Defining Skills

[orbsmatt]

I'm looking for some ideas for the RPG that I'm creating.  Skills seem to be what defines a character and makes him unique.  However, I've been having a hard time being creative with how skills would work.  Right now I have a percentage-based system that upgrades depending on the stats of the characters.

One of my questions would be this:  Have you found it more interesting to have characters have every skill, but only develop the ones that they want, or have the characters purchase skills.  If you suggest to purchase them, how do you handle situations where the character doesn't have the skill?

Matthew

[Valamir]

Ok, first some more ethereal commentary

Skills seem to be what defines a character and makes him unique.

This is a very specific kind of statement you're game would be making.  Are you making it by default (the word "seem" might indicate so) are you making it intentionally.

By this I mean your game would be making a very different sort of statement if you said this differently.

"Virtues and Vices are what defines a character and makes him unique" (e.g. Pendragon, Alyria)

"Relationships, contacts, and connections to people are what defines a character and makes him unique" (e.g. Sorcerer, HeroQuest)

"Beliefs, Behaviors, Drives and Passions are what defines a character and makes him unique (e.g. Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel)


By starting with the presumption that skills are what a character unique, you're making a very definite statement.  You should be sure that its a statement you want to be making.


Then on to more practical advice.

The key to a skill based system is this:
GMs and players should ALWAYS know what to roll, immediately and without hesitation.  If players come up with some odd ball thing they want to do, the GM should be able to take all of 5 seconds to figure out what to roll for it.

There are several different ways to approach this.  Because focusing on skills is making a statement about your game, which is "best" depends on the type of statement you're trying to make.

1) you can have just a few very broad categories so that nearly anything and everything under the sun can fit into them.  Under such a situation there is almost never a situation where the character doesn't have something to roll.

2) If you go with a skill list that is very detailed you need to take one of two approaches.  Either a) you don't have it you can't roll period, tough.  or b) you don't have it, roll at some lesser default value...see the profoundly different statement about the nature of the universe you're making just by choosing 1 way or the other.

The default might be very broad based, like all physically active skills default to a base "physical" score...same for "mental" and "social". Or the default may be based on the skills organized into a hierarchy...e.g. "you don't have any Computer Skill specified so just make a roll under your 'office professiona' or 'Pop Culture' packages."

3) Decide in advance what the feel you're going for.  "Fast Furious Fun" (as the Savage Worlds Mantra goes) demands a much different approach than "Tactically and Strategically precise and deep"

4) Let genre convention be your guide.  Focus on the skills and/or skill groupings that matter, and ensure that the input and the output are both true to those conventions.  By Inputs I mean all of those modifiers and other factors you have to determine in advance of the roll.  Between the "feel" from #3 and the "Genre Conventions" of #4 you should be able to identify the appropriate quantity and categories of inputs your game should care about.  Same with output.  What does the result tell you...pass / fail, 57 distinct degrees of success, exactly how much time the task takes...

For instance.  Not every game that uses guns needs modifiers for range, target size, or the effect of full auto.  Some do, some don't.  Modeling Band of Brothers vs. a John Woo flick will give you different answers and different approaches to this.  Make sure your mechanics match your model.

5) I recommend spending Zero time worrying about whether your skill system is "realistic".

"Realistic" is a nonsense goal.  Be true to your model, yes.  Modeling life in intricate detail...waste of time.  Someone might say game A is much more realistic than game B.  What they're really saying is "both game A and B are abstract models that don't in any way shape or form mirror reality anyway, but I like game As choices on how to abstract it better".  In otherwords...Realism is red herring.  Its all personal preference anyway so pick something you like that matches #2 and #3 above and run with it.

[orbsmatt]

Thanks for the quick reply Valamir.  I definitely agree with not trying to make it too realistic, as that would be impossible.

This is a very specific kind of statement you're game would be making. Are you making it by default (the word "seem" might indicate so) are you making it intentionally.

I definitely mean that to be intentional for my system.  There are actual three groups of "skills" that I am working on:  Active Skills, Passive Skills, and Lores.  Active Skills have percentages and modifiers, Passive Skills have levels that effect situations, and Lores do not have any number value and are strictly roleplayed.  Put together they form the outline for the character (of course with his/her history, background, and personality).

I also like the idea of having a general default.  I'll probably do that actually, as it will solve the problem of having to have all skills or what to do if you don't.

Thanks again for the reply, any more suggestions are welcome.

