Mechanics for Abyssmal Earth

[Gwen]

I've been spending the last week or so mulling over the proper mechanics for Abyssmal Earth, but I've run into several problems.

Originally, I wanted to make the system simple, so I provided a definitive list of skills similar to that of WW or D20.  However, as I compiled the list, more skills got added in.  The concept of a "drive" skill has always seemed like a cop out to me.  Realistically, Mario Andretti (who we will say would have a high driving car skill) wouldn't know his buttocks from the ejection system in a Jet Fighter.

So the drive skill was broken into smaller driving skills.  My original list of 25 skills is now 250 skills!

So a pregenerated list of skills printed on the character sheet seems cumbersome.  It has now changed to a massive skill list that characters can choose from.

So the problem I need some help with is this: would this game be better served with a small manageable skill list, or a lengthly skill selection?


Secondly, I was having complications with the attribute/skill relationship.  While some games add the two together for task resolution, other games use the attribute as a "gauge" and the skill is the only roll necessary.  I really like the idea of attribute+skill, but it's hard to go that route without is seeming VERY WW.

So any comments in that respect would be GREATLY appreciated.

And thirdly, I wanted to have the use of magic and psionics as skills, opposed to simple spellcasting.  I am normally about realism, and one would think that getting better at magic would require practice, which would then be considered a skill.

Should magic be independent of the skill system?

[Ben Morgan]

Personally, I have very recently grown to be a huge fan of the Make-Up-Your-Own-Skills school of thought. It makes for much more interesting and personalized characters.

However, the first thing to do would to look at how characters learn skills in the game world you set up. Frex: At first, I was a bit put off by 7th Sea's skill packages. "Wait, you mean I have to learn all this other stuff just to get the one skill that I want?" But it makes sense in the context of the game world. These skills are taught in groups. But not all game worlds are like that.

I used to think that having the skill list already printed out on the sheet made for easier character creation. Hey, you don't have to page through the book to find the skills you want, there's a handy list right there. But nowadays, I think it just takes up too much valuable room on the sheet.

[Gwen]

Here's a question I've thought of.  The answer is kinda open ended.

It seems that a lot of roleplaying games have gone a simpler mechanic, making character creation quicker and easier to figure out in your head.  I see the benefits to this, but I remember when I used to make a character and I would sit down with four or five sourcebooks and painstakingly craft a character over the course of 3 or 4 days.

I'm sure we've all gone through that at leats once, but here is my question:

Do you think that going through each aspect of the character from beginning to end, carefully analyzing each skill point and dollar spent caused you have more of a connection with your character?

I think that taking a long time to create a character makes for better identity with the character, because when you're done you have a real sense of accomplishment and a sort of pride being able to look at a finished character sheet that you know took a while to build up.

It seems to me that a lot of games these days (and I'm not attacking these games) are a bunch of way-too-specific skills and hodge-podged emotions which are written down opposed to in your imagination- where they belong.

[Andrew Martin]

Originally, I wanted to make the system simple, so I provided a definitive list of skills similar to that of WW or D20.  However, as I compiled the list, more skills got added in.  The concept of a "drive" skill has always seemed like a cop out to me.  Realistically, Mario Andretti (who we will say would have a high driving car skill) wouldn't know his buttocks from the ejection system in a Jet Fighter.

Would it be easier to have these skills:
Drive
Pilot, fixed wing
Pilot, helicopter
?

So the problem I need some help with is this: would this game be better served with a small manageable skill list, or a lengthly skill selection?

Have you considered extremely broad skills, like Career and Culture, to help manage the complexity, and to aid players that forget to get important skills their characters would logically have?

Secondly, I was having complications with the attribute/skill relationship.  While some games add the two together for task resolution, other games use the attribute as a "gauge" and the skill is the only roll necessary.  I really like the idea of attribute+skill, but it's hard to go that route without is seeming VERY WW.

Have you considered if it's right in your game that a highly intelligent character with low Brain Surgery skill can be effectively equal to a average intelligence character with high Brain Surgery skill? What about someone who's highly dexterous with a little skill with lockpicks being the equal of a professional locksmith with average dexterity?

And thirdly, I wanted to have the use of magic and psionics as skills, opposed to simple spellcasting.  I am normally about realism, and one would think that getting better at magic would require practice, which would then be considered a skill.

Should magic be independent of the skill system?

Why can't magic and psionics all be skills? Making them all skills allows the game system to treat them all the same. Is this appropriate to your game? Do you see a Mercenary practising shooting in his spare time, the Priest studying the word of God for miracles, while the psionic practices moving weights with the power of her mind?

