The Thrills of Skills

[Summer-Knight925]

What is your favorite skill system?

What is it you like about skills in rpgs?

Do you prefer loose skills (like a "science" skill) or detailed skills (like a "biology" skill and a "chemistry" skill)?

Do you feel skills are important to modern rpgs or not?

 

[Dethklok]

My favorite skill system is one I made, with a skillset so loose it may be regarded as non-existent, but no one knows it. So I'll pick the skill system of White Wolf's Vampire the Masquerade. Vampire did a nice job of giving plenty of well balanced skills, and the way skills could be paired with different attributes depending on the circumstance worked well. And while I generally prefer looser skillsets, the moderate level of detail seemed appropriate for what was (originally) intended as a gritty, real-world sort of game.

Matching the looseness or detail of a skillset to the genre is really an important consideration; for instance, I don't like Call of Cthulhu, but its overburdened skillset isn't so bad in the context of a game with a heavy academic focus. On this basis, I'd say that modern rpgs definitely should use skills, if it's appropriate to the context to have skills rather than some other mechanic.

 

[Razjah]

My favorite skill system is in Burning Wheel. There are a lot of skills in the book. Each race even has some different ones. The system uses dice-pools which can allow other skills to act as a Field of Related Knowledge (FoRK).

I like skills functioning as the "What my character is notably good at." For example, a modern game really doesn't need a literacy skill. But Burning Wheel has true literacy as two separate skills because literacy was so rare around the 12-13th centuries (there is a note by Luke Crane saying this is part of the reason why it is two separate skills-read and write).

I generally prefer more detailed skills. While too many can be bad, I prefer skill-based systems. The detailed skills allow for fine-tuning a character's capacity as well as limiting options to achieve a better feel for the genre of a game (for example, limiting magic skills in a more LotR style game compared to a more "traditional fantasy" vibe).

Hell yes, I think skills are important. They are an excellent method of representing character..well..skill and representing what is important to the player about this character. Skills can act as flags for a GM when creating an adventure, knowing that someone has a more obscure or less common skill can lead to great moments in game when it comes into play.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

 

[Dethklok]

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.

...You know, that sounds brilliant, but somehow it doesn't seem right for the kinds of games I like to play. What's Cortex like?

 

[Ahnehnois]

...You know, that sounds brilliant, but somehow it doesn't seem right for the kinds of games I like to play.

Not knowing what kinds of games you like to play, I don't know why this would be.

What's Cortex like?

Instead of a d20 + ability bonus + skill bonus, it's just one die for ability and one die for skill. For skills, the first three steps (d2, d4, and d6) are in a very general skill, like "Science" or "Guns" or "Influence", and the next three (d8, d10, and d12) are in a specialty (like biology, rifles, or diplomacy). So you might have Influence d6/Diplomacy d10/Bluff d12, meaning that you roll a d12 for bluffs, a d10 for diplomacy, and a d6 for anything else social. They suggest specialties, but if you want to be a special snowflake, you can make up your own easily without unbalancing anything, Skills and ability scores are not inherently tied together; some naturally fit but you pick the most appropriate combination for each task you attempt.

Rolling a 1 on both dice is essentially a critical failure, meaning that advances in skill drastically reduce the chance of that happening (unlike in D&D where you have a 5% chance of rolling a 1 no matter how good you are), while critical success is determined by beating the DC by 4. Obviously the probability curves are different than d20, but conceptually, the nature/nurture distinction is still there, the ability scores and skills are delineated like most D&D-like rpgs, and combat and noncombat skills use the same mechanics.

In play, it's very nice. It takes some getting used to, but I find that it's simpler than any of D&D's skill systems but also does more.

 

[Dethklok]

Thank you very much. I am going to adapt one of my games to that philosophy right now.

 

[DonAdam]

The other nice thing about Cortex is the ability to mix and match skills and abilities. In most contexts, Persuade + Personality makes sense. If talking to a scholar, you might use Persuade + Intellect. It's like a Chinese menu since skills aren't associated with particular scores.

 

[Dethklok]

Right, like Vampire the Masquerade. In fact looking carefully at the Cortex system as described, it's quite similar to Vampire, which had a 3-point skill cap and then required you pick a specialty to restrict the benefits from 4- and 5- point skill levels.

For a less heroic, or more low-fantasy game, however, I don't think the option to mix and match attributes and skills is very good, because items commonly add further modifiers. It's much cleaner to roll Skill + Item, where the attribute modifier went into the skill calculation, than to roll Ability + Skill + Item. I rarely recall ever using off-the-wall combinations in Vampire - it's really not that much of a benny to be able to roll Appearance + Computers rather than being restricted to Intelligence + Computers. (Maybe if it were, computer programmers would be snappier dressers.)

 

[GMMichael]

Instead of a d20 + ability bonus + skill bonus, it's just one die for ability and one die for skill. For skills, the first three steps (d2, d4, and d6) are in a very general skill, like "Science" or "Guns" or "Influence", and the next three (d8, d10, and d12) are in a specialty (like biology, rifles, or diplomacy). So you might have Influence d6/Diplomacy d10/Bluff d12, meaning that you roll a d12 for bluffs, a d10 for diplomacy, and a d6 for anything else social. They suggest specialties, but if you want to be a special snowflake, you can make up your own easily without unbalancing anything, Skills and ability scores are not inherently tied together; some naturally fit but you pick the most appropriate combination for each task you attempt.

In play, it's very nice. It takes some getting used to, but I find that it's simpler than any of D&D's skill systems but also does more.

Sounds like the direction that D&D Next is taking. Which is strangely flat for D&D: the probability spread between n00bs and Gods is a, what, d12 at best?

My RPG adds a point bonus to increasing dice, specifically to weapons and armor. So a d6+1 short sword generally does more damage than a d4 dagger, but has pretty poor odds of being effective against d10+3 plate mail.