Matthew

[Loki]

Matthew,

I saw this post and your post about Charisma elsewhere in the forum. I think you should start with Valamir's suggestions about "feel" and what kind of game you're trying to make, rather than asking questions about Charisma, Skills, etc.

I recommend starting by telling us: here's the game I want to make. Here's my idea on why Skills are the key. And then ask for help making Skills work the way you want them to, or help figuring out what to do with Charisma or any other stat, trait, etc.

So what's this game all about then? Robots? Sorcery? Teenage romance? Sorcerous Teenage Robots in Love? Stop me any time now... ;)

[orbsmatt]

Good point Loki.  The game is set on another planet in the future, but their technology is that of a fantasy RPG (basically no technology, just magic and ancient weapons).  There are four major races specific to this planet (human, giant, telk'nar and henneth, the last two which are original - there are no elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.).

For these races to use magic they must draw it from shards of once large Orbs that were shattered in an ancient war.  A fifth race (which is actually the planet's native race) have their own magic that doesn't require any source, but the other races cannot tap into it.

The feel for the game is basically this:  There are several kingdoms that interact for good or for bad (just like most systems).  However, the main focus goes into the interaction between the races, where a lot of racism and prejudices play.  The Telk'Nar are always looked down upon as a race of scum (although they really aren't), the humans always think they are superior to every other race, the Henneth are usually peacemakers, and the giants are mostly bloodthirsty (mostly I say, not always).

It's hard to go over the whole "feel" of the game here, as there is a lot to it and it makes a lot more sense in my head than on paper.  But that's the general idea.

Matthew

[Darcy Burgess]

With a meaty and emotionally-charged setting like the one you describe, I find it hard to align the concept that "an individual's skills is what sets him apart from the crowd".

My immediate reaction is that this would be a game where an individual's beliefs, history (esp. family) and actions would define them.

Don't sweat the skills -- keep them fast and loose.

[orbsmatt]

That's true.  I guess the statement that the skills are what sets the character apart isn't 100% true.  What I meant to say is that the skills are what sets the character apart in how he is developed and what he is proficient at.  Obviously the player's way of roleplaying him will make all the difference.

Matthew

[Loki]

Matthew,

What do the characters do in this game? Is it a "everybody on a quest" type game, where you adventure around fighting people, etc? Or is it a game where the characters are all part of one racial group, and their goals are based on their peoples' goals? Is the conflict mostly social, or is it violent (I'm guessing the latter, because you mentioned 'medieval')?

[orbsmatt]

It's like the typical "everybody on a quest" sort of thing, but it is more the story type of quest (ongoing campaign), rather than "go kill the demon in the dungeon full of ogres" kind of thing.

As for conflict-resolution, I would say it's 50/50 socially and violently resolved, depending of course on the type of conflict.

Matthew

[Loki]

You may want to check out this article that Ron wrote about Fantasy Heartbreakers: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/.

The reason I'm giving you the link is that I think the game you've described: fantasy characters on an adventure, many races, different types of magic, skills--I think this has been done before. So the question you are going to get from the folks here on the Forge (including me) is: why not use an existing system, or tweak an existing system to work with your new races, magic, etc?

If the answer is just 'cause you want to, think your solution will make you happy, etc--more power to you. But probably you won't get tons of interest beyond your game group, just because the solution is so personal.

If the answer is that you've got something really different that you're trying to do--then I'd be interested in hearing about that.

A good example of "the same, but different" check out this review of The Riddle of Steel http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/4/. Ron really outlines how TROS avoids being a heartbreaker.

[orbsmatt]

Thanks for the input Loki.  My main focus in creating this system was mostly for myself and the groups that I play with.  What I'm actually interested in doing is developing the world around them (the continents, provinces, kingdoms, cities, races, etc.).  The system is taylored completely to the story-line of the world.  I've been constantly tweeking it according to things that we found as we played.

So I do agree that it isn't anything completely new, although what I was really aiming for was a simple system that left the players free to roleplay as much as possible without being bogged down by tons of rules, but still having enough rules to make character development possible.

Matthew

[Andrew Martin]

So I do agree that it isn't anything completely new, although what I was really aiming for was a simple system that left the players free to roleplay as much as possible without being bogged down by tons of rules, but still having enough rules to make character development possible.

That quote sounds like me from some years ago; I ended up looking for, and creating, "rules-light" and then "transparent" rules. Have a search for "Transparent" on this forum and please try to avoid making my mistake. Instead, focus on what behaviour you want to encourage in players and consequently their characters, and make your game system reward that.