The Thrills of Skills

I've been thinking a lot about skills recently. I'm working on a system in which the players give marks to the obstacles. It could be marks of bleeding (vs goblins) or progress (vs difficult terrain); there are nine kinds of marks total, three physical, three social, and three based on the environment. When the players think they have enough marks on something, they challenge an aspect of the obstacle, like a goblin's strength, or the clinging mud of a swamp. The target number is the number of marks given, modified by the strength of the challenged aspect. It works really well, but there is a hitch: how to deliver the marks? I've tried specific skills, but because the game doesn't have an open-ended application of skills, that can be VERY limiting. On the other hand, when I go broad (like having a "Fighting" skill), everyone essentially becomes the same character.

Some of my players are fine with the broad skills - they get to narrate whatever they like, and as long as they are staying true to the character, no problem. But my other players feel like they want more of a guide, a limitation on the character sheet that tells them what they can, and more importantly, what they can't do.

Right now, I'm trying to find a way to provide specific skills so my players feel like they have definition of character without losing a player's ability to contribute in every situation. It's very tricky!

My favorites are Savage Worlds, Cortex (Classic) and Unisystem (Cinematic). However, for all 3 games, I do have to alter the skill list of the game breaking down a few skills into multiple skills, remove a few skills (gambling in Savage Worlds), add a new skill or two, and combine a few skills into a single skill.

I will discuss Savage Worlds:
You have a list of default skills presented. However, the GM is supposed to tailor the list based upon the setting adding, subtracting or reskinning as necessary. If a skill will not be used regularly (suggestion is once every other adventure), but fits the characters background, it becomes a Common Knowledge skill (and uses a Trait (attribute) die +2).

Skills are rated from d4-2 (untrained) to d12. They are not tied directly to an attribute in that you don't add or roll the attribute as a bonus. Instead, the cost of the skill is based on the die of the skill relative to the die rating of the attribute associated with the skill.

TN. In most cases (combat being the exception), you are trying for a TN of 4. Modifiers are applied to the die roll.

Raises: For every 4 points you score higher than the target number you get a raise (which gets you a better result).

Ace: If you roll the maximum on your die, you get to roll the next highest die and add it to your roll.

Wild Cards (PCs and special NPCs) get an additional d6 to roll called the wild die. Edges can be applied and the Wild Die can Ace just like a skill die. If the result with the wild die result is higher than your skill die result, you can use the wild die total in.

Critical failure: if you roll a 1 on both the skill die and the Wild Die you critically fail and the GM gets to make up something bad to happen to the character.

Edges: These are kind of like D&D feats, but more beneficial than a 3e feat. Many skill based edges give you a +2 to a skill meaning you will often only fail your TN 4 roll if you roll a 1 on both the skill die and wild die . Furthermore, it increases your chance of a raise. In many ways, skill based edges are more important than having a d10 or d12 in a skill which is lost on many new players coming from other games. The importance of the skill die is that they (one or more skills) are prerequisites for edges.

Ahnehnois said:

I like the Cortex approach: a relatively finite number of basic, rigidly defined skills, and then past a certain point, you have to specialize, and the specialties are very numerous and open-ended. Also, they advance in a non-linear, non-level-based fashion.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the GM is encouraged to break out a skill specialty from an existing skill to create a new skill as appropriate to the campaign. An example given is adding the skill Watercraft to a game that will spend time on water. The other example was making a Lore skill separate from Knowledge to cover ghosts, UFO's or other strange lore that might be important to survival in a particular campaign . Big Damn Heroes for Serenity discussed creating an Intrigue skill for some campaigns.

Another interesting thing about Cortex is that in Big Damn Heroes a supplement for the Serenity version of Cortex, Cam discussed options for broader skills (changing from d6 to d8 before specializing),narrower skills (changing from d6 to d4 for taking specializations) and also really broad (no specialization)

Hiya.

Well, from a mechanics stand point, I actually really like either the simplistic "d100, equal or under" mechanic, or the one found in the Alternity system ("d20, with target numbers for achieving Amazine, Good or Ordinary").

