Why does a SciFi RPG "need" skills?

[Umbran]

Sure, you can. Check out virtually any of the Star Wars games for an example.

Well, the WEG D6 Star Wars was skil-based.

SWSE has classes, but it also has a largish skill system as well, with some pretty hefty skill restrictions by class.

 

[Halivar]

I love the customization of skill-based sci-fi games; I've been playing Heavy Gear for a loooong time and played a lot of GURPS too.

But god, I hate them now. I hate the skill lists. I love what they can give me, but I hate what they cost in bloat and fiddlyness. I just started a Silhouette Core game and it already feels like riding a bloated warthog.

If I was going to do it all over again, I'd just take 13th Age, file off the classes and per-level bonuses, and go with the backgrounds. Reduce the skill list to things like "Worked as a stardrive engineer for pirates (+5), accidentally married into the mob (+1), escaped from prison (+2)". Bam. Done.

But I've already mentioned in the D&D forum that I wish the skill list was gone.

 

[Derren]

I've been putting a lot of thought into SciFi RPGs recently. What is it about SciFi RPGs where they feel the need to insert a skill system?

In other words, why can't we have "OD&D in Space" or "C&C in Space" or "AD&D in Space" with just a simple class system? Each character class would have a short list of things it could do, much the same way that fighters or clerics or magic-users or thieves each have a short list of things it can do.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like there are certain things in a SciFi setting which could be universal, like piloting a ship. Kind of like in a modern setting where one can drive a car or use a computer or use a microwave oven, do we need a special skill for this?

I'll be interested in other's views on this. What am I missing?

Because the entire concept of a skillless system where everyone is good at everything is inherently silly and only really conceivable in fantasy RPGs were the PCs can spend nearly the entire game time in dungeons and do not come into contact with non combat related problems the rest of the time.

SciFi implies the existence of technology the PCs will likely interact with (otherwise it is not scifi) and justifying everyone being good at everything, even complex machines, becomes even harder if not impossible. Also, the existence of technology implies the existence of civilization which the players will come into contact more than in dungeon crawl game as the entire existence of dungeons you never leave is also rather silly to begin with. And as most civilizations, especially in the imagined future, have laws and the ability to enforce them you can't rely on your fighting skills only and need some other things to let the PCs interact with said civilization unless you want to go completely freeform at which point you have to ask why you paid money for the rules in the first place or why you are not simply running a arena style game.

 

[Janx]

Because the entire concept of a skillless system where everyone is good at everything is inherently silly and only really conceivable in fantasy RPGs were the PCs can spend nearly the entire game time in dungeons and do not come into contact with non combat related problems the rest of the time.

key assumption there is "everyone is good at everything" with emphasis added by me.

The problem with skill-based systems is that they are abhorently finite and short in comparison to what actually exists as skills. And the PC is further unrealistically constrained.

In Sci-Fi fiction, we often see people who are ill-suited to a task, rising to the challenge of solving a problem outside their expertise. in order for that to be possible, they can't be saddled with such penalties to discourage even trying.

Obviously, nobody PC or real person is good at everything. But most people are good at a variety of things, and are adaptable enough to be functional in a pinch in others. The areas in which they truly suck aren't usually show-stoppers (except in truly advanced technical areas outside that person's experience).

RPG design in skill-based systems tended to encourage tight specialization (except in those cases somebody previously mentioned). Which meant maximizing point allocations in the stuff that matters, forcing your PC to suck in areas that a normal person could be functional at.


So, I would advocate the idea that a PC is likely good in an area of things (ex. Medicine), and probably functional in a number of other areas either by osmosis, interest, or figuring it out.

There is also quite likely a variety of areas that a person might actually suck at. That's actually harder to model (in my view). I'm usually surprised to find what people can't do.

Bear in mind, I'm of above average intelligence, and I tend to work/play with above average intelligence people. I'm used to quickly figuring out how to do things, in order to solve problems. So what I don't know is seldom a significant barrier. I'm used to people with extensive lists of varied skills/experience. I've never met anybody who was "just a doctor" and couldn't handle any other kind of problems.

