New unified skill system

[Spartan]

The purpose of having a large die pool is so that you have resources to switch around--when would you need to sacrifice one thing in favor of another when playing an instrument?

There are plenty, but none of them are worth role-playing.  I don't need a pool to split for "simultaneous singing and playing" or "reading music vs. attention to technique" or "paying attention to fellow musicians or that cute chick in the 3rd row" (been there, done that ;)), despite how applicable those would be in game terms.

I'm not saying that the addtional pool mechanic isn't valid.  It might be applicable for certain stealth skills... or anything that adds a lot of tension to the game and is a life-or-death kind of deal.  Personally, I like the skill system as is.  :)

-Mark

[szilard]

I think part of Jake's point here, is that the game is largely centered on combat.

If you were running a game centered around travelling bards/skalds/whatever, then you might want to treat, say, performance skills the same way that combat skills are treated.

If you're playing a fairly standard RoS game, though, the skill system works fine as is, and the more robust system for combat is apt.

Stuart

[Jon the Bastard]

I get your point, Jake.  

Hmm... Maybe "Riddle of the Lute" could be an add on.

It's really just something that I was futzing around with.   I guess its a difference between the whole Simulationist / Narrativist stance.   You point out that in terms of most games, combat and spell casting play a whole helluva bigger role than say, underwater basketweaving for teens.   So you've relegated these other tertiary skills to a seperate, quick and easy system.   No need to clog the synapses with useless infromation, right?

Now my stance is a bit more on the Simulationist side.   I know that the in-game effects of lute playing are usually minor.   But I don't see why logically, weapon skills are given any special treatment.   If anything, weaponskills are often quite a bit easier to become proficient with than many other types of skills.   Anyone who has tried to learn another language, or become a phsyicist, knows that often many years are required to just become mediocre.   On the other hand, mediocre shieldsman can be mass produced in a matter of weeks.   So I use the same super cool system for either, even though most players will never care if their basket was constructed faster or slower than LArs the BasketWeaver.

But i'm just a completist like that.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

after further thought I found many merits in the idea for crafts and I may adapt some of the ideas within the existant system for craft based characters.

[Durgil]

I might be a bit slow on the uptake, but I'm starting to like this idea of Attribute + Skill Proficiency for determining crafting skills.  I understand Jake's point of view about TRoS being centered around combat, but I envisioned my campaign to be much more than that.  This is why I have been so excited about the new rules suggested in the Social Combat post.

I do acknowledge two road blocks to doing skills this way though.  First, as was pointed out earlier in this post is the fact that general times would need to be worked out for the different items that are crafted.  I bet we could rely on the work of other games such as Chivalry & Sorcery for inspiration if not for information though.  Another thing too that would need to be worked out is the TN's for crafting different works since the Skill Rating would then be used to determine the overall Dice Pool.  This too might not be as hard as it sounds if we look around at other examples.

Just some thoughts that are probably late in coming on this topic, but there you are just the same.  I realize that my style of gaming doesn't appeal to most out there, but I my suggestions aren't made with the intention to make anyone feel uncomfortable.  I'm only adding this last part because of the cold receptions some of my ideas about house rules have receive on other subjects as of late.

[Brian Leybourne]

I understand Jake's point of view about TRoS being centered around combat, but I envisioned my campaign to be much more than that.

If that's what you think Jake said, then you totally missed the point of his post.

TROS is not "about combat" at all. It may have originally sprang from Jake designing generic combat rules and then deciding that they deserved their own game, but the game he then designed (TROS) is not about the fighting. It's about "What's worth risking yourself for, what's worth living for and what's worth dying for?", which involves combat often enough, but is not about combat. There's a diffrerence there.

What he said was that the subtleties of combat are a lot more complicated and involved than the subtleties of basket weaving or sneaking through a dark corridor, thus the more complex system to resolve it. What you're doing with the skill system is making something more complex that perhaps doesn't need to be.

Not that you're not completely entitled to do that, don't mistake the tone of my post - I'm not saying your way is silly or that you must do things the TROS way, or anything like that, I'm simply presenting the other side.

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

Not that you're not completely entitled to do that, don't mistake the tone of my post - I'm not saying your way is silly or that you must do things the TROS way, or anything like that, I'm simply presenting the other side.

Good you said that last line. Or I'd have to whap you with Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat Systems.

I'm of the belief that TROS is justified with it's handling of combat more because it is a combat oriented game than anything else. As you say, it's about issues in the context of combat. As such that makes it OK to focus on combat. But combat a priori does not need to be any more complicated than basket making.

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

Peaching to the choir, Mike. You should know me better than that by now...

Brian.