How many skills do you prefer?

[Scourge108]

An anecdote that seems relevant:  I have a friend who hates GURPS for some odd reason.  I'm not a huge GURPS fan myself, but I always try to find out why the gamers I know hate a certain game, and the answer is usually because they didn't enjoy their first time playing it and refuse to give it another chance ever again.  And this was the answer this time.  Specifically, he played in a GURPS game once where players were supposed to make themselves into characters to play, designing themselves.  "I didn't have enough points to make myself!  The character creation sucks!"  To be fair, I proposed an experiment.  I challenged him to design himself in some of his more favored game systems.  Once again, he found he couldn't.  In Storyteller (with all the player's guides, at least), Shadowrun, etc., there were always a few more he felt really should be on his sheet than the points would allow.  

So what does all this mean?  Well, for one thing, most gamers seem to think they are incredibly skillful people.  But I'm sure it has some relevance to game design as well.  Perhaps the point is that these were things he knew he could succeed at, at least in some circumstances.  Therefore, it would seem he should have that as a skill.  Perhaps getting rid of mediocre skill levels would do away with that.  One way would be to assume that they have lots of general skills (the early Hero approach) and only count the skills that they are really good at.  Another is to lump skills into broad categories, i.e. fighting skills, academic skills, thief skills (who takes Move Silently without Hide in Shadows, anyway?), outdoor skills, etc.  I'm sure there are more to be thought of.

[RDU Neil]

An anecdote that seems relevant:  I have a friend who hates GURPS for some odd reason.  I'm not a huge GURPS fan myself, but I always try to find out why the gamers I know hate a certain game, and the answer is usually because they didn't enjoy their first time playing it and refuse to give it another chance ever again.  And this was the answer this time.  Specifically, he played in a GURPS game once where players were supposed to make themselves into characters to play, designing themselves.  "I didn't have enough points to make myself!  The character creation sucks!"  To be fair, I proposed an experiment.  I challenged him to design himself in some of his more favored game systems.  Once again, he found he couldn't.  In Storyteller (with all the player's guides, at least), Shadowrun, etc., there were always a few more he felt really should be on his sheet than the points would allow.  

So what does all this mean?  Well, for one thing, most gamers seem to think they are incredibly skillful people.  But I'm sure it has some relevance to game design as well.  Perhaps the point is that these were things he knew he could succeed at, at least in some circumstances.  Therefore, it would seem he should have that as a skill.  Perhaps getting rid of mediocre skill levels would do away with that.  One way would be to assume that they have lots of general skills (the early Hero approach) and only count the skills that they are really good at.  Another is to lump skills into broad categories, i.e. fighting skills, academic skills, thief skills (who takes Move Silently without Hide in Shadows, anyway?), outdoor skills, etc.  I'm sure there are more to be thought of.

Actually... this is an excellent anecdote to help explain my own personal theory on "skills" in a game setting.  I'm a long time Hero/Champs player  (I actually game with Nuadha) and that system has presented an interesting dichotomy.

There is early Hero (Champions)

and then there is post Steve Long Hero.  

The early Champions had a medium, but not overdone skill list.  It assumed general skills like "Scientist" or the like, while also breaking out specific skills such as Stealth separate from Concealment.

In most early Champions, characters were intended to spend very few points on "general" skills that did not have direct combat effects, and just go with it.

Over time, because Hero is so deconstructable... the skill list began to grow away from generalist skills, into a large list of very, very specific skills.  This really reached the peak during it's 4th Edition incarnation, wilth supplments written by Steve Long(winded)... who has since bought the rights to, and now publishes Hero under the DOJ name.

Steve took the skill list to the Nth degree.  He built chracters with skill lists so micro-managed, that they shifted the entire "metagame" of Hero.

No longer could a character simply have "Professional Skill: Lawyer" and be Matt Murdock.   Now they had to have "PS: Lawyer" which meant they knew how to make a living as a lawyer... but they also needed...
KS: Local Municipal Ordinances
KS: State Criminal Code
KS: Federal Criminal Law
KS: Police Procedure
KS: New York Organized Crime
PS: Legal Research
PS: BLAH BLAH BLAH
plus
Bureacracy
Oration
etc.

You get the picture.