I hope that helps!

[Andrew Martin]

Do you think that going through each aspect of the character from beginning to end, carefully analyzing each skill point and dollar spent caused you have more of a connection with your character?

When I try this method, I find that my character concept drifts into those imposed by the game mechanics/system; I find it difficult to avoid min-maxing my character design, as the game system rewards me for doing so. For example, in a attribute+skill system, I look for the skills my character would be good in and drift into making my character's associated attributes as high as possible, even though my character's concept has average abilities in these areas.

When there's advantages and disadvantages, I find that I end up with disadvantages that are different from what I had initially visualised, because the selected disadvantages are usually more cost effective than others. For example, I choose lots of enemies as a disadvantage, because I know that my PC will stick with the group, and so the enemies can be dealt with by fellow PCs, instead of just my PC.

Of course, I'm just a min-maxing, munchkin player...

[ethan_greer]

It seems to me that a lot of games these days (and I'm not attacking these games) are a bunch of way-too-specific skills and hodge-podged emotions which are written down opposed to in your imagination- where they belong.

It seems like you are answering your original question here.  If a lot of games have way-too-specific skill lists, etc. then your game gives you an opportunity to fix that.

One thing I've noticed in my gaming is the fact that my enjoyment of a game is not generally affected by the number of skills written down on my character sheet.  I would go with either a broad focus skill list, or allow the players to define their own skills, or go with something like Sherpa, Risus, or OtE in which the players select a general skill that covers a bunch of sub-skills.

[Gwen]

I agree that general skills provide for an equally enjoyable roleplaying experience as many specific skills, but if the skills are too general, wouldn't you agree that you lose a sense of realism?

For example,  WW uses the DRIVE skill which encompasses all vehicles.  ShadowRun used DRIVE LAND VEHICLE and DRIVE AIR VEHICLE, which is still a generalization.  However,  GURPS has skills like DRIVE 1994 CHRYSLER LeBARON.

Deciding what is best is obviously up to individual opinion, but it seems to me that there is a sliding scale where realism sacrifices simplicity and vice versa.

Is there a happy medium?

[ethan_greer]

I agree that general skills provide for an equally enjoyable roleplaying experience as many specific skills, but if the skills are too general, wouldn't you agree that you lose a sense of realism?

Well, not really, but I'm of the opinion that RPGs are not realistic in any way, and can't really be realistic.  Why bother trying?  Of course, that's just me.

If you want to go for a happy medium, I think that it is indeed possible.  For a fantasy game it's been my experience that a list of about 50-75 skills is serviceable.  For a modern-day setting, 75-100 might be a good number to shoot for.  Enough to be crunchy, but not so many that it takes two hours just to go through the list.  Not that I'm an expert; just passing along my experience... :)
-e.

[Matt Machell]

I agree that general skills provide for an equally enjoyable roleplaying experience as many specific skills, but if the skills are too general, wouldn't you agree that you lose a sense of realism?

Depends if "realism" is a concern. For most RPGs realism is an overrated commodity. Keep in mind that all RPGs are fiction, not reality.

Consider the purpose of your game. Which skills are important to the setting/core concept, those are the ones you should use (if you have a skill list at all). Unless you're running a game about pilots or racing drivers, the chances are the drive skill isn't vital anyway.

-Matt

[Christoffer Lernö]

I don't know any game where my enjoyment has been reduced because the skills wasn't detailed enough.
On the other hand I've cursed many times over games with too specific skills where you either had to spread yourself thin or strategically optimize to be sure you had the correct skill for the task.

If a player is gonna have a general skill he/she gets to use, I think that player is gonna be more happy than having a cool specific skill that never is put to use.

Oh, and "make your own skill" solves a lot of problems (but creates a few new ones as well). It's worth looking into.

[Mike Holmes]

Actually, I'm ging to jump in on the side of Broader skills being more "realistic". That is, if they are designed correctly. You are correct that "Drive" is just silly. But that's not what we're proposing at all. What we're proposing is that you allow a skill like "Soldier". Which allows the character to do whatever a soldier can do.

This is very intuitive, and feels very realistic in play.

In fact, what usually happens in such systems is that the player and GM negotiate exactly what sorts of things the sill applies to as the game progresses. Thus defining the skill further in play. So, let's say I've got soldier skill, and I come upon a tank. Can I drive it? The GM asks what branch of the military my character served in. I respond Armor (taking advantage of the ambiguity in an open fashion; I'm using the ambiguity as designed, not cheating), and the GM says, well, of course you can drive the Tank, then. Later I am lost in the woods, and say I'll use land navigation learned as a soldier. The GM responds, "well, as a tanker, you'd have had GPS, etc. You can use soldier, but at a penalty".