So in Star Trek, everybody can fly a shuttle, work a tricorder, and run some diagnostics to change out a blown crystal. Because that's the Sci-Fi minimal standard experience as compared to our modern equivalent to driving the car, setting up the X-Box, and using our smart phone to check the weather.

Now sure, there's stupid people who can't fix a flat tire, or figure out to reboot their PC when Windows locks up. But I like to think that sometime in the future, there was a purge of stupid people before we headed to the stars.

 

[Derren]

In Sci-Fi fiction, we often see people who are ill-suited to a task, rising to the challenge of solving a problem outside their expertise. in order for that to be possible, they can't be saddled with such penalties to discourage even trying.

Which is in my opinion a very poor benchmark for RPGs.
In fiction people never fail, unless the failure is required to ultimately succeed. Someone rises to the challenge because in fiction failure is never shown. Yet in RPGs failure must be an option unless you want a very easy game where everyone always succeed. So when failure is a option, either because of realism and/or challenge, you can not simply say that everyone can do everything.

And saying "intelligent people can do everything a bit" is, well, not very intelligent.
Proficiency has not only to do with intelligence but also experience. No matter how intelligent you are, if you, at best, only have theoretical knowledge of how electronics work you will not be able to repair the wiring of a big machine as well as a trained yet less intelligent electrician.

Everyone may be able to fly a shuttle, but how often do you see tactical officers reprogram transporters or analyze anomalies?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Depends on how you design "skills".

Heck, even BD&D had a "skill" system ... built into the Thief class. You don't absolutely have to have a customizable skill system, but I submit there are some things that need variable resolution outside of combat that are best answered by some variant of skills -- even if that "skill system" is an ability check.

 

[finarvyn]

[Just a quick note - with apologies to the OP - this is a very, very old thread which was buried in the moderated posts queue for some reasons - there's a good chance the OP will never see these replies].

Actually, here I am. I had forgotten about the thread altogether.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'd perhaps look at it a different way, and ask "Why do so many fantasy games use class-based systems?"

I'd guess that the reason is because they were inspired by D&D. Early sci-fi games (like Traveller) diverged from the class-based system into a more skill-oriented system.

Honestly, and I'm violating my own principles by saying this, but I think class-based design is simply inferior to skill-based design. Or rather, it is inferior for simulationism and generally inferior for narrativism*. Most designers simply agreed with that and moved on to skill-based systems. The current crop of non-D&D class-based games is a direct result (IMO) of the d20 revolution set off by the OGL. In contrast to many, I don't think this was good for the industry. Perhaps financially, but not creatively. By the late 90s, skill-based systems were the expected norm (outside of D&D itself).

Sci-fi games are generally simulationist and/or narrativist, and skill-based systems are generally more effective in modeling that.

*OTOH, I actually want my D&D to be traditionally skill-based.

 

[finarvyn]

I'd perhaps look at it a different way, and ask "Why do so many fantasy games use class-based systems?"

I'd guess that the reason is because they were inspired by D&D.

I think you answered your own question there -- D&D was the inspiration for most of the early RPGs.

Some interesting thoughts here, but I still think that my initial question is a valid one and I suppose that it comes down to preference rather than an actual design reason. Just because you might enjoy skills or find them more "realistic" doesn't mean that SciFi RPGs "need" them.

It's interesting to note that some recent scifi RPGs based on D&D clones have decided to take a class-based approach instead of skill-based, so perhaps some of the "must be like Traveller" folks are branching out now a little.

Anyway, nice discussion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some interesting thoughts here, but I still think that my initial question is a valid one and I suppose that it comes down to preference rather than an actual design reason. Just because you might enjoy skills or find them more "realistic" doesn't mean that SciFi RPGs "need" them.

Well, if that is your standard, there is NO particular RPG design element needed for any kind of RPG.