There is a great deal of debate on the Herogames.com site, about those who dislike this shift from Macro to micro skill management.  Mostly it is just "preference" discussions, and not really theory/debate... but I think that discussion, meshed with this one at least helps me define what I think a ROLE PLAYING Game (as opposed to a war game or board game) should focus on.

The listed skills should be those that DEFINE the UNIQUENESS of a character as an EXPERT, vs. listing every little thing the character might know SOMETHING about.   The anecdote of making yourself as a character is very helpful, here.   There are all kinds of things that COULD go on the sheet of RDU Neil... but only a very few that would qualify as real Skills that should cost points.

I know something about guns, have fired them, cleaned them, read a lot about them... but I am no expert.  I am not a soldier or police officer or someone who uses them on a day to day basis.  It would not go on my sheet.

I play tennis... not bad for a total casual player... but when confronted with a club pro... my skill doesn't measure up.  Not on the sheet...

When I was studying Tae Kwon Do 20 hours a week, every week, in top shape, and engaging in regular sparring and self defense work... yeah, I had Martial Arts on my sheet.   Fifteen years later, I remember a lot of theory, but I lost that skill.

To that end, for RPG purposes, I think skills should be minimized to reflect only those that can be turned to with confidence in times of stress or overt need.  Skills that are actually paid for are expensive, because I really think that most individuals have but a few "real SKILLS" and the rest is just background noise.  

(A character like James Bond, who is omni-SKILLED because he is an expert in so many diverse things... he is superhuman in that extent, and should be recognized as so.)

I do think this goes against many gamers desire to reflect themselves as highly competent, on the basis of their perceived high level of knowledge... (see another thread about Geek Chic and the definition of geek vis a vis knowledge)  and therefore they value their characters as reflecting the same thing they value.  "See my sheet!  All these skills listed!  I'm so COOL!"  I would challenge any person who listed themselves as having "every skill in the book" by saying, "Would you base a life or death action on a split second decision or stressed action?"  For me would it be, "Are you confident enough to play tennis to the death?"  If not... it doesn't go on the sheet.

When determining a game system, and examining skills, it really doesn't hurt to look at your players.  Do they want omni-competence in their characters as a general fact (large skill list required) or are they more interested in displaying uniqueness of character (small/general skill list, or none at all needed).  

Interesting... and sorry if this is just a ramble... but it really struck me as key to what I think "a system" should emphasize.  Critical skills... not any/every skill.

[M. J. Young]

Specifically, he played in a GURPS game once where players were supposed to make themselves into characters to play, designing themselves. "I didn't have enough points to make myself! The character creation sucks!" To be fair, I proposed an experiment. I challenged him to design himself in some of his more favored game systems. Once again, he found he couldn't. In Storyteller (with all the player's guides, at least), Shadowrun, etc., there were always a few more he felt really should be on his sheet than the points would allow.

The anecdote of making yourself as a character is very helpful, here. There are all kinds of things that COULD go on the sheet of RDU Neil... but only a very few that would qualify as real Skills that should cost points....

To that end, for RPG purposes, I think skills should be minimized to reflect only those that can be turned to with confidence in times of stress or overt need. Skills that are actually paid for are expensive, because I really think that most individuals have but a few "real SKILLS" and the rest is just background noise.

I'd say this is an artifact of point-based character creation.

Let's say I give you enough points to buy all the skills needed to create a well-rounded character. Some of you will create a well-rounded character--but some will dump them all into particular game-useful skills. My character can't swim, can't run a mile, can't read above the third grade level, can hardly open a door, but he can kill a trollgre with a single blow and take out a crysalmare with one arrow. Or I can open any lock and override every security system in the western galactic arm, although I don't even know how to hold a blaster.

What's wrong with that, apart from that these are not well-rounded characters, is that they are often more game-effective characters. Which is really the more effective samurai in OAD&D: the one who is double specialized in katana, daikyu, and horsemanship, or the one who is single specialized in katana and knows Noh, Tea Ceremony, Origami, and Flower Arranging? There is an inherent game incentive to create the specialist in most games, and a corresponding disincentive to create the generalist.

Thus the point count made available to the players is not designed for creating a truly well-rounded character; it's calculated to prevent the creation of the uberspecialist, the guy who has to be best in the world at those most important skills because it's all he can do.

