth noting that spellcasting has no specific skill behind it.

You see, in a strictly socialist-realist world of RPGs, those tool proficiences would be seen as intrinsic to the living reality of working class adventurers, and so would join the ranks of "actual" skills, where "actual" was seen as mere bourgeois coding used to suppress the skill base and talents of the authentic common worker/adventuer, comrade @JohnSnow .

Specialisations sound a bit dodgy but.

 

[JohnSnow]

You see, in a strictly socialist-realist world of RPGs, those tool proficiences would be seen as intrinsic to the living reality of working class adventurers, and so would join the ranks of "actual" skills, where "actual" was seen as mere bourgeois coding used to suppress the skill base and talents of the authentic common worker/adventuer, comrade @JohnSnow .

LOL. I was using the word "actual" sarcastically because it drives me crazy that WotC shoves a bunch of skills into tool proficiencies supposedly because they're things that are "less important" to adventurers. Except that the tool list also includes "Thieves' Tools," so I have no understanding of the rhyme or reason whatsoever.

Specialisations sound a bit dodgy but.

While I separately counted each different set of "Artisan's tools," I was glossing over the fact that the PHB lists 10 separate kinds of musical instruments and 4 different gaming sets, because I definitely don't feel we need that level of granularity in a skill system.

 

[JohnSnow]

Also: "Disguise Kit," "Forgery Kit,""Herbalism Kit," "Poisoner's Kit" and "Navigator's tools."

Granted, PCs needing the ability to use one or two of these is sorta campaign-specific, but the rest all feel pretty relevant to adventuring. So again, the tool/skill divide makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[JAMUMU]

Also: "Disguise Kit," "Forgery Kit,""Herbalism Kit," "Poisoner's Kit" and "Navigator's tools."

Granted, PCs needing the ability to use one or two of these is sorta campaign-specific, but the rest all feel pretty relevant to adventuring. So again, the tool/skill divide makes no sense to me whatsoever.

"I forge my disguise out of herbs and use poison to force the navigator to tell me the right direction" is an active sentence I would expect to hear from any post-Albanian Socialist/D&D player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ve grown quite fond of games that don’t really worry about the difference between attributes and skills. Blades in the Dark, for example, just has Action Ratings. So your Prowl rating is a measure of how good you are at moving quietly and the like. What that rating means… natural skill, intense training… is up to you.

And the Resistance System, which is used in both Spire and Heart, skips Attributes and instead has a list of Skills and a list of Domains. It has no ratings, you either have a Skill or Domain or you don’t. When you make a roll, you start with 1d10. If you have an applicable Skill, add 1d10, if you have an applicable Domain, add 1d10. So the relevant Skills and Domains add to your dice pool, increasing your chance of success.

Other games do similar things. I’ve come to like this approach; it seems simpler and allows the player some freedom in describing how and why the PC is good at any given skill.