For how skills are learned/improved, I really love the way an old RPG called "Powers & Perils" does it. Each skill has an Expertise Level ("EL"). Each is improved as you use. If you succeed in a check with that skill, you get 1d10 expertise points. If you fail by no more than 25, you get 1 point. If you fail by 26 or more points, you get nothing. Each skill as a Next Expertise Level (a multiplier, or squared). When you reach that amount (e.g., a skill with NEL x4, and you are EL 3, it will take 12 points to go up to EL 4; then you need 20 points more to his EL 5, etc.). One of the cool things about this system is that it also works for magic spells (e.g., you only get better in a spell if you actually use it...gaining a new Magic Experience Level [how experienced you are in the ways of magic, not how much expertise you have in a particular spell], doesn't mean your Fireball spell suddenly does more damage).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

[MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION]
I am mostly familiar with it through the BSG incarnation, and I have the generic book, but I don't have the Serenity stuff and hadn't read all of that. So thanks for adding some new info.

In any case I'm not saying Cortex is the best thing ever, merely a simple approach with some very interesting qualities.

Obviously biased, but I like the skill system in the RPG I'm designing. Actually, it's one of my favorite parts of my game...

Skills are arranged into related groups, so for example the Athletics skill group contains Balance, Climbing, Jumping, Running, Strength, and Swimming.

You assign ranks to each skill individually. Each skill group has a mastery rating equal to half the total number of ranks that have been spent on skills in that group. For example, if you put 10 ranks in Jumping and 10 ranks in Swimming, that's a total of 20 ranks, so you'd have a 10 for your mastery rating.

The total bonus you get to your rolls for any individual skill is equal to the ranks spent in it plus the group's mastery bonus, plus any miscellaneous modifiers. So in the previous example, you'd get +20 to Jumping and Swimming, and +10 to all the other Athletics skills.

Asmor said:

Obviously biased, but I like the skill system in the RPG I'm designing. Actually, it's one of my favorite parts of my game...

Skills are arranged into related groups, so for example the Athletics skill group contains Balance, Climbing, Jumping, Running, Strength, and Swimming.

You assign ranks to each skill individually. Each skill group has a mastery rating equal to half the total number of ranks that have been spent on skills in that group. For example, if you put 10 ranks in Jumping and 10 ranks in Swimming, that's a total of 20 ranks, so you'd have a 10 for your mastery rating.

The total bonus you get to your rolls for any individual skill is equal to the ranks spent in it plus the group's mastery bonus, plus any miscellaneous modifiers. So in the previous example, you'd get +20 to Jumping and Swimming, and +10 to all the other Athletics skills.

Click to expand...

Not a million miles from a system I use - arranged into groups, but the group rating is half the highest individual rating in that group. You use the individual rating or the group rating for a skill roll, whichever is highest. So if you're good at computer operation, you'll have some facility at comm systems operations even if you haven't assigned ranks to it.

Morrus said:

Not a million miles from a system I use - arranged into groups, but the group rating is half the highest individual rating in that group. You use the individual rating or the group rating for a skill roll, whichever is highest. So if you're good at computer operation, you'll have some facility at comm systems operations even if you haven't assigned ranks to it.

Click to expand...

The problem I see with a system like that is that it disincentivises investing in related skills. In your example, why would I put points into communications if it doesn't make any difference until I'm past that threshold.

Of course, my system has its problems too. You really need to invest narrowly in order to be stand-out good in any particular skill; otherwise, the difference between your best and worst skill in a group may well be very low. E.g. you put 12 points in running, jumping, and climbing, and then you've got 18 points of mastery. Mastery makes up well more than half of your skill total for the ones you've invested in, and the ones you haven't invested in are more than half as good as the ones you did.

Asmor said:

The problem I see with a system like that is that it disincentivises investing in related skills.

Click to expand...

I agree, that is a problem with Morrus' system... But honestly both systems seem overdesigned to me.

A mechanic I used for years was to allow players to "preroll" by averaging the skill bonus in question with another skill bonus from a related skill. This meant that there was always a return on investments to any skill, and there was no need to arrange related skills into clusters, especially since some skills never fit well into clusters. It also made for an option that experienced gamers could take advantage of if they wanted, while keeping the game simple for novices who are still getting the hang of things.