Why does a SciFi RPG "need" skills?

[fireinthedust]

I wish I shared your optimism ... But isn't that what the B Ark is for? More seriously: The less capable part of humanity will most likely simply be left behind.

Why which you mean anyone who isn't really rich (the poor, the disabled, people of "inferior races" or religions that aren't the same as those who press the button on the rocket...)? I mean seriously, you think a bunch of academics and futurists are going to get to decide anything? When has that *ever* happened?


Realistically, I'd say we're more likely to see more widespread genetic modification of humans. There won't be a B Arc because of aggressive genetic remodelling. Maybe we'll have a class structure of humans designed for manual labour vs. a think-tank vs. genetically enhanced soldiers. Otherwise, for the most part I think we'll just adjust up the "less capable part" so they are more capable. Seems... well, more useful than starting riots over who will and won't get left behind.

 

[Janx]

No, Angus MacGuyver succeeded because he had a few skills fairly maxed out and he applied them to every problem.

He never sang or danced his way out of a pickle, spotted a forgery with his understanding of art history, demonstrated uncanny marksmanship to shoot a tiny (living or nonliving) target at a range, nor used his linguistic skills to clear up a misundersanding, displayed a mastery of unarmed combat that would shame a black belt, did some nifty combat piloting in a jet... That's what guys like James Bond, Jason Bourne, Ethan Hawke, or maybe The Most Interesting Man in the World do.

Instead, he applied his science- for the most part, mainstream physics, chemistry and biology- and engineering skills to solve EVERYTHING.

So while MacGuyver had a swath of stuff he likely wasn't good at (but James Bond is), he had a huge swath of stuff that he was good at.

Both Bond and MacGuyver would use their respective skill swaths to beat down any problem in front of them and effectively bypass any lack of skill in other areas so as to make them irrelevant.

 

[Derren]

Both Bond and MacGuyver would use their respective skill swaths to beat down any problem in front of them and effectively bypass any lack of skill in other areas so as to make them irrelevant.

Their respective skills, not skills they are not trained in but can do them anyway for mysterious reasons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Both Bond and MacGuyver would use their respective skill swaths to beat down any problem in front of them and effectively bypass any lack of skill in other areas so as to make them irrelevant.

Not quite. It only seems that way because their own stories are written to be resolved that way. but if we compare them, the differences DO matter.

"The journey is as important as the destination."

Where Bond might simply pick a lock to escape a locked room, MacGuyver might- actually, did- rig a tank of compressed gas to knock down a door to escape. Those are two very different methods of escape with different narrative consequences.

Bond's method is quiet and requires only concealing or improvising lock picks. In many cases, he has a super spy gizmo that wont look like a lockpick at all, but will do the job, like acid in his cufflinks, an electromagnetic watch or some kind of small explosives in a pen. His escape is unlikely to be immediately noticed. But he is thwarted if reduced to nakedness (which he has been).

MacGuyver's method is noisy and will be immediately detected by anyone in the building. Further, it requires that the necessary materials be present in the room. But even if there is no canister of compressed gas, MacGuyver will likely find another method of escape, and may only be thwarted if there is nothing in the room he can reassemble into something else.

IOW, there are circumstances in which it is better to be Bond than MacGuyver, and vice versa.

 

[Janx]

Not quite. It only seems that way because their own stories are written to be resolved that way. but if we compare them, the differences DO matter.

"The journey is as important as the destination."

Where Bond might simply pick a lock to escape a locked room, MacGuyver might- actually, did- rig a tank of compressed gas to knock down a door to escape. Those are two very different methods of escape with different narrative consequences.

Bond's method is quiet and requires only concealing or improvising lock picks. In many cases, he has a super spy gizmo that wont look like a lockpick at all, but will do the job, like acid in his cufflinks, an electromagnetic watch or some kind of small explosives in a pen. His escape is unlikely to be immediately noticed. But he is thwarted if reduced to nakedness (which he has been).

MacGuyver's method is noisy and will be immediately detected by anyone in the building. Further, it requires that the necessary materials be present in the room. But even if there is no canister of compressed gas, MacGuyver will likely find another method of escape, and may only be thwarted if there is nothing in the room he can reassemble into something else.

IOW, there are circumstances in which it is better to be Bond than MacGuyver, and vice versa.

For the purposes of an RPG, isn't a GM going to present situations in which there is SOMETHING the PC can do, if they think of it?

Both Bond and MacGuyver are hosed if the GM puts them in a clean room and strips them down so they got no tools or toys. That would smack of a railroad, or at least dreadfully dull game play.

Bear in mind, my mindset is that each PC has a broad swath of skills (broader than most nit-picky RPGs model anyway). And that in a party of 4, there's always some PC who can step up and solve the problem with a good idea and skill to implement it.

