Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.

[AbdulAlhazred]

The original BRP box set settings had around 20 skills...
But that was before the popularity of the monolithic core.

I can't speak to how many BRP as a standalone product had to begin with, but CoC has around 100 skills in its 1st edition, and I think the size of the list was only limited by what would fit on the character sheet (3 columns of text, small print, covering about 90% of the sheet in 1st Edition CoC). It was WAY WAY WAY too many. 15 to 20 skills would have easily sufficed, and a lot of things could have simply been stated as "use ability check X for this" instead of even needing a distinct skill.

SG1 totally flips advancement at level 5 to a "Buy the abilities, get the HP, Proficiency Bonus, Stat gains, and damage boost when you have spent X on abilities." I wish they'd done that at level 1, and a GM easily could...
That change made a HUGE difference in mechanical feel.

Hehe, well, in HoML, which is at heart pretty basic 4e-era d20, I inverted advancement. So, every time you acquire a new ability (a boon) THEN you advance a level (only if it is a 'major boon', just a pile or coins or whatever isn't enough). Technically you COULD even LOSE levels, although that isn't really something that normally happens in play except maybe as a really special situation (IE if you RPed that your character gave up his heroic pretensions, passed his magic sword and whatnot on to his son, and retired, then it might be thematic to say "Oh, he was 10th level, now he's 5th level, he's kind of old and washed up."

As with SG1, I found that it profoundly changed the feel of advancement.

 

[aramis erak]

I can't speak to how many BRP as a standalone product had to begin with, but CoC has around 100 skills in its 1st edition, and I think the size of the list was only limited by what would fit on the character sheet (3 columns of text, small print, covering about 90% of the sheet in 1st Edition CoC). It was WAY WAY WAY too many. 15 to 20 skills would have easily sufficed, and a lot of things could have simply been stated as "use ability check X for this" instead of even needing a distinct skill.

Actually, for Greg's goals in RuneQuest, 20 broad skills isn't enough. But Runequest also isn't as combat focused as D&D.

Plus, the "20 skills" of D&D is fundamentally wrong (tho' technically correct by the letter of the rules); transport proficiencies and tool proficiencies work exactly the same way, and each are at least 10 more (out on pit stop during errands, so books not to hand). Wagon Proficiency is functionally a skill, just one without a tight attribute assignment to wisdom.

Not counting the weapon proficiencies, either.

Also, the difference in the numbers and types of skills makes a strong textural difference. You don't always succeed on casting in RQ, but you do in D&D, due to the casting checks.

This directly affects the fiction by causing uncertainty and the possibility of side effects, which, with critfails being standard in RQ, means a different approach to the fictional state by players familiar with the system. RQ combat is unrealisiticly deadly; but the other skills are more realistically narrowed to about one medieval guild per skill. Which makes them more interesting to engage with for mechanically minded players. (But deady to the fun of "Sommetimes we even roll the dice" types.

 

[Sithlord]

Actually, for Greg's goals in RuneQuest, 20 broad skills isn't enough. But Runequest also isn't as combat focused as D&D.

Plus, the "20 skills" of D&D is fundamentally wrong (tho' technically correct by the letter of the rules); transport proficiencies and tool proficiencies work exactly the same way, and each are at least 10 more (out on pit stop during errands, so books not to hand). Wagon Proficiency is functionally a skill, just one without a tight attribute assignment to wisdom.

Not counting the weapon proficiencies, either.

Also, the difference in the numbers and types of skills makes a strong textural difference. You don't always succeed on casting in RQ, but you do in D&D, due to the casting checks.

This directly affects the fiction by causing uncertainty and the possibility of side effects, which, with critfails being standard in RQ, means a different approach to the fictional state by players familiar with the system. RQ combat is unrealisiticly deadly; but the other skills are more realistically narrowed to about one medieval guild per skill. Which makes them more interesting to engage with for mechanically minded players. (But deady to the fun of "Sommetimes we even roll the dice" types.

This is a very good post. I think the available skills for a system need to reflect the setting. I disagree with RQ not being a high combat system. I play in RQ and Elric games with just as much combat as D&D. We do try to avoid combat in situations. But we do that to in my 1E game. And it could be the people I play RQ and Elric with have a strong D&D background. I don’t think I play BRP games with anyone that hasn’t started out in D&D and I only started playing it in the mid to late 90s.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, for Greg's goals in RuneQuest, 20 broad skills isn't enough. But Runequest also isn't as combat focused as D&D.

Plus, the "20 skills" of D&D is fundamentally wrong (tho' technically correct by the letter of the rules); transport proficiencies and tool proficiencies work exactly the same way, and each are at least 10 more (out on pit stop during errands, so books not to hand). Wagon Proficiency is functionally a skill, just one without a tight attribute assignment to wisdom.

Not counting the weapon proficiencies, either.

Also, the difference in the numbers and types of skills makes a strong textural difference. You don't always succeed on casting in RQ, but you do in D&D, due to the casting checks.

This directly affects the fiction by causing uncertainty and the possibility of side effects, which, with critfails being standard in RQ, means a different approach to the fictional state by players familiar with the system. RQ combat is unrealisiticly deadly; but the other skills are more realistically narrowed to about one medieval guild per skill. Which makes them more interesting to engage with for mechanically minded players. (But deady to the fun of "Sommetimes we even roll the dice" types.

There is, however, a HUGE problem with large unbounded skill lists. They are just unworkable. I'll use a character sheet from my long ago 80's CoC campaign that I dug out as an example (I will also note, I was wrong, this is CoC 3rd Edition, still really old):

There are 72 skills on the character sheet, and the list is 'open' (there is some space to add more). Weapon skills are not listed either, you have to write those in (presumably there are potentially a vast array of them). The character in question seems to have 10 skills with a rating, so she will be baseline in all the others, meaning she has anywhere from a 0% rating up to 25% depending on the skill. Of the 10 she's got points in, 5 are at or below 30%, and 2 are at or above 60%. She's a 'parapsychologist', which IIRC is a specific occupation or at least a variation of 'academic', yet her psychology skill is only 35%. So, frankly, this character has few really usable skills, library use and read/write (English) are the best.

