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

[Staffan]

I have come to think that it's unnecessary for a system to have both attributes and skills. I understand why such systems exist and endure, but for me there's no extra utility inherent in the additional layer of detail. It's less of a useful method of comparison than we think, because most players will expect a die roll of some sort to determine the outcome of a contest between two characters anyway.

I can see the point in having both, particularly in a system like Star Trek Adventures or Storyteller/Storypath when you can have different combinations of attributes + skills for different situations. For example, in STA you might roll Reason + Medicine to diagnose a medical problem, and Control + Medicine to perform surgery.

 

[pemerton]

I tend to think of this topic as what's the function of a skill system?

A skill system creates subtle variations in prospects of success for different sorts of PC builds, depending on the fictional details of (i) the situation and (ii) the player's action declaration for their PC.

In the case of games like RuneQuest, Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, the system also creates a feedback loop into PC advancement/development.

So varying the skill system generates different play experiences. A system with many and varied skills, like Rolemaster or RQ or BW, encourages a focus on minute details of situations and action declarations. In play, this creates a "grittier" experience. Minutiae matter.

A system based on a small number of broadly-described attributes (like say Agon - each PC is rated in Arts & Oration, Craft & Reason, Blood & Valour, and Resolve & Spirit) makes the general fit between these PC descriptors and the described action salient, while making minute details of the fictional situation less important.

In both approaches, it is important that players are expected to have the freedom to describe what their PCs do, and how they approach situations, just choosing how to bring their PC skills to bear. If the focus in a RPG is on the players being expected to follow the GM's lead on what sort of action declarations are appropriate (eg as per some module-based/AP-based play) then skill systems seem rather pointless to me, or even potentially unfair, because they will simply create a "gate" between PC build choices and prospect of succeeding at the GM's adventure.

 

[Committed Hero]

I can see the point in having both, particularly in a system like Star Trek Adventures or Storyteller/Storypath when you can have different combinations of attributes + skills for different situations. For example, in STA you might roll Reason + Medicine to diagnose a medical problem, and Control + Medicine to perform surgery.

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 .

 

[JohnSnow]

I honestly think I would favor a system where skills define the character, and attributes either determine how good you are to start with (natural ability counts for something) or make it easier for an appropriately "gifted" character to train a skill (meaning that starting characters can get more ranks for the same investment if they're "gifted" in the attribute). Both of these are an appropriate way of modeling what natural abilities actually mean in "the real world." Not that this is always good game design, but why not start there?

But after creation, I think that should go away, so that advancement is just advancement. This is because, as both a DM and a player making a "higher-level" character, I hate having to worry about when I bought what skill (see 3e and "cross-class skills"). It may not be "realistic," but this is a place where I'm personally willing to sacrifice a little realism for expediency.

Of course, not all systems allow for varying levels of skill training, so that may not be relevant in every set-up.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have come to think that it's unnecessary for a system to have both attributes and skills. I understand why such systems exist and endure, but for me there's no extra utility inherent in the additional layer of detail. It's less of a useful method of comparison than we think, because most players will expect a die roll of some sort to determine the outcome of a contest between two characters anyway.

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.

 

[pogre]

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 guess I am on the other side of this equation - I really like lots of skills. Not sure if I have as good of a justification as you do for your position, but I do get frustrated when skills I consider very different are lumped in the same category. It's not a make or break situation for me in a game - I play a lot of 5e after all. It may be a left over from my WFRP days.

 

[JohnSnow]

I guess I am on the other side of this equation - I really like lots of skills. Not sure if I have as good of a justification as you do for your position, but I do get frustrated when skills I consider very different are lumped in the same category. It's not a make or break situation for me in a game - I play a lot of 5e after all. It may be a left over from my WFRP days.

The easy fix for this is what SWADE does. There's 32 skills, of which 5 are the various "use magical powers" skills, and another several are technology-based. So it's about 2 dozen total (of which "Language" is one), including the three skills that cover combat ability.

Beyond that, you can decide that your game requires "Specializations" ("Skill Specialization" is a setting rule). They are explicit that even if you choose to use this rule, you do not have to use it for every area, but can pick and choose if a particular subject were particularly important to your game.

It's a pretty neat system that isn't too granular.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'll also add that SWADE has separated out certain skills that might not be relevant in all settings - they have boating, driving, and piloting as separate skills, for example.

 

[pogre]

I'll also add that SWADE has separated out certain skills that might not be relevant in all settings - they have boating, driving, and piloting as separate skills, for example.

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

 

[JAMUMU]

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.