One of the answers to this problem is to get rid of point-based character generation. That's what Multiverser does. Describe your character. Now describe him in game terms. It's as simple as that. Since usually you're playing yourself, it's a relatively easy process to rate yourself. Are you an amateur, professional, or expert? If you're an amateur, how do you compare to other amateurs--low, average, nearly professional? If you think you're professional, on what basis do you believe you're good enough that people would pay you to do this? How do you compare to other professionals, seriously? If you're an expert, what evidence do you cite to support this conclusion? What books have you published? To what peer-reviewed journals have you contributed? What patents or copyrights do you hold, which advanced degrees have you received, what graduate courses do you teach? Provide a reason for the referee to believe you're that good, beyond mere personal pride. If you're not creating yourself, then it's a different concept but the same questions. Why does this character have these skills, at this level of ability? What reason do we have to think that apart from being the fastest gun in Montana he's also a professional level swimmer?

A point based system requires that you set a number of points that force the player to choose between a greater number of low-value skills and a smaller number of especially potent useful ones. It puts the limit in the wrong place. Multiverser's system moves the limit: take as many skills as you feel make sense for the character, but justify within the character concept any that are set at particularly high levels of ability.

Since the system was designed specifically to make it possible to create yourself as a character, it's not surprising that it also does fictional characters pretty well also.

--M. J. Young

[clehrich]

Let's say I give you enough points to buy all the skills needed to create a well-rounded character. Some of you will create a well-rounded character--but some will dump them all into particular game-useful skills. My character can't swim, can't run a mile, can't read above the third grade level, can hardly open a door, but he can kill a trollgre with a single blow and take out a crysalmare with one arrow. Or I can open any lock and override every security system in the western galactic arm, although I don't even know how to hold a blaster.

I well remember Ken Hite getting all sarcastic about somebody who did this.  "What's your breeeathing, Steve?  Zeeero.  What's your macheeeene gun?  A huuundred."

What's wrong with that, apart from that these are not well-rounded characters, is that they are often more game-effective characters.

Your suggestion to get rid of point-based design seems reasonable, but there is another way: make the extremes of skills not all that useful as such.  That is, structure it so that a very high skill is interesting and exciting in all sorts of social and other ways, but doesn't really make a lot of difference in stuff like combat.  So the super sword-master from hell hacks and slays about the same as the pretty solid fighter-dude, but maybe in certain kinds of high-stakes formal duels the sword-master kicks butt.  That way taking a super-high skill is actually an issue of depth rather than power.

Thus the point count made available to the players is not designed for creating a truly well-rounded character; it's calculated to prevent the creation of the uberspecialist, the guy who has to be best in the world at those most important skills because it's all he can do.

See, I kind of like the idea of the ultra-specialist.  He's a freak, a weirdo who can't do much, but he's got this one really cool thing.  What he shouldn't be is very effective.  But he might be very cool.

Chris Lehrich

[contracycle]

Would you play tennis to the death.... I love it, excellent stuff RDU Neil.

I'd like to throw out another, more radical approach which I've touched on a couple of times.  My question is, why are we taking an absolutist approach to skills in the first place?  As Neil alludes, skills change over time, dvelop or decay from lack of exercise.  Also, sometimes skills never come up to be tested despite the fact that a character really really needs to be defined by that skill.

Now I say, look at TV series.  I doubt they start from knowing what the hero can do and then work forward through logical progression to now and thus determine whether or not Michael Knight can pick a lock.  They just do it and make up suitable backstory, and even then only flashback to it if its sufficiently surprising to need an explanation.

The implication is that the character always had this skill, it just never came up before.  There are some systems that permit retroactive skill construction/definition, but I want to suggest something else: that skills can be called into being by the game that is currently underway.

Lets say you have your cleric and you barbarian and your theif... in story 1, they are in a dungeon crawl, and so the relavnt skills to be tested in this adventure are, say, move silently, strike blow, find traps, etc.  But in the NEXT adventure they are indulging in intrigue at the ducal palace, and the relevant skills are charm, seduce, dress sense, boast etc.

There is no particular reason that the character concept per se has to be expressed in particularised terms and held static from there.  There is no particular reason that the contextually relevant skill-set to be tested is defined as part of the character instead of the setting/situation.  WHat you would do instead is EXPRESS an existing character in TERMS of the setting/situation-mandated skillset.