Now, suppose she has to conceal herself, what skill does she use? Well, there is Camouflage, with 25% (the base level, we are all able to sort of do this), BUT there is also Hide at 10% (again, base level). Which would apply? Some situations might seem to mandate Hide, but MANY could be either one, flip a coin! Why do we need Camouflage? Why are people so much naturally better at it than 'hiding'? There is also 'Sneak' which has a baseline of 10% as well, but if you are sneaky shouldn't hiding and sneaking be pretty much correlated? One is unlikely to achieve great ability in one and not the other for sure...

Likewise we have Debate, Oratory, and Fast Talk. Why do we need all of these? I mean, sure, I can kinda parse some difference between them, but MANY times you will simply want to 'talk' and now you have to pick from several skills, and you may have drastically different ability to employ these often subtle variations. Nor would I limit the world to these 3 realistically, there are certainly many other variations of human communication at that level of granularity! Nor is it clear why you would use these instead of other skills like Law, Psychology, Speak, etc. depending on the situation. Since CoC doesn't clearly distinguish whether intent or action is the relevant factor we can VERY OFTEN have many choices.

All of this, combined with the lack of any 'check valence' or 'pacing' makes using skills in CoC/BRP quite painful. It is really a very awkward system by modern standards and when put in contrast to something like PbtA I honestly cannot even contemplate using it anymore.

As for 5e, well, at least very little is made of proficiencies in 5e beyond weapon/armor really. Honestly I played through 2 campaigns and maybe used them a couple of times in each. 4e's design is also MUCH stronger, where each of the 19 skills is very broad and represents something like an 'approach' or 'knack' more than a hard skill. The binding to specific ability scores helps there too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a very good post. I think the available skills for a system need to reflect the setting. I disagree with RQ not being a high combat system. I play in RQ and Elric games with just as much combat as D&D. We do try to avoid combat in situations. But we do that to in my 1E game. And it could be the people I play RQ and Elric with have a strong D&D background. I don’t think I play BRP games with anyone that hasn’t started out in D&D and I only started playing it in the mid to late 90s.

The problem is, BRP characters are just 'broadly incompetent'. A given character might possess 1/10th of the listed skills, at best. In all other areas, he should avoid any engagement! If a task is so easy he can achieve it anyway, well is it really something that should be rolled? It just doesn't work! If you do spread your points around, then you are basically good at nothing except easy tasks in a bunch of areas, which certainly doesn't make a character impressive at all.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

The problem is, BRP characters are just 'broadly incompetent'. A given character might possess 1/10th of the listed skills, at best. In all other areas, he should avoid any engagement! If a task is so easy he can achieve it anyway, well is it really something that should be rolled? It just doesn't work! If you do spread your points around, then you are basically good at nothing except easy tasks in a bunch of areas, which certainly doesn't make a character impressive at all.

The "broad" skill list is intended to be used in part to support the genre being played. Character creation is a point buy system for skills and abilities so there is no reason for a character not to be extremely proficient in the areas they would want or need to be. It is a mistake to consider the entire skill list must be used in its entirety. One of the fun aspects of the system for all playing is the customization of character creation for the specific genre intended to be played. Characters in Stormbringer can begin with over 100% in a weapon skill at creation, for example. The BRP Gold Book gives appropriate scale of points to aid players in creating the characters they desire. A Call of Cthulhu character is not going to be built the same as a superhero or starship trooper character. The system as presented in the general BRP big gold book is for players to design the world and characters they wish to have for the game intended to play. Don't think PCs are robust enough out of the gate, give them more points to spend at character creation.

 

[pemerton]

There are vast differences between the characters I play and myself in terms of thought patterns, social ties, social pressures, emotions, etc.

Likewise. My last two PCs have been a fanatically devoted knight of a holy military order; and a self-deceived Maeglin-style Dark Elf who is (or at least thinks himself - maybe he's self-deceived!) ready to kill with a long knife.

In real life I'm pretty different from both these characters in how I see the world and my relationships with other people.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Likewise. My last two PCs have been a fanatically devoted knight of a holy military order; and a self-deceived Maeglin-style Dark Elf who is (or at least thinks himself - maybe he's self-deceived!) ready to kill with a long knife.

In real life I'm pretty different from both these characters in how I see the world and my relationships with other people.

Are you, though? Or are RPGs just an excuse to let the mask slip a bit, hmmmm?

 

[pemerton]

Are you, though? Or are RPGs just an excuse to let the mask slip a bit, hmmmm?

I have had posters on these boards draw broader inferences about me from my "literary" taste in RPGing and PCs. I don't hold it against anyone who does that - it's a natural thing to do - but sometimes it is quite amusing!

 

[Sithlord]

I like the skill system in COC because of its customization. Instead of insight like D&D one can make a psychology check. Instead of investigation check one can use a anthropology or archaeology or any field that relates to it. Maybe biology or medicine if investigating a corpse. You can fall back on skill like d&d if you want and make general insight or investigation checks. But it’s far more RP rewarding to take skills that a character in that time period and profession would have. COC does that well. And the way skill advancement in BRP in general work is so organic, as well as gaining new skills.

i have players wanting to play d&d settings with coc rules with spells adapted from d&d and not the runequest spells. They want for example misty steps and fireball. We may give that a try. I suggested runequest (which i adore) but they liked specifically how the skill system works compared to the new runequest edition. There are minor differences.