Anyhow, the point is that people learn things as part of their background. It's simple, and effective to group their effectiveness in such large chunks. Narrowing skills down to specifics leads to potentially infinite lists of skills. The biggest problem with this is the "forgot a skill" problem. How often have I seen players forget to take Mathematics for their hacker characters. GURPS handles this with templates. But then, why not start with the templates and modify from there?

BTW, the other big benefit of broad skills is that they instantly define character effeciveness in large chunks. If one character is a Soldier, then it's obvious that if I take Ex-Cop, that we will have some overlapping skills. And some different ones. Knowing this, I can more easily decide if I want to play this character type along with the other type present. Perhaps I'll go Journalist instead, and leave the shooting to the Soldier.

Mike

[Gwen]

I think what you're describing, Mike, sounds a lot like class-based skills.  In that, one doesn't have a "soldier skill", but a group of skills gains because the character is a soldier.

What you've described sounds similar to that of how 7th Seas gave you skills in groups.

I will agree that the soldier skill makes for easier gameplay, but then there is the problem of all the soldier skills being the same level.  How would one gauge a soldier who was really good at driving tanks, but couldn't fire one with any accuracy?  All the skills entailed in the group would be the same level.

The only other problem I see is knowing one skill that doesnt belong.  For example, say SOLDIER was also a WW2 buff.  Well, WW2 knowledge shouldn't be lumped under the Soldier skill.  SCHOLAR wouldn't be an appropriate term either, because the only thing he knows is WW2.

So how would this be covered?

Otherwise, I think the idea is really great!

[Andrew Martin]

...then there is the problem of all the soldier skills being the same level.  How would one gauge a soldier who was really good at driving tanks, but couldn't fire one with any accuracy?  All the skills entailed in the group would be the same level.

The only other problem I see is knowing one skill that doesnt belong.  For example, say SOLDIER was also a WW2 buff.  Well, WW2 knowledge shouldn't be lumped under the Soldier skill.  SCHOLAR wouldn't be an appropriate term either, because the only thing he knows is WW2.

Here's how I do it using Fudge:

Mike Smith
Culture [American]: Fair (0)
Career [Soldier]: Good (+1)
WW2 History: Mediocre (-1)
Career[Soldier]/Rifle: Great (+2)

Then I make sure that the creation and improvement cost for Culture and Career broad skills is about 10 - 12 times that of common skills, and make sure that players understand that Culture and Career skills contains around 10 - 12 skills essential to the Culture and Career. Any skill that would fit into these broad skills starts off at that base skill level. So the solder's Rifle skill (which fits in the Career[Soldier]) is at the same level as his Career[Soldier] skill (Good), and can be advanced either indepedently of the Career or in step by advancing the Career.

Similar for skills that are less than the Career's level. For example Mike Smith is Poor at Vehicle Recognition according to the player's character concept, so just add:

Career[Soldier]/Vehicle Recognition:  Mediocre (-1)

I've found that the above works very well in play test, provided one also uses linear skill advancement costs, and don't link Skill with Attribute.

I hope that helps!

[Shreyas Sampat]

Well, your game seems to place a lot of emphasis on the professions of people.  This seems to point us in the direction of broad skill groups, which provide convenient complexity reduction.  I like Andrew's idea that a skill group is more costly than a single skill, but less costly than all the skills separately, along with a system for specializing in a skill from a group.  Elegant.

If you want to retain your lengthy skill list, you could define what falls under each skill group; certain skills would fall under several, others might be very rare, only being available to a single skill group or having to be bought separately.
Additionally, if you want to create some flexibility, you could have groups that say "choose x skills from this list; you get these skills along with the set of skills everyone with this group has", or something like that.  This creates another form of specialization, basically.

Another thing: Am I alone in wondering about "Abyssmal"?  Abyssal is a word and abysmal is a word, but the form with double-s and m is not.  Did you intend this?  In my opinion, it's a little off-putting; it suggests that you misspelled, rather than trying to merge two words together effectively.

[Gwen]

Another thing: Am I alone in wondering about "Abyssmal"? Abyssal is a word and abysmal is a word, but the form with double-s and m is not. Did you intend this? In my opinion, it's a little off-putting; it suggests that you misspelled, rather than trying to merge two words together effectively.

I was combining the word "abysmal" with "abyss."

What do you mean when you say off-putting?