It may need to be mentioned that in my expectation, just because a PC thinks to launch a compressed air canister at the door, doesn't mean the idea works. Skill checks would be needed. Hence, why in my view, I'd like the PCs to have a broad enough skill swath of "good skills" and "almost OK" skills to cover making the attempt and having it be RPG-logically non-futile.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Both Bond and MacGuyver are hosed if the GM puts them in a clean room and strips them down so they got no tools or toys. That would smack of a railroad, or at least dreadfully dull game play.

If it were only Bond and/or MacGuyver in the party, then yes. But most gaming parties are bigger than just 1-2 characters, and the times when some- especially the hypercompetent- are neutralized are the times when the others are expected to shine.

That's why there are areas in fantasy realms where godlike mages have no power. That is why Green Lanterns fear yellow/quardian energy/wood or why Superman must avoid magic and kryptonite.

Or how it's The Doctor's job to save everyone...but it's the comanions' job to save the Doctor.

 

[Jhaelen]

Why which you mean anyone who isn't really rich (the poor, the disabled, people of "inferior races" or religions that aren't the same as those who press the button on the rocket...)? I mean seriously, you think a bunch of academics and futurists are going to get to decide anything? When has that *ever* happened?

Academics don't have to be the ones deciding anything. If 'the rich' aren't utterly brain-addled, they'll make sure they'll have plenty of competent personal accompanying them on the journey, otherwise they'll be dead real soon. It would be even more clever to send the scientists before engaging in the journey yourself, so they'll have time to prepare the way for less skilled individuals.

And here's another thought: Having been rich on earth will at least initially mean nothing on a new colony. How are 'the rich' going to ensure the continued loyality of the other colonists? Money is going to be useless for a while, so, I think, it really is skills that will determine 'power'.

Realistically, I'd say we're more likely to see more widespread genetic modification of humans.

Genetics will only get you so far. I strongly doubt we'll ever see genetic modification to a larger degree than to improve basic survivability. Genetically enhanced 'super-soldiers' are pulp sci-fi, at best.

 

[Bluenose]

Genetics will only get you so far. I strongly doubt we'll ever see genetic modification to a larger degree than to improve basic survivability. Genetically enhanced 'super-soldiers' are pulp sci-fi, at best.

Engineering beats genetics, at least within our current understanding of the physical properties of materials. So while it might be possible to geneer advantages into someone, very few of those advantages can't be exceeded by technological devices. And it should be noted that machinery can be produced relatively quickly compared to human beings, who require a minimum of nine months regardless of whether you're using skilled labour or not.

 

[delericho]

I'm rather pessimistic of our chances of ever moving to the stars. It seems much more likely that we'll either wipe ourselves out first or (perhaps more likely) simply exhaust the resources available on Earth before we get to the point of making any serious ventures into space.

Academics don't have to be the ones deciding anything. If 'the rich' aren't utterly brain-addled, they'll make sure they'll have plenty of competent personal accompanying them on the journey, otherwise they'll be dead real soon. It would be even more clever to send the scientists before engaging in the journey yourself, so they'll have time to prepare the way for less skilled individuals.

As in the exploration of the so-called New World, the initial explorations will likely be done by obsessed experts, with their expeditions funded by the rich (and the spoils of those explorations going back to the rich). The second phase, the colonisation, will be done by people with the particular combination of being hardy enough to actually survive it, and desperate enough to leave everything they know to seek a better life.

And most of them will die.

And here's another thought: Having been rich on earth will at least initially mean nothing on a new colony. How are 'the rich' going to ensure the continued loyality of the other colonists? Money is going to be useless for a while, so, I think, it really is skills that will determine 'power'.

My guess will be that the rich will sponsor the various colonies, provide them with a large amount of technology to attempt it, and only move over themselves if and when the colony is already pretty well established. At which point, it will probably become apparent that much of that technology had some sort of kill-switch installed, so if the rich are not permitted to resume their privilidged lives then the colony is wiped.

Or, perhaps more likely, the initial colonies will eventually gain independence (either legally or de facto), and the rich will go the way of the kings of Spain - that is, they reap rewards initially, but are gradually left behind as a new group of "the rich" grow up in the former colonies.

 

[fireinthedust]

Academics don't have to be the ones deciding anything. If 'the rich' aren't utterly brain-addled, they'll make sure they'll have plenty of competent personal accompanying them on the journey, otherwise they'll be dead real soon. It would be even more clever to send the scientists before engaging in the journey yourself, so they'll have time to prepare the way for less skilled individuals.

And here's another thought: Having been rich on earth will at least initially mean nothing on a new colony. How are 'the rich' going to ensure the continued loyality of the other colonists? Money is going to be useless for a while, so, I think, it really is skills that will determine 'power'.

Genetics will only get you so far. I strongly doubt we'll ever see genetic modification to a larger degree than to improve basic survivability. Genetically enhanced 'super-soldiers' are pulp sci-fi, at best.

I'm thinking more towards disease curing modifications: parkinsons, blindness, that sort of thing. Enhancements and such may come if there's demand, though I suppose big pharm wouldn't want to get rid of the process of medicines if the big diseases are cured. sigh. Maybe life extension, paid for by insurance companies?